What's his name? Immanuel or Jesus?

[Nehushta]

Originally posted by Medicine*Woman
Paul never met Jesus, so even Paul didn't know for sure if Jesus existed. He assumed. Most of Jesus's earlier followers hadn't met him in person but had visions of him. It's quite possible that Paul made the whole thing up. When Paul had an epileptic attack on the Road to Damascus and fell off his horse, he hit his head on a rock and saw stars and visions of messiahs.

I vote for the idea that Paul made the whole thing up (or maybe Luke, since he is supposedly the author of Acts), expecially since he couldn't even keep his story straight regarding what his companions saw or heard:

Acts 9:7 And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man.


Acts 22:9 And they that were with me saw indeed the light, and were afraid; but they heard not the voice of him that spake to me.

Oops. So much for biblical inerrancy, huh?

 

[Nehushta]

Originally posted by jcarl
If Jesus hadn't existed, then no one would have payed attention to Paul because they would have known that he[Jesus] didn't exist.

And how would they have known such a thing?

Then those against Paul and the apostles at that time would have made that evident.

How would they have made that evident, especially 30 or more years after his alleged death?

Before the invention of the television and satellite radio, there would have been no way historians could have seen all that they recorded. If that were the case, then we wouldn't have much history at all. If you went by that, then there would be no history books at all.

No, because there would have been people recording facts and events relating to that person's life while they still lived, or very shortly after their death, and there would be independent, corroborating statements by other writers to compare them with as well. There would also be official records (which the Romans were pretty anal about keeping, by the way). On Jesus, we have nothing other than what allegedly comes from Paul (who admittedly never knew Jesus while he lived), the gospel writers, and a few other unknown epistle writers, who all wrote even later than Paul did.

To a lot of people, he was nothing more than a blasphemer and/or a threat to authority. Nothing more.

But what about the others?

Ok so you doubt Josephus's stuff. Thats fine. But how do you account for the others?

As I said before - they are all based on hearsay.

Tacitus' statement that "Christ" was executed under Pilate was made early in the second century as an explanation to his readers (who apparently had no idea who this "Christ" person was) who these Rome-burning, rabble-rousing troublemakers called "Christians" derived their name and origin from. His statement wasn't necessarily about Jesus, since he wasn't mentioned by name. But even if he had said "Jesus," it was still nothing more than hearsay, based on Christian claims alone.

Lucian likewise simply parroted what the Christians themselves believed - he wasn't confirming anything - in fact, he was making fun of them for their gullibility! It would be like you making fun of a 9-year old who still believed in Santa Claus - would the mere mention of the name "Santa Claus" on your part constitute proof that he ever existed? Obviously not.

Please tell me what statements were made in the Talmud that undisputedly point to Jesus? And I don't mean Jesus ben Pandira, who lived a century before the Christian era, or Balaam or Yeshu - none of these quite fit (although I admit, they may have been Beta versions of the "real" Jesus).

 

[jcarl]

Originally posted by Medicine*Woman
Paul never met Jesus, so even Paul didn't know for sure if Jesus existed. He assumed. Most of Jesus's earlier followers hadn't met him in person but had visions of him. It's quite possible that Paul made the whole thing up. When Paul had an epileptic attack on the Road to Damascus and fell off his horse, he hit his head on a rock and saw stars and visions of messiahs.

Had Paul fabricated Jesus, NO ONE would have believed him b/c they, the Jews specifically the scribes, etc., would have shown that Jesus didn't exist. And the please tell me why he would die for something he knew was false. Somebody earlier drew the parallel between guys like David Koresh, Jim Jones, and that Applewhite fella. with Paul in this sense. Absolutely false. Jones and Applewhite committed suicide, and thats a totally different ballgame. Koresh died in a violent gun battle that was started by him. Do you have any evidence that Paul died in this manner?

