Paul's Beliefs

[FallentoReason]

[align=center]MISSING IN ACTION IN PAUL'S 7 AUTHENTIC EPISTLES:

Miracles

Paul's conversion was a mirical in of itself. Do you know of this account in Acts? Have you read 1 Corthians 12? This is where Paul list the Gifts of the Holy Spirit and yes among them is the gift of Healing and 'miricals.'
Paul's actual Healing Miricals are recorded in:
Acts 14:8-10
Acts 20:9
Acts 28:3

Paul saw a 'bright light' and heard a voice. Convincing.

Sure, he lists those things but doesn't draw the parallel that this is what Jesus did.

FAIL

No one has been recorded to have taught in parables except Christ himself.

Which Paul never talks about.

FAIL

Not true in this very same thread i am having a discussion about this very point. for Paul in Galatians 4:4 Speaks of Christ' physical birth firmly planting Him as apart of this realm this world.

And Paul manages to forget about some important prophecies like a virgin birth in Bethlehem.

FAIL

Maybe that is why they call it "THE LORDS Prayer."

Huh?? Paul in Romans 8:26 confesses he doesn't know what to pray for. What does it matter if it's "the lord's" prayer?

Sorry, but FAIL

The Transfiguration

Paul was not in a position to teach what he did not witness, although Upon His own conversion Christ approached Him as a 'Transfigured being."
As recorded by Luke's word in the book of Acts and by Paul's own hand in 1 Cor 15:7&8
(Which if you note was after the time of the reserection/transfiguration.) [/quote]

Looks like I'll have to dedicate some time with you discussing Acts. It can be shown that it's a fabrication and the events never took place. This is a discussion for another time though and for now I'll accept that you say I'm claiming something without proof.

What are you talking about? the Whole Book of Romans hinges on what was said in Mat 5. Without Christ's sermon on the mount The whole book of romans would be Hersey.

Romans 8:26. I cringe at how ignorant he was of the Sermon on the Mount.

FAIL

What of it? Because Paul did not write of the sea of Galilee it ceases to exist? Or perhaps your say Christ does some how???

Jesus walked around it, sailed through it and what not. I agree it's a more trivial point, but another one that Paul had no idea about somehow.

Jesus' geographical whereabouts: yep, FAIL

What about the temple visit?

Something also not mentioned. I guess this one can be discarded. The list is shocking enough as it is.

What about pilate? do you doubt his existance?

Paul is obsessed with the crucifixion but doesn't give details on who, where or why. When I say why, I don't mean theologically but rather historically i.e. Jesus was a 'rebel' who got what he deserved.

FAIL x3

Paul wasn't betrayed by Judas personally and perhaps did not see the need to 'hate' him as the others did. That is not to say Paul did not recognize his absents nor his own role in filling Judas' spot on the roster of the 12.

Strawman. Paul doesn't mention Judas betraying Jesus.

FAIL

Gethsemane

what of it?

Clueless about Jesus' travels.

FAIL

This is just one title/name of Christ Here are 200 more:
http://lds.about.com/od/jesuschrist/a/na..._Jesus.htm

Ok, fair enough!

PASS!
[/color]

Heb5:
12 For though by this time you ought to be teachers, you need someone to teach you again the first principles of the oracles of God; and you have come to need milk and not solid food. 13 For everyone who partakes only of milk is unskilled in the word of righteousness, for he is a babe. 14 But solid food belongs to those who are of full age, that is, those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil.

If you think all the history is the 'baby' stuff then that's your choice. Paul failing to bring out the big guns when necessary though is a heavy blow that speaks for itself.

Your statement as you can see is greatly exagerated. It seems either you or whom ever work you have copied has failed to do any reasearch outside of a simply key word search in a King James bible. either that or you/they have simply fail in basic biblical comperhension and can not or will not see beyond what your keyword search has yielded.

You assume I know nothing about the Bible that I learnt on my own? Why? I was a Christian once upon a time you know.

Paul's work with the church is administrative and essential from transioning the works and words of Christ to a method of worship and they help forge a true way for one to express their own faith.

When his source is constantly spiritual revelation and nothing historical though you begin to wonder if he ignored the Gospels on purpose like you've explained here, or if the story you tell is simply what comforts you. All part of having faith though, so I understand.

He interperated and made simple the Works and words of Christ. For people like you. You or the person you have plagerized has simply confused the work of an evangelist (one who sole pourpose is to limit their work to the gospel telling of Christ) with a man who's recorded works were meant to seed and maintain/stablize entire regions/churches.

What's more effective at stabilizing than pointing to the source--Jesus of Nazareth, preaching about his Father and miracle worker infront of hundreds? Instead Paul refers to the OT (as opposed to recent events) and spiritual revelation. Why? You say because everyone already knew these things. Well, wouldn't Paul naturally say off-shoot comments that would relate to what they know? Wouldn't he say in passing that Jesus was born from Mary as opposed to a 'woman'?

who (BTW have already heard the gospel and do not need the work or words of an evangelist) Because they have already believing members, and now have a new set of problems trying to incorperate sin or old religious traditions into this new form of worship. (Something the gospel writters did not have to contend with when recording Christ's ministry, because Christ himself did not have to contend with these adminstrative issues.)

