Sheriff Fatman
Well-Known Member
Yep. And his ox.
Religion
- Thread starter idahoblues
- Start date
‘Imposition’ might be the key word here. I don’t agree with all he writes but generally I find what he writes point to something more natural and organic that is more in tune with innate being rather than something that is more artificial and mechanistic to be imposed.
andyhinch
Well-Known Member
My neighbour hasn’t got an ox :-(
the thing you are missing and what quite important is that paul never mentions jesus as a real living person which is rather strange seeing as he's writing approx 20 yrs after alleged jesus crucifixtion, not one mention of anything to do with his life and he should of if we are to believe anything that's written in the gospels
he writes as if its a mythical being
absolutely makes no sense not to mention the superstar of the 1st century
Last edited:
I’m firmly in the agnostic camp of believing he did live historically and I don’t believe Paul is writing as if he’s a mythical being, he specifically mentions the apostle Peter in his writings.
I think the reason Paul never refers to Jesus as a living man is because he claims to have witnessed him after the crucifixion and after he “ascended into heaven”. If he had written about Jesus the man it wouldn’t have been through his own experience.
mancity2012_eamo
Well-Known Member
Is she ripe?
Kippaxpete
Well-Known Member
...but only on a Tuesday.
doesn't make sense i'm afraid the rock star of the first century and he isn't aware of all his miraculous deeds, he would be spreading that word far and wide, not the divine stuff he writes
indulge me where does he claim to have witnessed the ascension
I never said he witnessed the ascension, I said he claims to have seen Jesus after the ascension.
Something that you’ve missed is the context of the letters, the letters aren’t what he’s preached, they are letters giving advice/instruction to people within the churches he has founded that have fallen out or aren’t being good people. They’re political and both advisory to get these churches back on track. Your comment of “he would be spreading that word far and wide” - well he probably was, when he was in a church.
An important point though, Paul never witnessed the miracles and never claimed to, that’s why he’s not writing about them in his letters and and is writing about the divine because that’s his only experience, or so he claims. He does however start several significant churches and writes about scripture he’s shared, which we don’t know what that contains but it’s likely something similar to the “Q” document, which is what many in Bible scholarly, secular or not, believe is a shared source that Matthew and Luke filled in some gaps with.
Is this a trick question? As in the only neighbor you have is the cow in the field out back. So if I say yes then you can say ‘arfur approves of shagging cows and he isn’t anti- religious, therefore all religious people are into bestiality…’ think I’m finally getting a hold of the idea of this thread ;)
after the ascension surely not, resurrection maybe, even then its a spurious list that matches nothing that the gospels say
i get what he is writing about giving advice/instruction no problem with that(albeit not all the 13 letters attributed to him are by him, and those that are have christian interpolations within them like one i think thessolgians where there is a allusion to the destruction of jerusalem which was long after paul was dead)
but you're missing my point ,to not speak about the rock star of the time ,not one jot is bizarre, even if to dispel him makes no sense
he either knew nothing of him which is hard to believe, or he didn't exist
the "q" document is only a hypothesis which you know as do scholars, there is nothing concrete to back this up so to use it as fact is folly
Last edited:
Fiftyyearsandcounting
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 25 Oct 2009
- Messages
- 2,363
The Strawbs - The Man Who Called Himself Jesus
D
D
Deleted member 77198
Guest
The commandments story has been seen right across the spectrum of religions all around the Mediterranean even from long before the Abrahamic religions.
Around 2,000 years before the Judeo Moses story, in Ancient Egypt they had developed 42 commandments
The Akkadians had the Hammurabian Code which they developed in around 1,750bce which had 282 laws which were split into 12 commandments.
In Ancient Greece, Minos was said to have been given commandments from Zeus on Mount Ida in around 1,700bce.
Then the Moses story of the Ten Commandments where it’s said he was given the commandments from the Jewish God in around 1,450bce.
As you say these laws provided structure to a society before modern governments created the laws we live by today and Police forces, who implement the dealing with those who break the laws, emerged.
They may have made sense at the time but time has moved on from the idea of the death penalty being given to those who break some of the laws like adultery and kidnapping. And we have moved on from believing that gods gave these commandments to men on mountain tops in order to make people think they must be obeyed because god says so.
Last edited by a moderator:
No, it’s a vision on the road to Damascus that is after the ascension. The most obvious scientific explanation to seeing a dead man shining in light in front of you is of course dehydration (I’m not making a case for it here to be clear).
I completely agree not all letters were written by Paul, no argument there.
He did speak about Jesus, quite a lot, but the fact remains the majority of the letters, the vast majority, are in fact about the politics and behaviour of the church at that time. They aren’t supposed to be another Gospel story.
Paul founded the churches that became Catholic and Eastern Orthodox - to say he didn’t preach about Jesus is false in my opinion, it’s just the letters themselves were different from the Gospels as they were meant to be in context.
he did indeed talk about christ/jesus but always via scripture and as a mythical being
he never mentions anything about jesus the man which again is completely bizarre and unthinkable given the status the gospels give him
Well I think that’s because of the context of the letters being about the churches and the fact Paul didn’t know Jesus the man.
He only claimed, via a vision, to see him well after his death.
IMO the letters are the most honest part of the whole Bible.
That’s just my two pence as amateur scholar.
don't you find that strange that that the ghandi/mandela/luther king all rolled into one and more was unheard of by the man gets the Christian word of christ moving/spread
to me its the elephant in the room.
the fact as you say its the most honest part of the bible(mainly because of their authenticity whereas the rest is dubious) is neither here nor there tbh.
oh and by the way its only a claim by paul this vision as you have said previously said via some sort of dehydration
but its accepted as fact by apologists as its fits a christian narrative
ali benarbia's studs
Well-Known Member
after quiting drugs, i ve found peace studying the bible. Didnt realize it was apocryphal and codex layered.
paulsimpson
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 16 Nov 2008
- Messages
- 3,457
Your "facts" are not facts. The universe does not have an eternal past . Fact
You believe that nothing became something ,billions of years ago . How,? The universe popped into being uncaused? That's a fairy-tale. It's what atheists believe. It's a religious notion. Creation and atheism are both religious. It's the interpretation of facts that counts.
Life comes from life . The law of biogenesis. Fact. Life can't come from non life. That's what you believe apparently but it's not science.
In your view microbes changed into men over billions of years . Particles to people, amoeba to animals? All the species ( kinds ) evolved from ere microbes? Well , that's the general theory of evolution ( GTE) that you espouse. But its not a fact. No one has observed life from non life. Nor has anyone observed a microbe change into all the different kinds ( species) of flora, fauna and humans over millions of years . The extrapolation is fantasy.
it's not factual. You need to get your facts right
Animals belong to their genus or species i.e. kinds . Fact
These do not evolve from one another. No one has seen a dog ( canis) evolve from a non dog. The change is only observed within kinds ( species) of plants or animals .
For instance there is a limit as to how much one can breed different kinds or species of animal. Its observable science. No one has observed change outside the kind or species. But on atheist naturalist macro evolution theory all the kinds ( species) came from a micro molecule,unobserved. That's what you've sided with . But it isn't scientific i e. Observable demonstrable.
Plus ,there are no transitional/ intermediate fossils in the rock record . None. There should be trillions, if a microbe is going to be changing into a man over billions of years. One would expect billions upon billions of animals in transition from whale to cow or from microbe to mongoose. The fossils say a definite No.
Last edited: