Could you go further with that? It sounds interesting.... but you can't just say he is a demon....Medicine Woman said:
Marian Catholicism: The Last Living Religion
- Thread starter Leo Volont
- Start date
*************TruthSeeker said:
M*W: TruthSeeker, Paul was a liar and thief to the churches in Macedonia. I've said this in other forums I've responded to.
If Jesus was not the son of God every New Testament author is guilty.Medicine Woman said:
An unbelivebable storm just hit Houston, wow!! even the lights went out on the mist of somre reply I was about to make. The lights were out in my apt. for apx.2hours. Lost of all concentration.
Well I havent been studying Peter but Paul is another matter:
I wont repost, I've covered this elsewere "original sin" thread. but you may make your own coclusions here
and Paul's confession of "ignorance" here
Pauls schism which explains how christianity broke from Jewish roots.
take a peek
Paul the author of fiction peek
Well that's all for will get back if you have further questions.
Godless.
Well I havent been studying Peter but Paul is another matter:
I wont repost, I've covered this elsewere "original sin" thread. but you may make your own coclusions here
and Paul's confession of "ignorance" here
Pauls schism which explains how christianity broke from Jewish roots.
take a peek
Paul the author of fiction peek
Well that's all for will get back if you have further questions.
Godless.
Godless said:
I heard the same arguments in those articles you linked to elsewhere... some from Leo, and some from 786. This post in particular makes as gross assumptions and even uses the same old argument "Paul never quotes Jesus once." As I've said to this on here before, see 1 Cor. 11:24-25. There are other examples... I suggest if you want the truth, you read the NT again.
Paul did show knowledge of Jesus, though I'm not sure how much. Don't forget that he was writing to Churches most of the time, and wrote his letters on the level that he perceived each church was at. I'm not going to use that as the argument, but I assume that even in that time there was little point in covering what had been established.
If Paul's teachings did not coincide with the rest of the Bible (OT included) I wouldn't believe them either. But, after more than 10 years of reading and discussing the Bible, I've yet to see a contradiction in the book that in time has not been proven a misunderstanding on my part. Tho, for wisdom and understanding, I rely on the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit; the "unseen".
The first article that you mentioned used Paul talking about Jesus as being "unseen" and "invisible"... which the Holy Spirit is (yes, I am a Trinitarian.)
See if this makes sense: If you argue the writings of Paul from a perspective where the Spirit does not exist, or does not move in ways that the Bible says, then you instantly nullify the Spirit-related parts of it. If you do that, and don't believe that Jesus is risen, then of course you can use quotes like in that article out of context and to support your belief. But, I guarantee you'll be hard-pressed in using them to convince otherwise anyone with even a little knowledge and love of the Holy Spirit.
I think that's why I've had such trouble debating with Volont (aside from him not actually answering the points of my posts): we simply believe eachothers arguments are completely unfounded.
I'll get off my soapbox now.
The problem debating Vern is he can't answer you until his angel shows up. I heard his angel got a new job across town (visiting nutjobs doesn't pay) so she's usually late. So he will simply ignore you. The best he's come up with so far is to demonize me. He was angry because I said Mary had more than one child. So she was only a virgin with the first one. His response was to call me a demon. But, I'm not sure if I should worry. He might have just been angry about his angel being late for work again and took it out on me.dr.p said:
H
Halcyon
Guest
Leo Volont said:
I've read the bible through twice. I'd seriously doubt you yourself have memorized every passage therein. Even if you had, it would be unreasonable to hold everyone else to that standard.
Now, let's get this straight. You said:
You typed those very words. When they were challenged, you gave the parable of the rich man to support your claim. You even went so far as to insult James further regarding his "ignorance" of the parable. Do you remember sayingLeo Volont said:
? Nowhere in the parable does the rich man call out to Christ. Nowhere in the parable does Christ send or condemn the man to hell. You are wrong, and are stubbornly refusing to accept it. You still didn't answer my previous reply to your, how can I put this fittingly...."Ignorance" of the parable?Leo Volont said:
Then you posted this:
Leo Volont said:
Liar. The reference was to support your claim that Jesus condemned a man to hell. Nice try. None of the responding posts by James or myself had anything to do with reading someone elses conclusions from the text or creatively interpreting it as is the fashion in your threads. Quite simply, the text provided absolutely no support for your claim. If it seems self-evident to you that a man who ended up in hell for his sins was sent there by Jesus when there is absolutely NO EVIDENCE to support that idea, then stop harping on other people for being ignorant. Just because someone doesn't see things the way you do doesn't mean it's necessary to bring their intelligence into question, so quit it.