 

[Medicine*Woman]

Originally posted by jcarl
Had Paul fabricated Jesus, NO ONE would have believed him b/c they, the Jews specifically the scribes, etc., would have shown that Jesus didn't exist.
----------
M*W: Paul created the MYTH of Jesus. Jesus may or may not have been a real person, but the MYTH of him being a savior who was crucified, died and resurrected, is pure MYTH. Furthermore, the scribes were not the most well-liked of people nor trusted.
----------
And the please tell me why he would die for something he knew was false.
----------
M*W: Paul had a financial interest in creating the MYTH of Jesus. All he did was find a marketable MYTH, based on pagan customs, to bilk from the Gentiles.
----------
Somebody earlier drew the parallel between guys like David Koresh, Jim Jones, and that Applewhite fella. with Paul in this sense. Absolutely false.
----------
M*W: Even Paul persecuted xians until he found a way to use them.
----------
Jones and Applewhite committed suicide, and thats a totally different ballgame. Koresh died in a violent gun battle that was started by him.
----------
M*W: I'm certainly no fan of David Koresh, but it's questionable about "who" started that gun battle.
----------
Do you have any evidence that Paul died in this manner?
----------
M*W: Paul died by the method of the day--beheading--and that was only because he was a Roman citizen, otherwise, he'd been crucified. Paul was right up there in the same league with Jim Jones and David Koresh, Heaven's Gate, the Raelians, et al. They all got what they deserved.

 

[Nehushta]

Originally posted by jcarl
Had Paul fabricated Jesus, NO ONE would have believed him b/c they, the Jews specifically the scribes, etc., would have shown that Jesus didn't exist.

What you fail to explain is how the Jews could have proven that someone never existed! Or that one of the many crucified criminals of the past never did any of the things that were credited to him by someone who wanted to profit in some way 30 or more years after his death. It is difficult, if not impossible, to prove a negative! Paul knew that very well when he took the existing gnostic Christian myth and created from it a new and improved Christian myth.

And the please tell me why he would die for something he knew was false. Somebody earlier drew the parallel between guys like David Koresh, Jim Jones, and that Applewhite fella. with Paul in this sense. Absolutely false. Jones and Applewhite committed suicide, and thats a totally different ballgame. Koresh died in a violent gun battle that was started by him. Do you have any evidence that Paul died in this manner?

The point isn't how any of those men died - the point is that they were willing to die for the cultic belief systems they created. When you can explain why they did it, you may have more insight into Paul's own particular brand of madness.

 

[jcarl]

Originally posted by Medicine*Woman

Originally posted by jcarl

----------
M*W: Paul created the MYTH of Jesus. Jesus may or may not have been a real person, but the MYTH of him being a savior who was crucified, died and resurrected, is pure MYTH. Furthermore, the scribes were not the most well-liked of people nor trusted.
----------

The Jews would have known that the Jesus Paul talked about wasn't real, and they therefore, wouldn't have believed him.

----------
M*W: Paul had a financial interest in creating the MYTH of Jesus. All he did was find a marketable MYTH, based on pagan customs, to bilk from the Gentiles.
----------

First off, what is the point of death and being persecuted if all you want is financial gain? There had to be something else there. And last time I checked, Paul was a tentmaker; not exactly a lavish occupation. And what source has led you to believe that Paul was one to do such a thing?

----------
M*W: Even Paul persecuted xians until he found a way to use them.
----------

So Christianity existed before Paul came up with it. Is that what you're saying?

----------
M*W: I'm certainly no fan of David Koresh, but it's questionable about "who" started that gun battle.
----------

What matters is that Koresh put up a physical fight, and killed some of his adversaries. Did Paul do that in his death?

Originally posted by Nehustha

What you fail to explain is how the Jews could have proven that someone never existed!

The Jews would have known that the Jesus Paul preached wasn't real. Simple as that.

The point isn't how any of those men died - the point is that they were willing to die for the cultic belief systems they created. When you can explain why they did it, you may have more insight into Paul's own particular brand of madness.

