Who taught Christianity to Paul?

[outhouse]

Wrong - .



*

Your forget, everyone else is wrong and only ken and ken alone has the biblical answers the world needs.

 

[Ken Brown]

LOL! DUDE! You have destroyed nothing.

You have not given a defendable rebuttal argument.

What YOU think - is not fact.

Where is your proof beyond a MISREADING of Romans 5:14?

I have supplied the Tanakh text stating that MOSES is the TYPE!*

Hi Ingledsva, misreading of Romans 5:14? Obviously, you are correct that Yeshua was the One who was LIKE Moses, there is no argument there, but this issue is about whether Paul was saying Moses was a type of the One coming, or was it Adam?

Now, if you understand the Greek language, the "who" referred to in v.14 (WHO is a type of the coming One) is the nominative masculine singular form of the relative pronoun "hos," which REFERS to Adam, not Moses, since it agrees in gender and number with it's antecedent, the genitive masculine singular form of the noun Adam. Why is this so hard for you to grasp? And why do you try to change what the language plainly says? Moses was NOT the antecedent, Adam was, therefore you are grammatically incorrect in making Moses the antecedent. KB

 

[Ken Brown]

LOL! DUDE! You have destroyed nothing.


You have not given a defendable rebuttal argument.


What YOU think - is not fact.


Where is your proof beyond a MISREADING of Romans 5:14?


I have supplied the Tanakh text stating that MOSES is the TYPE!*

Hi Ingledsva, no, I have given you an accurate translation of Romans 5:15, at least the first sentence of it, "But not through the offence, rather the free gift." It could also be rendered, "But not according to the offence, in this way through the free gift." The "type" or "figure" is not according to the offence, but instead it is through the free gift they both gave to mankind. Adam's gift was condemnation and death as a result of ONE offense, Yeshua's gift was righteousness and life from the result of MANY offenses. KB

 

[outhouse]

Adam's gift was condemnation and death as a result of ONE offense, Yeshua's gift was righteousness and life from the result of MANY offenses. KB

Which is exactly what I told you from the very beginning

Where there was death in Adam, there was life in Christ.

.

Maybe your way too old to debate properly forgetting what your even talking about.

 

[outhouse]

which REFERS to Adam, not Moses,

Correct, that verse is dealing with adam that much is clear.

? And why do you try to change what the language plainly says?

Because you are.


Your taking it out of context.


In context the verse is dealing with a pattern of sin

even over those who did not sin by breaking a command

Its a pattern in sin "a lack of" more so then dealing with adam as a coming messiah figure.

 

[Ingledsva]

Hi Ingledsva, misreading of Romans 5:14? Obviously, you are correct that Yeshua was the One who was LIKE Moses, there is no argument there, but this issue is about whether Paul was saying Moses was a type of the One coming, or was it Adam?

Now, if you understand the Greek language, the "who" referred to in v.14 (WHO is a type of the coming One) is the nominative masculine singular form of the relative pronoun "hos," which REFERS to Adam, not Moses, since it agrees in gender and number with it's antecedent, the genitive masculine singular form of the noun Adam. Why is this so hard for you to grasp? And why do you try to change what the language plainly says? Moses was NOT the antecedent, Adam was, therefore you are grammatically incorrect in making Moses the antecedent. KB

You can repeat this crap over and over and it won't change that TANAKH tells us it is MOSES - not Adam.





*

 

[Ingledsva]

Hi Ingledsva, no, I have given you an accurate translation of Romans 5:15, at least the first sentence of it, "But not through the offence, rather the free gift." It could also be rendered, "But not according to the offence, in this way through the free gift." The "type" or "figure" is not according to the offence, but instead it is through the free gift they both gave to mankind. Adam's gift was condemnation and death as a result of ONE offense, Yeshua's gift was righteousness and life from the result of MANY offenses. KB

Again - TANAKH tells us whom the type is - MOSES.



Nothing you say will change that.





*

 

[Ken Brown]

Which is exactly what I told you from the very beginning

Maybe your way too old to debate properly forgetting what your even talking about.

Hi outhouse, are you really saying that Adam was a type or figure of the coming One, through the "gift" which they both gave. Then I will agree with you that the argument is over.