There's no truth in the bible.
Only inconsitencies, contradictions, stories hebrews stole from other's religious notions and adopted as their own, the bible has been PROVEN to be the most unrealiable source of ancient knowledge than any other ancient book.
However it's fun to see you fundies throw all kinds of verses, one liners from the bible and get contradictions from others, the truth is you take a thousand theists in a room, to interpret the bible and you get a thousand different interpretations. Thus proving that the bible is contradictory, and not coherent. Because if it were there wouldn't be but only ONE church, one interpretation, and only one religion in existance. That is oviously not the case.
Paul's mythology. open your eyes here
However this is just an interpretation many fundies are blinded by the honest attempt to explain their ominious dogma and reitarate with more non-sense. That's expected.
Godless.
Godless: There's no truth in the bible.
Paul's mythology. open your eyes here
However this is just an interpretation many fundies are blinded by the honest attempt to explain their ominious dogma and reitarate with more non-sense. That's expected.
*************
M*W: Godless, thank you for posting such profound knowledge. I hope I live to see the dawning of the Age of Aquarias!
Paul's mythology. open your eyes here
However this is just an interpretation many fundies are blinded by the honest attempt to explain their ominious dogma and reitarate with more non-sense. That's expected.
*************
M*W: Godless, thank you for posting such profound knowledge. I hope I live to see the dawning of the Age of Aquarias!
You are determined to display falsehoods in the faith of the Israelite people by referencing similarities in their faith and others. Your argument fails. If the tribal peoples were correct than the similarities are from the others stealing principles and ordinances from them. If Adam was the first man and he indeed had walked with God in the garden, he would have taught his children one religion. As the family of Adam grew some rebelled and left. When they left they would have taken their religion with them. When they taught their children they would have changed things to suit their own beliefs. The difference was evident from their desire to leave. The children of Israel would make similar claims about Mohammad. When Hagar and son were booted by Abraham they took what they knew with them. When the two groups were isolated they drifted apart. Who is to say who drifted from the truth? No person short of God. So you cannot dismiss the religion of the Israelites because of beliefs that are shared with other people.Godless said:There's no truth in the bible.
Only inconsistencies, contradictions, stories Hebrews stole from other's religious notions and adopted as their own...
Godless.
Well... then I guess I can't believe in you. I can't just believe what you say... you need to tell me why Paul was a liar if you want me to believe that...Medicine Woman said:
Leo Volont
Registered Senior Member
Many of the Dead Sea Scrolls refer to Paul as "The Big Mouthed One Eyed Limping Liar".
Look at his own letters. Why is it that he so often has to deny being a liar... and an embezzler?
Look at Acts 9 and Acts 22. There are two contradictory versions of the Conversion Story (one where there are witnesses to a Speaking Christ, and one in which everyone just saw Paul falling from his horse) -- does it not make us wonder that Paul's original story, told in the Pubs and the Taverns, included 'witnesses' who just happened to be unavailable at the moment, but when on actual Trial where these witnesses may have been subpoena'd, suddenly there were no witnesses. And Luke was supposed to be on Paul's side. If the Official Writer for Paul's Congregations show Paul to be a liar, then we must suppose that neutral and disinterested people must have been rather sincere in dismissing Paul as a "Big Mouthed One Eyed Limping Liar".
His Congregations won Civil War for control of the Church. When Rome destroyed Jerusalem along with the Actual Church that Christ had Established on Earth, it gave Paul's Congregations an advantage. So it was Paul's congregations that got to write the History, and so we don't hear much about the "Big Mouthed One Eyed Limping Liar". But there is much evidence today that outside of his own District of Influence where he used Violence and Duress to maintain his influence, he was largely hated.
Look at his own letters. Why is it that he so often has to deny being a liar... and an embezzler?
