-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Paul..fake liar or apostle?
- Thread starter astarath
- Start date
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
Here's the ultimate double standard
[youtube]d_800CRTrjE[/youtube]
YouTube - ‪Willie Nelson and Eric Clapton - Nightlife‬‏
[youtube]d_800CRTrjE[/youtube]
YouTube - ‪Willie Nelson and Eric Clapton - Nightlife‬‏
outhouse
Atheistically
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
Really?
AD is "in the year of our Lord"
CE is "common era"
They mean the same thing - but CE is more politically correct and does not force someone to use Christian terminology.
Shermana
Heretic
No, he was a Logical and Meticulous German who was leader of the infamous Tubingen school that the Establishment notably loves to avoid.
Ferdinand Christian Baur - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Romans knew that the early Christians were simply a Jewish sect and that's why they paid the Temple tax.
Of course, but first, a few questions ...
- ... good guestiment for what?
- ... good guestimate why?
- ... is this good guestimate consistent with modern scholarship?
- ... and, if not, what is the credibility of you annointing it 'good'?
Have you read Macbeth?
outhouse
Atheistically
I understand AD and CE
I thought there was a 33 year difference between the two, I stand corrected
I see mark has a 64-70CE spread among scholars
Last edited:
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
If there is, all my dates are off. :biglaugh:
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
From wiki:
Shermana
Heretic
You would think they'd start dating by the year of his death and resurrection, not his birth. So it should be more like around 1978.
Last edited:
outhouse
Atheistically
There I went thinking again lol
Ive been using AD as "after death" as you probably concluded
outhouse
Atheistically
I don't know that he was a liar cause he may have actually believed what he was saying but he would be wrong. The biggest things that gives it away is when Paul says followers should call him father when Jesus explicitly says call no man father. Catholics like to circle around the definition of father but there is no getting around it really. Paul was wrong about other things that I've mentioned in other threads. He was definitely a conflicted character but at least it's interesting. Romans is all over the place.
earlwooters
Active Member
"What kind of authority can there be for an 'apostle' who, unlike the other apostles, had never been prepared for the apostolic office in Jesus' own school but had only later dared to claim the apostolic office on the basis on his own authority? The only question comes to be how the apostle Paul appears in his Epistles to be so indifferent to the historical facts of the life of Jesus. He bears himself but little like a disciple who has received the doctrines and the principles which he preaches from the Master whose name he bears."
Ferdinand Christian Baur : The eminent theologian: from the Church History of the First Three Centuries.
"Paul is in effect the first Christian heretic, and his teachings, which become the foundation of later Christianity, are a flagrant deviation from the 'Original' or 'pure' form extolled by the leadership. Whether James, the 'Lord's brother,' was literally Jesus' blood kin or not (and everything suggests he was), it is clear that he knew Jesus...personally. So did most of the other members of the community or 'early Church,' in Jerusalem, including of course, Peter. When they spoke, they did so with first hand authority. Paul had never had such personal acquaintance with the figure he'd begun to regard as his 'Savior.' He had only his quasi-mystical experience in the desert and the sound of a disembodied voice. For him to arrogate authority to himself on this basis is, to say the least, presumptuous. It also leads him to distort Jesus' teachings beyond recognition, to formulate, in fact, his own highly individual and idiosyncratic theology, and then to legitimize it by spuriously ascribing it to Jesus."
"As things transpired, however, the mainstream of the new movement gradually coalesced, during the next three centuries, around Paul and his teachings. Thus, to the undoubted posthumous horror of James and his associates, an entirely new religion was indeed born, a religion that came to have less and less to do with its supposed founder."
From the book, "The Dead Sea Scrolls Deception” by Michael Bajgent and Richard Leigh.
I thought I'd throw in a few quotes not taken out of context. Paul was doubted by many from the day he was "converted", and still is. I still think Tertullian, who was closer to the scource made a great statement of fact. None of the real Apostles, except for Judas, were so mistrusted as Paul.
You are very well learned Shermana.
Ferdinand Christian Baur : The eminent theologian: from the Church History of the First Three Centuries.
"Paul is in effect the first Christian heretic, and his teachings, which become the foundation of later Christianity, are a flagrant deviation from the 'Original' or 'pure' form extolled by the leadership. Whether James, the 'Lord's brother,' was literally Jesus' blood kin or not (and everything suggests he was), it is clear that he knew Jesus...personally. So did most of the other members of the community or 'early Church,' in Jerusalem, including of course, Peter. When they spoke, they did so with first hand authority. Paul had never had such personal acquaintance with the figure he'd begun to regard as his 'Savior.' He had only his quasi-mystical experience in the desert and the sound of a disembodied voice. For him to arrogate authority to himself on this basis is, to say the least, presumptuous. It also leads him to distort Jesus' teachings beyond recognition, to formulate, in fact, his own highly individual and idiosyncratic theology, and then to legitimize it by spuriously ascribing it to Jesus."
"As things transpired, however, the mainstream of the new movement gradually coalesced, during the next three centuries, around Paul and his teachings. Thus, to the undoubted posthumous horror of James and his associates, an entirely new religion was indeed born, a religion that came to have less and less to do with its supposed founder."
From the book, "The Dead Sea Scrolls Deception” by Michael Bajgent and Richard Leigh.
I thought I'd throw in a few quotes not taken out of context. Paul was doubted by many from the day he was "converted", and still is. I still think Tertullian, who was closer to the scource made a great statement of fact. None of the real Apostles, except for Judas, were so mistrusted as Paul.
You are very well learned Shermana.
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
So, let me see if I understand this: the guy who thought there is a 33 year difference between AD and CE feels competent to offer a good guestimation and wonders why it's not taken as anything other than a reflection of an embarrassing ignorance concerning the topic at hand. Got it ...
What angellous said ...:thud:
outhouse
Atheistically
I competent enough to know what you are.
I screwed up on AD, my dates are fine just wasnt getting translated that way.
I was going by 35 years after death which puts my age of mark the same as all scholars roughly between 64-70
:no: Not even close.