There is just a small bit of doubt on my part with respect to you agreeing with how Adam is a type of the coming One. I pointed out to you that you, in presenting your answer, were doing as your college professors do, presenting it as a "contrast," not a similarity. You even quoted from a commentator which said:

"So when you talk about the contrast of what Christ did and what Adam did"

Which is what you did when you state:

"Where there was death in Adam, there was life in Christ."

Outhouse, you are not presenting Adam as a "type" or "figure" of the coming One, you are presenting them being different, and if you really are "seeing" how they are similar THROUGH the gift which they both gave, then you will be going against ALL of your college professors.

So just to clarify, is the argument over? Do you agree that the "type" or "figure" which Adam had with the coming One is not through the offense, rather the free gift? KB

 

[Ken Brown]

Again - TANAKH tells us whom the type is - MOSES.

Nothing you say will change that. *

Hi Ingledsva, I agreed with you that the TANAKH speaks of the Messiah being LIKE Moses. But you see, you declared that Moses never existed, so how can you believe that a non-existent Moses could ever be a "type" or "figure" of the coming One?

You need to stick to one story and stay with it. KB

 

[outhouse]

Hi outhouse, are you really saying that Adam was a type or figure of the coming One, through the "gift" which they both gave. Then I will agree with you that the argument is over.

There is just a small bit of doubt on my part with respect to you agreeing with how Adam is a type of the coming One. I pointed out to you that you, in presenting your answer, were doing as your college professors do, presenting it as a "contrast," not a similarity. You even quoted from a commentator which said:

"So when you talk about the contrast of what Christ did and what Adam did"

Which is what you did when you state:

"Where there was death in Adam, there was life in Christ."

Outhouse, you are not presenting Adam as a "type" or "figure" of the coming One, you are presenting them being different, and if you really are "seeing" how they are similar THROUGH the gift which they both gave, then you will be going against ALL of your college professors.

So just to clarify, is the argument over? Do you agree that the "type" or "figure" which Adam had with the coming One is not through the offense, rather the free gift? KB

You did not understand a word I wrote. I have long questioned your ability to debate properly.

I stated very clearly that you have taken that verse out of context, the verse is not making Adam a type or figure, the author was using a pattern of SIN as the coming one, would possess. :faint:


Adam was not the type of a coming one. You don't know the first thing about Paul's Christology

Paul separates mans spirit from the physical body, which is leaving you confused due to your ignorance from a literal reading.

Paul recognized a parallel, as well as contrast.

The parallel has to in context to SIN in that verse. Nothing more.

 

[steeltoes]

Posters are doing everything to avoid answering the question presented in the OP and that is understandable since there is no evidence of anyone having ever met Jesus who in turn could have influenced Paul. It appears that Paul made everything up that he claims to know about Jesus.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Posters are doing everything to avoid answering the question presented in the OP and that is understandable since there is no evidence of anyone having ever met Jesus who in turn could have influenced Paul. It appears that Paul made everything up that he claims to know about Jesus.

You don't think that Paul ever met any of the disciples in Jerusalem?

 

[Nakosis]

You don't think that Paul ever met any of the disciples in Jerusalem?

He letters of Paul seems legit of historical value. Obviously Paul ran into "Christians" as he claim to persecute them. Without Paul the story of Jesus is pretty mythical.

Paul had his vision, perhaps a bad dream induced by guilt? A mind is a tricky thing. People do have life-changing spiritual experiences. I think likely Paul thought to be guided by the "Holy Spirit". Probably total conviction this spirit guide was legit, Jesus providing insight and guidance.

Anyway Christianity needs his historical authority to raise the story of Jesus from myth to historical fact.

I don't think it that uncommon for people to believe themselves guided by a supernatural presence. While there could be more to it, there is no evidence for it. And, I don't think anything else is needed to explain Paul.

That he felt himself guided by a supernatural presence doesn't mean he had any authority to speak for God or Jesus for that matter.

Jesus is a nice story about compassion and making God accessible to the common man (sinner I suppose...) It has affected western culture a great deal. Hard not to feel some personal connection to the story. But to say it's God Word, that just religious doctrine.

 

[outhouse]

He letters of Paul seems legit of historical value. Obviously Paul ran into "Christians" as he claim to persecute them.

True.

Without Paul the story of Jesus is pretty mythical.

Nope.


Paul's Jesus is a mythical character who lives in heaven.


