Paul's Beliefs

[Drich]

Drich, read my words carefully: Paul did NOT know your version of Jesus. No miracles, parables, life events, prophecies or teachings to be found in the epistles about Jesus.

Paul.did.NOT.know.of.an.EARTHLY.Jesus.

P.r.o.v.e. I.T.

Show me what makes you think this, If it is the one passage in Eph. Then know I have 100 other passages that point to the contary.

So again if you say Paul did not know Christ to be a physical being then Prove your assertion.

Just saying so and have faith that he did not know Christ to be a physical being, does not invalidate what has been written.

Until you acknowledge my argument, all your personal speculations about me being a great 'faith atheist' are absurd and totally ignorant. There is NO REASON to believe Paul spoke of your godman as taking part of history because HE DOES NOT MENTION ANY OF IT.

Until you meet me halfway, consider our discussion over.

The reason this conversation is over is the same reason I can not or rather will not acknoweledge your statement of faith. I will not give any crediablity to the baseless red herring you have been trying to sell. I am not here to chase my tail nor help you to catch your own. If you want to discuss How it is Paul acknowledges Christ then we can start discussing with the 100 passages he Himself left acknoweledging Christ. Otherwise know an arguement based on "I said so" is not something i am willing to discuss.

[Justtristo]

Yes I know those verses in the Epistles like Galatians 4:4

(Galatians 4:4 ESV)

Born of woman? If there have been a historical Jesus which in the time this epistle was asserted as being written (50's AD), there would have been people still alive who would have personally know this Jesus. So making such a statement like this would be unnecessary.

So is it in your Best estimation that the majority of those people who knew of Christ lived in Galatia (Northern turkey 6400+ miles) from jerusalem??? And that paul did have to state that God was born of woman as a living and breathing man because they would have known... 64/65 hundred miles away in a time when people had no way of knowing these kind of things unless someone like Paul Told Them...

Because, there was a mass exodus of believer and witnesses of Christ to Galatia...

Actually the distance between Northern Turkey and what is now Israel was some 800 miles, which your estimate is off by a factor of 8. Also in the Roman Empire (which Galatia was a part of) there was a very good transport network, which allowed a degree of mobility unparalleled until the age of steam ships.

[FallentoReason]

So again if you say Paul did not know Christ to be a physical being then Prove your assertion.

MISSING IN ACTION IN PAUL'S 7 AUTHENTIC EPISTLES:

Miracles
Parables
Birth, Mary and Joseph
The Lord's Prayer
The Transfiguration
The Sermon on the Mount
Sea of Galilee
Temple visit, Nazareth
Pontius Pilate
Judas Iscariot’s betrayal
Gethsemane
Son of Man


PLEASE EXPLAIN

If you feel like Paul not mentioning a thing about your Jesus when the time called for it is a red herring, then so be it. Have faith that the silence is justified somehow (which you STILL have NOT addressed). Pointing to the crucifixion is absolutely meaningless when Jesus literally did 101 other things like prophecies that 'came to pass', which Paul is so ignorant of.

'Jesus was born of a woman'.... great Paul, but why do you fail to mention it was a freaking VIRGIN BIRTH FROM MARY?
'I'm unsure of how to pray'.... Paul wake up and smell the roses.. SERMON ON THE MOUNT?
'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???????

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. So be it, I honestly don't care anymore. I seriously appreciate you ultimately wanting to help me understand but all you've done thus far is have your fingers in your ears and yell CRUCIFIXION CRUCIFIXION FREAAAAKING CRUCIFIXION. I'm sorry for lashing out like this, but the frustration is too much to take with you.

[Drich]

So is it in your Best estimation that the majority of those people who knew of Christ lived in Galatia (Northern turkey 6400+ miles) from jerusalem??? And that paul did have to state that God was born of woman as a living and breathing man because they would have known... 64/65 hundred miles away in a time when people had no way of knowing these kind of things unless someone like Paul Told Them...

Because, there was a mass exodus of believer and witnesses of Christ to Galatia...

Actually the distance between Northern Turkey and what is now Israel was some 800 miles, which your estimate is off by a factor of 8. Also in the Roman Empire (which Galatia was a part of) there was a very good transport network, which allowed a degree of mobility unparalleled until the age of steam ships.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_far_is_Gal..._Jerusalem

Plus you are missing the point. You asserted that there was no reason for Paul to state the 'God was indeed born of Woman.' I countered with the plain fact that 2000 years ago unless a missionary like Paul came into the region and told these people all about Christ their would have been no other way for them to have known these facts.
That is unless you have some evidence to support your claim, like a mass exodus of Christian/Jews or even any other missionary work in that area before Paul established the first church their.

what you are alluding to is the ablity for people to spread rummor. To which all the more reason for a letter like the one we are talking about to clear up all of the foolish whisperings. Which is probably exactly the reason Paul opens the letter like he does.

[Minimalist]

http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/galatians.html

The peninsula of Asia Minor came under Roman rule over a period of two hundred years. By the mid-1st century BC all of the coastal regions had been made Roman provinces.

After the defeat of Antony, Augustus absorbed into the empire the kingdom of the Galatians and extended his protectorate over Cappadocia. Development of the new province began with Augustus although the extensive construction of graded roads in the interior occurred between 80 - 122 AD.

[FallentoReason]

I, Paul, a servant of the newly formed niche market of saviour gods, offer you my personal revelation of Christ Jesus through the OT scriptures and the spirit.