These are two different things--Paul and Jim Jones, etc. Jim Jones laced some punch and then had his followers drink it. Do you have any evidence that Paul killed anybody, to say nothing of his followers? Also what Jim Jones, etc. did was twist an already existing doctrine. The main problem with them initially is that they claimed to be phrophets and/or incarnations of God.

Paul knew that very well when he took the existing gnostic Christian myth and created from it a new and improved Christian myth.

The fact that someone believed that Christ existed before Paul is proof that Paul didn't make it up. The gnostics believed the fundamentals about Jesus, most importantly for this discussion is that he actually existed. This will probably lead you to claim that Paul did exactly what Jim Jones did. Not the case: He didn't gain much of anything worldly from it(he was a tent maker, nothing more)Jim Jones used his "power" to gain things sexually, monetarily,and otherwise.

 

[Medicine*Woman]

Originally posted by jcarl
The Jews would have known that the Jesus Paul talked about wasn't real, and they therefore, wouldn't have believed him.
----------
M*W: Paul NEVER met or knew Jesus. There were NO xians before Paul. Paul made up the word "Christians." If Jesus lived, his followers, if he had any at the time, were NOT called "Christians." They were simply Jews following their Rabbi. Paul created the MYTH of Jesus, so the FOLLOWERS OF PAUL believed him (Paul) and Paul called them "Christians." You have to remember that the Jews of Jesus' day were NOT the Jews of Paul's day, so they did NOT hear or see both sides of the coin. They didn't know Jesus or what he taught first-hand (maybe no one did!), and they didn't know Paul.
----------
First off, what is the point of death and being persecuted if all you want is financial gain? There had to be something else there. And last time I checked, Paul was a tentmaker; not exactly a lavish occupation. And what source has led you to believe that Paul was one to do such a thing?
----------
M*W: Paul had a problem controlling his mouth. He was a zealot, a fanatic. Paul persecuted others. Paul has been known as a liar since his own time. He conveniently changed his name from Saul of Tarsus to the more Latinized name of "Paul" to appeal to the Gentiles and Romans. Paul claimed to be a Pharisee but acted more like a Sadducee. Paul also claimed to be a lawyer as well as a Rabbi. Paul was not a poor man. His claiming to be a "tentmaker" may or may not have been true. He changed his name and occupations at will for whatever he could get out of it. Reference: The Mythmaker: Paul and the Invention of Christianity," by Hyam Maccoby.
----------
So Christianity existed before Paul came up with it. Is that what you're saying?
----------
M*W: No. Christianity was invented by Paul. However, the name was adopted by the church fathers in 325 AD, and it was officially called Christianity at that time.
----------
What matters is that Koresh put up a physical fight, and killed some of his adversaries. Did Paul do that in his death?
----------
M*W: Paul met with serious trouble from the Jews in Jerusalem when he taught against the Torah, they tried to kill him, but he escaped. James, the brother of Jesus, and his family and followers hated Paul passionately. They believed that Paul was not teaching what Jesus had taught. Also, he apparently used the funds from the Jerusalem church to acquire Roman citizenship. Needless to say, they weren't very happy about his thievery. He was tied up and about to be flogged, but he managed to talk his way out of it to the Roman centurion by claiming to be a Roman citizen. They let him go. When he claimed his Roman citizenship, he completely removed himself from the Jerusalem church. Paul was hated by pious Jews, so he focused himself on the Gentiles. His claim to be a Pharisee was a lie.
----------
Originally posted by Nehustha
The Jews would have known that the Jesus Paul preached wasn't real. Simple as that.
----------
M*W: This is true. The Jews didn't believe Paul.
----------
These are two different things--Paul and Jim Jones, etc. Jim Jones laced some punch and then had his followers drink it. Do you have any evidence that Paul killed anybody, to say nothing of his followers? Also what Jim Jones, etc. did was twist an already existing doctrine. The main problem with them initially is that they claimed to be phrophets and/or incarnations of God.
----------
M*W: Paul was responsible for the stoning of Stephen. Stephen was a follower of Jesus, himself. Paul was jealous and killed him because he wanted Stephen to follow him and not Jesus. There are incidences in this book where Paul claimed to be the messiah also.
----------
The fact that someone believed that Christ existed before Paul is proof that Paul didn't make it up. The gnostics believed the fundamentals about Jesus, most importantly for this discussion is that he actually existed. This will probably lead you to claim that Paul did exactly what Jim Jones did. Not the case: He didn't gain much of anything worldly from it(he was a tent maker, nothing more)Jim Jones used his "power" to gain things sexually, monetarily,and otherwise.
----------
M*W: Jesus existed before Paul. I never said that Paul made up the whole identity of Jesus, but Paul created the MYTH of Jesus the Savior. One cult is equally as bad as another. Paul was the Jim Jones and David Koresh of his day. To truly follow Jesus, one would need to reject all teachings by Paul which means most of the NT. Until all Christians reject Paul and his teachings, there is NO WAY to really know or understand Jesus. Even calling yourselves Christians is a bold-face lie. Jesus wouldn't have had his followers call themselves Christians! They were Nazarenes NOT Christians!