The living Jesus never came to Paul, nor sent him out to be a apostle. So Paul focuses on the theology in the Hellenistic Diaspora with his heavenly mythical Jesus.

Paul had his vision,

Not likely.

Back then conscious thoughts, daydreams, breams while sleeping were all considered real and controlled the evil or positive spirits through the lord.


Paul tells us he had a change of heart that came from within him, not a vision.

Anyway Christianity needs his historical authority to raise the story of Jesus from myth to historical fact.

No.

Back then it was never questioned that he existed. This is a modern debate.

Back then they only debated what substance he was, all spirit, to all man, and every aspect in between.

I don't think it that uncommon for people to believe themselves guided by a supernatural presence.

yes correct

While there could be more to it, there is no evidence for it. And, I don't think anything else is needed to explain Paul.

Paul knew Judaism.

Its not hard to figure out the NEW mythology that changed the current theology that made Judaism acceptable to gentiles.


He did not learn it from spirits

He learned it from following the movement persecuting them. Obviously he knew why he was persecuting them and understood at that time what the sect was all about and what its beliefs were.


Paul factually learned it from people and this dishonesty is one reason why I don't trust Paul as far as I can throw him.

That he felt himself guided by a supernatural presence doesn't mean he had any authority to speak for God or Jesus for that matter.

True.

Jesus is a nice story about compassion and making God accessible to the common man (sinner I suppose...) It has affected western culture a great deal. Hard not to feel some personal connection to the story.

It was taking the monotheistic one all powerful god and making that concept available to the masses through Jesus suffering and death.

Polytheism was on its death bed, and this movement was the drain plug that let the last bit of water out of the tub.

One way or another monotheism, would have happened.

But to say it's God Word, that just religious doctrine.

 

[psychoslice]

Hi Ingledsva, I agreed with you that the TANAKH speaks of the Messiah being LIKE Moses. But you see, you declared that Moses never existed, so how can you believe that a non-existent Moses could ever be a "type" or "figure" of the coming One?

You need to stick to one story and stay with it. KB

Because one argues how the story should read, doesn't mean one needs to believe in the story, such as red riding hood.

 

[Ken Brown]

You did not understand a word I wrote. I have long questioned your ability to debate properly.

I stated very clearly that you have taken that verse out of context, the verse is not making Adam a type or figure, the author was using a pattern of SIN as the coming one, would possess. :faint:

Adam was not the type of a coming one. You don't know the first thing about Paul's Christology

Paul separates mans spirit from the physical body, which is leaving you confused due to your ignorance from a literal reading.

Paul recognized a parallel, as well as contrast.

The parallel has to in context to SIN in that verse. Nothing more.

Hi outhouse, you are correct as you are very difficult to understand. What exactly did you mean by, "The parallel has to in context to SIN in that verse. Nothing more." Just exactly, WHAT are you saying? Did you get some help from your "expert" buddies, or did you come up with this all on your own? KB

 

[Ken Brown]

Because one argues how the story should read, doesn't mean one needs to believe in the story, such as red riding hood.

Hi psychoslice, yeah but, it really wasn't "red" riding hood, wasn't it "blue" riding hood? You would at least want to get the facts of the make believe story straight wouldn't you? But then again, maybe they were just "color" blind.

Look, all kidding aside, why do opposers of the Scriptures go to great lengths to debate them? Why do they waste their time? KB

 

[steeltoes]

You don't think that Paul ever met any of the disciples in Jerusalem?

Does Paul say he met a disciple in Jerusalem?

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Does Paul say he met a disciple in Jerusalem?

Beats me. I don't read the NT anymore. I just listen to what other debaters say, and most of them assume that Paul met Peter in Jerusalem. Along with 'the brother of Jesus.'

You don't believe that?

 

[psychoslice]

Hi psychoslice, yeah but, it really wasn't "red" riding hood, wasn't it "blue" riding hood? You would at least want to get the facts of the make believe story straight wouldn't you? But then again, maybe they were just "color" blind.

Look, all kidding aside, why do opposers of the Scriptures go to great lengths to debate them? Why do they waste their time? KB

Maybe they enjoy it, like a game, and also why do those who believe without proof continue to argue with someone who wants proof, I certainly don't believe in something just because a lot of other people believe it, do you ?.