Mark: hmm.. I like this guy's sales pitch. Maybe I can strike up a deal with him for my novel idea? *rings Paul*: Hi, is this Paul the revelation salesman? Yeah, I was just wondering if your saviour could star in my new novel? I want to illustrate how the OT explains the punishment in Jerusalem by YHWH and I thought using Jesus as a vehicle for this would be fantastic. All your customers would be the target audience by the way, so you can have a big cut on sales. Aha.. yep.. aha.. no I understand--spiritu--aha.. yep.. yeah spiritual realm, I know, but you see I'll be referencing the OT, I'm not making it seem like actual history.. aha.. yep.. you're fine with that? Great, I appreciate that Paul! *hangs up*.

Horus: yo, Heracles have you read this new novel??
Heracles: I know right.. our identities have been stolen!
Horus & Heracles: DAD!!!
Osiris: ...and then she took my genit--excuse me Zeus. Yes Son?
Horus: have you seen all the fame we've missed out on?
Heracles: yeah, my twelve awesome works are supposedly dudes now!
Zeus: I know Son. I just finished reading that novel. THEY STOLE OUR THUNDER.

And with that, I end my interest in the ignorant teachings of Christianity, who warped the understanding of their roots to suit their needs.

My discussion style has been compromised as I have lost my cool, which means I've indefinitely been rendered useless to have a constructive discussion. Drich, still feel free to respond to my last post though. I want to see how you dodge the bullets again. I haven't seen the Matrix but I'm convinced your bullet-dodging abilities surpass that of the Matrix, so I don't think I'm missing out at all.

[Drich]

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

Parables

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

Birth, Mary and Joseph

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.

The Lord's Prayer

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

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.)

The Sermon on the Mount

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.

Sea of Galilee

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???

Temple visit, Nazareth

What about the temple visit?

Pontius Pilate

What about pilate? do you doubt his existance?

Judas Iscariot’s betrayal

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.

Gethsemane

what of it?

Son of Man

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

Perhaps because Paul did not use all of them in his letters this too can also mean that he did not see christ as being a real flesh and blood person.

PLEASE EXPLAIN

[Undeceived]

Romans 1:1-4
Paul, a servant of Christ Jesus, called to be an apostle and set apart for the gospel of God — the gospel he promised beforehand through his prophets in the Holy Scriptures regarding his Son, who as to his earthly life was a descendant of David, and who through the Spirit of holiness was appointed the Son of God in power by his resurrection from the dead: Jesus Christ our Lord.

Notice how this is an OT interpretation? Why didn't he mention Jesus of Nazareth, born of the Virgin Mary?

What you have brought up is no different to Mark basing his work on the OT. Paul is no different. His entire revelation of who Christ is comes from 'prophets' i.e. the OT and the spirit. Not once does he refer to Jesus from Nazareth, born of a Virgin who had 12 close Apostles, who travelled the land performing miracles and preaching through parables. Why doesn't Paul ever refer back to such important 'facts'?

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

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.

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

[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?

[Drich]

Let's address your 'interpertation' of Romans 8:26 first, because it has nothing to do with, Paul not knowing how to pray (as several of your post depend on this statement.)

26 Likewise the Spirit also helps in our weaknesses. For we do not know what we should pray for as we ought, but the Spirit Himself makes intercession for us[b] with groanings which cannot be uttered. 27 Now He who searches the hearts knows what the mind of the Spirit is, because He makes intercession for the saints according to the will of God.

28 And we know that all things work together for good to those who love God, to those who are the called according to His purpose. 29 For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the firstborn among many brethren. 30 Moreover whom He predestined, these He also called; whom He called, these He also justified; and whom He justified, these He also glorified.


Paul is teaching if one does not know what to ask for in prayer, the Holy Spirit intercedes. In otherwords He is teaching that prayer is not to be a repetitious chant. (which is also taught be Christ, for the Lord's prayer is not to be a vain excersize in repetition)

The rest of your post tells me you simply do not understand the difference between what an evangelist does in/for the Church, and what someone like Paul (an elder) would do for the church. You seem stuck on the fact that all the church should do is preach the gospel and not engaged in life beyond the life and events surrounding Christ's life. That Christianity has no place in the practical lives of it's established believers beyond establishing and reinforcing the Gospel message, over and over and over again despite how or what it's members struggle with.

That is why I left the passage from Hebrews about milk/meat. When we are young in the faith we need the milk of the word. This amounts to the gospel message, but inorder to grow in our faith we need more than to hear about the life and times of Jesus over and over again. Like 1 cor 7 is about how a Christian should view marriage. Why? Because outside of what Christ said about divorce there is nothing else to go on. The Book of Romans speaks in detail of the nature of Christ sacrifice bought us. Why? Because evidently even though the brothers in Rome have heard the gospel or milk of the word over and over again they were still defaulting to a works based form of righteousness. In short they thought we were to earn Merritt our way to heaven by doing good deeds. Something Christ touched on but did not go into the detail the romes specifically needed to separate their deed from the Grace given by Christ... And on and on to each of the title regions Paul was attributed to writing to.

Paul's role in the Church was not one of an evangelist. (One who spends his time converting new believers) His role was that of an elder. (Meeting the needs of the established Church by taking the message and philosophies that the word and works of Christ affords and applying them to everyday life.) As such the milk or the stuff the noobs need for faith and belief, (all the stuff you are clamoring about) is intentionally set aside inorder to spiritually nourish established believers with spot on spiritual direction and advise.