But Paul doesn't engage whatsoever with the current events. Just OT verses and spiritual revelation. Hmmm...

'Jesus was born of a woman'.... great Paul, but why do you fail to mention it was a freaking VIRGIN BIRTH FROM MARY?

BECAUSE EVERYONE WHO WOULD READ HIS LETTERS ALREADY KNEW THIS!!!He wrote to Chruches!! By that word's very defination everyone in the Leadership of a given Chruch Already Knew this. Pauls Works to the Galatians or Romans or WHom Ever were already considered to be Christians. Meaning they were Past the 'Milk' of the word/gospel, and now needed 'MEAT' To Sustain themselves and the Chruch as a whole!

So if the bottom line really is that everyone was already well informed with past events, then I guess I have nothing left to say. You choose to see it that way and I choose to call bullshit on all these suspicious gaps in knowledge by Paul. Each to their own I suppose...

'I'm unsure of how to pray'....

Book Chapter and Verse.

Romans 8:26

As aChild I reasoned and played as a Child. When I grew up I learned to put away childish things. This is another Milk/Meat issue... When I was young in the Faith I needed routine and disipline for I was not able to live in the freedom of Christ without these strict guide lines... But when I grew in the faith I put down the traditional chants of prayer to develope a Personal relationship with God. Which includes a different way of prayer.

Ok, that's something more personal and I have no choice but to respect your ways.

'The mystery of Christ Jesus this, the mystery of Christ Jesus that'.... Paul, for the love of God, how is an earthly Jesus a mystery to you????? Do you not realise what he taught and did???????

Only a fool would profess to know and completely understand an infinate God.

Can I remind you that there were more than just 'Christian mysteries' floating around in those times? I've said this at least 3 times to you by now I'm sure.. let's not kick a dead horse.

I applaud your faith. In the face of REASONS as to why Paul didn't know of any earthly Jesus you still have faith his ignorance is acceptable.

This is the very first attempt you have made to try and even support your empty arguement.. so rest assured 'we' have Not even began to approach my 'simple faith' as of yet. I have plenty of reason and evidence to stand on.

This is the third post where I've pointed out what Paul doesn't mention... on my third attempt you finally decided to meet me halfway. Well done.

Then do not feel the need to answer right away. clam down look at what is being said and then simply address it, accept it, or ignore it and accept your faith in whatever you have told yourself to be true. there is no need for emotion in any of this. It is what it is.

Thanks for that. Today has been rather stressful and this whole religion talk has been getting to me. More and more I feel like it's none of my business what others believe. I'll simply just defend my beliefs when prompted, whether on here or in real life. Either way, I've calmed down and I'll try and keep it civil, because that's the least you deserve from me.

---

Paul calls God's son an earthly man, and a descendant of David, who Mary also was a descendant of.

Paul does say that, but he doesn't make the connection with any Mary, because as I have been saying all along he is oblivious to current events just passed. He simply sticks to, shall we call it, the 'things that are going to be' (OT) as opposed to 'what has come to pass' (Gospels). Maybe it's just me, but I would have liked to see Paul go one step further and say '...and he was born in Bethlehem, like scripture says' or something along those lines that indicates he's familiar with 'what has come to pass' .

If this old testament "Jesus Christ" is not Jesus of Nazareth, who is it? Are you asserting this earthly Jesus Christ is different from the Jesus Christ in the rest of Paul’s writings? Or maybe he places a unique definition on “earthly”?

Personally, the conclusion I come to is that Paul represents the early Christians' beliefs. Sure, he believes in the Messiah of the OT but his teachings don't reflect any of the history. Instead he sticks to OT stuff as if that's the only thing there is in the 'realm of Christianity'.

In making this argument, you are claiming that Paul in Acts is either completely fictional or an entirely different person. Luke writes about an earthly Jesus, and Paul preaches about him. Think about this for a moment. Read Acts again and tell me if you think Luke fabricated every word. If you wish Paul of the Epistles and Paul of Acts to be two separate people, consider all the similarities--preaching style, phrase usage. Paul mentions Jesus in his sermons because his listeners do not know of him or what he did. Paul leaves such information out of his letters because he writes to correct a church problem or encourage the church. At least one gospel is already circulating. There is no need for Paul to rehash Jesus' every deed when he is explaining sin and grace. He speaks of Christ's death and resurrection frequently. His duty is to explain what they mean. He focuses on the spiritual world and wants the reader to know Jesus is God. Paul is right not to recount the life of a man he has never met--leave that for the eyewitnesses. Paul is not a reporter, he is an expositor.

This is the key assumption you make here: at least one Gospel was already circulating. I'm not sure how you know this because Paul doesn't mention it nor does he make it seem like they already knew this stuff. His failure to link his theology to recent events makes me think this.

I think I'll have to get more familiar with Acts. Being a free thinker I'm open to the idea that this book somehow fixes everything but given the problems I already see in the rest of the Bible I'm not so sure how reliable Acts actually is.

And you should explain why Peter gives credit to Paul:
2 Peter 3:15-16 "...just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction."

I don't understand. Why is it important that Peter gives credit to Paul?

I invite you to glance through a concordance: http://www.biblegateway.com/keyword/?sea...spanend=64

Romans was my favourite book when I used to be a Christian. What makes you think it's a crucial book?