 

[Nehushta]

Originally posted by jcarl
The Jews would have known that the Jesus Paul preached wasn't real. Simple as that.

Of course they knew it, but how could they prove it?

Also, I'd like to point out that Paul was very careful not to mention any of the "facts" surrounding Jesus' earthly life. You don't get any of the gospel details in Paul's writings about Jesus, such as his birth, his family, his miracles, his trial and crucifixion. That seems kind of odd, expecially since Paul's writings were the earliest records we seem to have of Jesus. Why would that be, do you suppose?

These are two different things--Paul and Jim Jones, etc. Jim Jones laced some punch and then had his followers drink it. Do you have any evidence that Paul killed anybody, to say nothing of his followers?

Do the actions of the "Saul" personality count? And even if he never killed anyone, would this somehow automatically disqualify him as a cult leader?

Also what Jim Jones, etc. did was twist an already existing doctrine. The main problem with them initially is that they claimed to be phrophets and/or incarnations of God.

What Paul did was twist the existing doctrine of the Gnostics, which had spiritual depth and was rich in metaphysical meaning and symbology, into a shallow new mythology, harsh and punitive, with the intention of bringing others under his control.

The fact that someone believed that Christ existed before Paul is proof that Paul didn't make it up. The gnostics believed the fundamentals about Jesus, most importantly for this discussion is that he actually existed. This will probably lead you to claim that Paul did exactly what Jim Jones did. Not the case: He didn't gain much of anything worldly from it(he was a tent maker, nothing more)Jim Jones used his "power" to gain things sexually, monetarily,and otherwise.

Just because Paul had somewhat of an existing foundation for the main character of his story doesn't mean he didn't make up the tale about meeting the risen Christ on the road to Damascus, along with everything that followed.

I also want to point out that the Gnostics didn't believe in a Christ who had ever inhabited a physical body in the earthly realm. To them, he was a spiritual being who dwelled strictly in the heavenly realm. Paul's Christ was nothing more than a fallen god, and unfortunately this inferior Christ is the one that has been inherited by the Christians of today.

 

[Medicine*Woman]

What's in a name?

When writing the name "Christ," it is quite common to abbreviate it as "X" or "x," representing the first letter (chi) of the Greek XPICTOC khristos. For example, "xmas" is a common abbreviation of "Christmas". "Xian" just means "Christian," and is pronounced the same.

According to the Oxford English Dictionary, the use of the abbreviation "xian" or "xtian" for "Christian" dates back at least as far as 1634. Before that, it was more usual to take the first two letters of XPICTOC, and write "xpian" for "Christian". Priests would record Christenings using the shorthand "xpen" or "xpn".