Look at Acts 9 and Acts 22. There are two contradictory versions of the Conversion Story (one where there are witnesses to a Speaking Christ, and one in which everyone just saw Paul falling from his horse) -- does it not make us wonder that Paul's original story, told in the Pubs and the Taverns, included 'witnesses' who just happened to be unavailable at the moment, but when on actual Trial where these witnesses may have been subpoena'd, suddenly there were no witnesses. And Luke was supposed to be on Paul's side. If the Official Writer for Paul's Congregations show Paul to be a liar, then we must suppose that neutral and disinterested people must have been rather sincere in dismissing Paul as a "Big Mouthed One Eyed Limping Liar".
His Congregations won Civil War for control of the Church. When Rome destroyed Jerusalem along with the Actual Church that Christ had Established on Earth, it gave Paul's Congregations an advantage. So it was Paul's congregations that got to write the History, and so we don't hear much about the "Big Mouthed One Eyed Limping Liar". But there is much evidence today that outside of his own District of Influence where he used Violence and Duress to maintain his influence, he was largely hated.
TruthSeeker: Well... then I guess I can't believe in you. I can't just believe what you say... you need to tell me why Paul was a liar if you want me to believe that...
*************
M*W: I don't care if you believe me or not. You are nothing to me. I suggest you read the book The Mythmaker: Paul and the Invention of Christianity by Hyam Maccoby, 1986. Maccoby has extensively researched many biblical theories, and Paul is one of them. He goes into great detail about the lies perpetuated by Paul.
*************
M*W: I don't care if you believe me or not. You are nothing to me. I suggest you read the book The Mythmaker: Paul and the Invention of Christianity by Hyam Maccoby, 1986. Maccoby has extensively researched many biblical theories, and Paul is one of them. He goes into great detail about the lies perpetuated by Paul.
Leo Volont
Registered Senior Member
Medicine Woman said:
What!? Do the Masons publish a Reading List? You easily believe that Christianity is an invention while you suppose that Jesus was real enough, but only that he was a Swinging Playboy and that Mary Magdalen was a Party Girl that He was more than willing to marry, even if he had to tolerate a lot at what was a famously checkered past. Wouldn't have happened. In those days nobody had much of a taste for Damaged Goods. With Young Virgins available from every fine house, who would marry some old bounce-around with a full set of crocadile baggage to carry around.
So what DO you believe? Historical Analysis or Romantic Fiction? And does anybody wonder why it took women so many centuries to finally be taken seriously by the acedemic community. But with the likes of Medicine Woman, maybe all that should again be reconsidered. First all that Balogna of Women Studies and now Medicine Woman. Maybe we should give the Schools back to the Boys who at least can pretend to be more sensible.
Them are pretty big (IF's) There are books that are way older than when the bible was considered to be written, the bible was written by many authors, the bible has been changed, hand copied, and mistranslated many of times, do you think all this has been done without the duress of human error?.
Give me a break!! your ignorance is pointless. One oldest know book to be found thus far is Gilgamesh Epic it's supposedly dated 2000+ bc. Authors of the bible were not around at that time, when it was determined by the clergy that the earth was only 6000 years old.
learn something
Read a few ancient books and compare yourself the similiarities. (doubt you will do it) look
Godless.
I'm nothing to you but you still give me a book to read...Medicine Woman said:
Anyways...
TruthSeeker: I'm nothing to you but you still give me a book to read... Anyways...
*************
M*W: Would you rather I had copied and pasted a lengthy excerpt from the book I referred you to? You can find the book online.
*************
M*W: Would you rather I had copied and pasted a lengthy excerpt from the book I referred you to? You can find the book online.
Books that are older than the Bible and have similarities to the Bible do not refute the Bible. I agree that the Bible got raped by men who were out to justify their own behavior by removing passages or changing them. Still if you are going to make a claim like the Bible is a copy of some older book you will have to establish much more than you have. For example, you must show that biblical authors had a copy of the book that wasn't found until ....Godless said:Them are pretty big (IF's) There are books that are way older than when the bible was considered to be written, the bible was written by many authors, the bible has been changed, hand copied, and mistranslated many of times, do you think all this has been done without the duress of human error?.
Give me a break!! your ignorance is pointless. One oldest know book to be found thus far is Gilgamesh Epic it's supposedly dated 2000+ bc. Authors of the bible were not around at that time, when it was determined by the clergy that the earth was only 6000 years old.
learn something
Read a few ancient books and compare yourself the similiarities. (doubt you will do it) look
Godless.