Nobody seems to complain when we use abbreviations for other common words like:

Atty. = attorney
CPA = certified public accountant
Co. = company
Dr. = doctor
Inc. = incorporated
Ltd. = limited
MD = physician

Why do "xians" regard it a slur if they're confirmed in their faith? Why don't they call themselves "Jesusites?" That would be a more accurate name than the one Paul came up with. The RCC already came up with "Jesuits," what's wrong with that name? I suggest the xians get off their high-horse and realize they're a dying breed. To nit-pick over being referred to as "xians" is ignorant, but then, what else is new?

 

[Jenyar]

Originally posted by Medicine*Woman
Paul was right up there in the same league with Jim Jones and David Koresh, Heaven's Gate, the Raelians, et al. They all got what they deserved.

I'm not even going to address the other lies you are spreading, but this has gone too far.

Are people only "divine" when it suits you? Are they only part of God when you are trying to convince people they were created by a spirit that only found conscience and will after we were created?

I ask you: in whose name are you spreading this hatred? Who are you to judge what people deserved? What do you deserve, and how will your end be any different than theirs?

If your part of the One Spirit makes you spout such bitterness, how are you any different than Paul who, if we must believe you, must have been convinced by the same Spirit? Because there is no doubt that whatever you might think, Paul believed in the same God and Creator, by whom he preached nothing but love and tolerance.

 

[Medicine*Woman]

Originally posted by Nehushta
I vote for the idea that Paul made the whole thing up (or maybe Luke, since he is supposedly the author of Acts), expecially since he couldn't even keep his story straight regarding what his companions saw or heard:

Acts 9:7 And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man.

Acts 22:9 And they that were with me saw indeed the light, and were afraid; but they heard not the voice of him that spake to me.

Oops. So much for biblical inerrancy, huh?

True. I read somewhere that Paul commissioned Luke to write Acts for him. I'd always thought (was taught) that Paul wrote Acts. Have you heard this?

 

[Medicine*Woman]

Originally posted by Jenyar
I'm not even going to address the other lies you are spreading, but this has gone too far.
----------
M*W: Jenyar, when you disagree with something, you call them lies. Who are YOU to judge?
----------
Are people only "divine" when it suits you? Are they only part of God when you are trying to convince people they were created by a spirit that only found conscience and will after we were created?
----------
M*W: The human race is divine. Quit trying to change what I've said. The entire human race is the vessel for the One Spirit of God--to some degree or another. Not everyone is equal in body or spirit. We are not robots.
----------
I ask you: in whose name are you spreading this hatred? Who are you to judge what people deserved? What do you deserve, and how will your end be any different than theirs?
----------
M*W: Hatred is not what I'm "spreading." My message is about the One Spirit of God which appears on the face of the Earth dwelling within the human race. Just because you have been brainwashed to believe in some fairy tale demi-god who died for you, that doesn't make your message correct or my message incorrect. Xianity is the dying religion. Xians reject my message because it would defy their fairy tale hero. Too bad. I may have opinions about xianity, but the One Spirit of God that dwells within us will do the judging through the intellect of the human race. Don't you see that's what's happening now to xianity--it's in its final days of judgment BY THE HUMAN RACE where the One Spirit of God dwells. My growth and demise will be up to my Creator which dwells within me.
----------
If your part of the One Spirit makes you spout such bitterness, how are you any different than Paul who, if we must believe you, must have been convinced by the same Spirit?
----------
M*W: I cannot blame my verbal accusations on anyone/anything other than my own intellect. I know it isn't the right thing to do nor the right way to do it, but I'm still human, and I'm impatient when it comes to ignorance. I guess I'm not any different than Paul when he was persecuting xians, but I haven't physically persecuted anyone like he did. Verbal, yes--physical, no. I'm not a violent person. Believe it or not, I'm kinda passive and have a soft heart. Verbalizing my disgust of xianity on the net is an easy way to do it. No repercussions, etc. You all can hate my guts and I wouldn't care at all. I want my position known, and I'm definitely not afraid to tell it. And, yes, the spirit is one and the same. Why would we as humans share different gods? This could be a very dangerous thing.
----------
Because there is no doubt that whatever you might think, Paul believed in the same God and Creator, by whom he preached nothing but love and tolerance.
----------
M*W: No, love and tolerance was NOT what Paul preached. The only god Paul loved was himself, and he was not a tolerant man. He was a notorious self-serving liar. Paul's name should not even be associated with Jesus (if he existed). Paul never knew Jesus. If Jesus had ever had the opportunity to meet Paul, I think Jesus would have called him "Satan." There's no doubt in my mind that Jesus would have despised Paul.

 

[jcarl]

Sorry this has taken so long, but it's been a busy week

Originally posted by Medicine*Woman

----------
M*W: Paul NEVER met or knew Jesus. There were NO xians before Paul.[/B]

Then how do you explain the fact that he persecuted them? Are you saying that he created it, then switched, then came back to teaching it? That makes no sense whatsoever.

Paul made up the word "Christians." If Jesus lived, his followers, if he had any at the time, were NOT called "Christians." They were simply Jews following their Rabbi. Paul created the MYTH of Jesus, so the FOLLOWERS OF PAUL believed him (Paul) and Paul called them "Christians."

I believe that the term Christian was used in Antioch and it is widely accepted that it was used as a derogatory remark.

You have to remember that the Jews of Jesus' day were NOT the Jews of Paul's day, so they did NOT hear or see both sides of the coin. They didn't know Jesus or what he taught first-hand (maybe no one did!), and they didn't know Paul.

The time between the two isn't very long.

M*W: Paul had a problem controlling his mouth. He was a zealot, a fanatic. Paul persecuted others. Paul has been known as a liar since his own time. He conveniently changed his name from Saul of Tarsus to the more Latinized name of "Paul" to appeal to the Gentiles and Romans. Paul claimed to be a Pharisee but acted more like a Sadducee. Paul also claimed to be a lawyer as well as a Rabbi. Paul was not a poor man. His claiming to be a "tentmaker" may or may not have been true. He changed his name and occupations at will for whatever he could get out of it. Reference: The Mythmaker: Paul and the Invention of Christianity," by Hyam Maccoby.

This still doesn't explain why he would die for what he knew to be false.


[QuoteM*W: No. Christianity was invented by Paul. However, the name was adopted by the church fathers in 325 AD, and it was officially called Christianity at that time.

Yet he still persecuted these Christians. Amazing.

M*W: James, the brother of Jesus, and his family and followers hated Paul passionately. They believed that Paul was not teaching what Jesus had taught. Also, he apparently used the funds from the Jerusalem church to acquire Roman citizenship.

Really? It's funny that James hated Paul that much, yet forgot to put anything against Paul in his letter.

Needless to say, they weren't very happy about his thievery. He was tied up and about to be flogged, but he managed to talk his way out of it to the Roman centurion by claiming to be a Roman citizen. They let him go.

The actual story is that he was about to be killed for (Acts 21: 28)"who teaches all men everywhere against the people, the law, and this place...furthermore, he also brought Greeks into the temple and has defiled this holy place"
Nothing about stealing there.

M*W: Paul was responsible for the stoning of Stephen. Stephen was a follower of Jesus, himself. Paul was jealous and killed him because he wanted Stephen to follow him and not Jesus.

That was while he was still Saul and before his conversion.

There are incidences in this book where Paul claimed to be the messiah also.

Where?

M*W: Jesus existed before Paul. I never said that Paul made up the whole identity of Jesus, but Paul created the MYTH of Jesus the Savior. One cult is equally as bad as another. Paul was the Jim Jones and David Koresh of his day. To truly follow Jesus, one would need to reject all teachings by Paul which means most of the NT. Until all Christians reject Paul and his teachings, there is NO WAY to really know or understand Jesus.

If you reject one part of the Bible, then reject all of it.


Now onto Nehushta

Of course they knew it, but how could they prove it?
Also, I'd like to point out that Paul was very careful not to mention any of the "facts" surrounding Jesus' earthly life. You don't get any of the gospel details in Paul's writings about Jesus, such as his birth, his family, his miracles, his trial and crucifixion. That seems kind of odd, expecially since Paul's writings were the earliest records we seem to have of Jesus. Why would that be, do you suppose?

The Gospels tell all that is needed to know about Jesus and his life. It was told, from four perspectives and to four audiences, four times. I think thats enough. Paul didn't need to go into Christ's biography.

Do the actions of the "Saul" personality count?

Not for these purposes. What Paul did when he was Saul was prior to his conversion and thus are not relevant.

And even if he never killed anyone, would this somehow automatically disqualify him as a cult leader?

It just shows that that making him the equivalent of Jim Jones, etc. is a fatally flawed; but if you want to dismiss Paul as a cult leader, I/no one can convince you otherwise.

Just because Paul had somewhat of an existing foundation for the main character of his story doesn't mean he didn't make up the tale about meeting the risen Christ on the road to Damascus, along with everything that followed.

So you're saying that Jesus did actually exist. Thats a good thing. But then the people Paul preached to would have known that the Jesus Paul talked about was nothing more than a normal person.

Acts 9:7 And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man.

Acts 22:9 And they that were with me saw indeed the light, and were afraid; but they heard not the voice of him that spake to me.

Oops. So much for biblical inerrancy, huh?

This contradiction is strictly surface. Take the two together. The men heard the "voice" but did NOT Hear the actual words that were spoken.

I also want to point out that the Gnostics didn't believe in a Christ who had ever inhabited a physical body in the earthly realm. To them, he was a spiritual being who dwelled strictly in the heavenly realm. Paul's Christ was nothing more than a fallen god, and unfortunately this inferior Christ is the one that has been inherited by the Christians of today.

 

[Jenyar]

Originally posted by Medicine*Woman
No, love and tolerance was NOT what Paul preached. The only god Paul loved was himself, and he was not a tolerant man. He was a notorious self-serving liar. Paul's name should not even be associated with Jesus (if he existed). Paul never knew Jesus. If Jesus had ever had the opportunity to meet Paul, I think Jesus would have called him "Satan." There's no doubt in my mind that Jesus would have despised Paul.

But you teach the only god someone should love is himself :bugeye:

I think you've spent too much time among anti-Paul propaganda. If you're ever interested in the Paul of the Bible, have a look at this website:How "non-Jesus" was Paul, really?

 

[Nehushta]

Originally posted by jcarl
Now onto Nehushta

The Gospels tell all that is needed to know about Jesus and his life. It was told, from four perspectives and to four audiences, four times. I think thats enough. Paul didn't need to go into Christ's biography.

Apparently you missed my point about Paul's writings being older than the gospels. That being the case, as most scholars seem to agree, why didn't Paul include any details about Jesus' biography?

So you're saying that Jesus did actually exist. Thats a good thing. But then the people Paul preached to would have known that the Jesus Paul talked about was nothing more than a normal person.

No, I never said that Jesus existed. I said that Paul had somewhat of a foundation for the main character of his story (i.e., the mythical savior godman who was basically nothing more than an amalgamation of the many mythical savior godmen that came before him), which he used to build on when he told his tale of meeting the "risen Christ" on the road to Damascus. No portion of my statement was intended to lend support to the idea that Jesus existed.

This contradiction is strictly surface. Take the two together. The men heard the "voice" but did NOT Hear the actual words that were spoken.

Take another look:

Acts 9:7 And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man.

Acts 22:9 And they that were with me saw indeed the light, and were afraid; but they heard not the voice of him that spake to me.

The two statements flatly contradict one another.

 

[okinrus]

Not really Nehushta. It is possible that some of the men heard the voice and others only saw the light. I'm not sure how often this happens in miracles but this occured similary at Fatima. But the interpretation that I believe correct here is
http://www.carm.org/diff/Acts9_7.htm

 

[Nehushta]

Originally posted by okinrus
Not really Nehushta. It is possible that some of the men heard the voice and others only saw the light. I'm not sure how often this happens in miracles but this occured similary at Fatima. But the interpretation that I believe correct here is
http://www.carm.org/diff/Acts9_7.htm

This is a stretch - the same exact word was used in both instances (akouo), and both passages refer to hearing (or not hearing) a voice (phone), which implies sound.

 

[Medicine*Woman]

Originally posted by Jenyar
But you teach the only god someone should love is himself :bugeye:
----------
M*W: Jenyar, PLEASE! Quit putting words in my mouth! That's equivalent to lying and manipulation. I realize you simply don't understand what I post, because your mind is CLOSED to everything outside your brainwashing. Since you have no concept of the "kingdom of God being within," you contradict Jesus, not me. That's blasphemy. Since you are not, and will never be, on the same level spiritually with those of us who have found the truth, please don't read my posts or comment on them. You do not have the intellectual capacity to understand anything that hs not been programmed into your brain by your controlling powers, so you are in absolutely NO position to comment. Just focus on your religion. That is all you know, and as such, you are not an authority on the Spirit of God. You are doing an injustice to the members of this website, and I will remind you once again, this ISN'T A XIAN WEBSITE but one who accepts alternate concepts of religious/spiritual thought. Your constantly rephrasing and rewording my posts is bullshit. You're only confusing the xians who might even be inspired by the One Spirit of God, but the more spiritually inclined members can see right through your bastardization of my posts. This is a scientifically inspired religion website not a xian one. We all know what xianity promotes, and it doesn't belong here. Go find yourself a xian website and have a field day with all those of closed minds. The religion forum is for those of us whose minds are free and clear of religious programming.
----------
I think you've spent too much time among anti-Paul propaganda. If you're ever interested in the Paul of the Bible, have a look at this website:How "non-Jesus" was Paul, really?
----------
M*W: Who are you to tell me I've "spent too much time among anti-Paul propaganda."? You worship Paul like he's your savior, and that's exactly what he had hoped for! You are a Paulinian rather than an xian. In fact, all of the xian population are Paulinians and not xians. You follow what Paul said and not what Jesus said. If you were a follower of Jesus, you'd be more spiritually evolved and a lot less brainwashed. You're spiritually dead. You're such a liar, you must really enjoy living in the state of hell.

 

[Medicine*Woman]

Originally posted by Nehushta
Apparently you missed my point about Paul's writings being older than the gospels. That being the case, as most scholars seem to agree, why didn't Paul include any details about Jesus' biography?

No, I never said that Jesus existed. I said that Paul had somewhat of a foundation for the main character of his story (i.e., the mythical savior godman who was basically nothing more than an amalgamation of the many mythical savior godmen that came before him), which he used to build on when he told his tale of meeting the "risen Christ" on the road to Damascus. No portion of my statement was intended to lend support to the idea that Jesus existed.

Take another look:

Acts 9:7 And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man.

Acts 22:9 And they that were with me saw indeed the light, and were afraid; but they heard not the voice of him that spake to me.

The two statements flatly contradict one another.
----------
M*W: Nehush, Jenyar's putting words in your mouth, too! He's trying to turn what we say around to further confuse the xians. Its pathetic that he can't just believe what he's been brainwashed to believe but has a compulsion to distort that which we believe. He needs to get a life.

 

[Medicine*Woman]

Originally posted by Nehushta
This is a stretch - the same exact word was used in both instances (akouo), and both passages refer to hearing (or not hearing) a voice (phone), which implies sound.
----------
M*W: Words by Paul. It makes no difference what he says the other men saw or heard. He wrote them in to justify his delusion.