Paul's Beliefs

[Drich]

So now you're all about what you characterize as "common sense"...what happened to scripture?

The two are not mutially exclusive terms. We are using scripture to establish common sense and a logical reason for the works of Paul.

Why would Paul need to evangelize to established believers, what a wonderful question. Why would he need to, why would they have the questions they apparently had in the frst place -what with being established believers (whatever the hell that means in the first place).

It means nothing other than one has excepted the attonement offered by Christ. It says nothing as to how said believer is to live their life.

More importantly, why does he seem to be incapable of reminding them of the narratives which you assume they (and he) would have already been aware of?

What are you talking about? He is constantly reminding these people of the gospel and of their faith. What the OP is arguing is not that Paul Never references the Gospel (Or I would shut this arguement down quickly with serveral references to the Gospel Paul makes.) The OP is saying Paul does not reference the very specific aspects of the gospel he has brought to lite. (Mary's name, the deatils of the resurrection, Pilate's name, Judas' betrayal etc..)

If you contend that Paul never references the Gospel read the opening chapters of galatians, The Book of Romans are littered with several references to the gospel and the sacerfice of Christ, The resurection, and the attonement of the sacerfice is well established for the forgiveness of sins.

[The Grand Nudger]

The two are not mutially exclusive terms. We are using scripture to establish common sense and a logical reason for the works of Paul.

Think we've just figured out exactly why you're having trouble.

It means nothing other than one has excepted the attonement offered by Christ. It says nothing as to how said believer is to live their life.

Do you need me to repeat this question for you, because if you answered a question, or made a remark that addressed anything someone said with this response, it wasn't any question or comment of mine.

What are you talking about? He is constantly reminding these people of the gospel and of their faith. What the OP is arguing is not that Paul Never references the Gospel (Or I would shut this arguement down quickly with serveral references to the Gospel Paul makes.) The OP is saying Paul does not reference the very specific aspects of the gospel he has brought to lite. (Mary's name, the deatils of the resurrection, Pilate's name, Judas' betrayal etc..)

Yes, constantly reminding people of the gospel, except those parts he seems to be completely unawares of, which is precisely the point.

If you contend that Paul never references the Gospel read the opening chapters of galatians, The Book of Romans are littered with several references to the gospel and the sacerfice of Christ, The resurection, and the attonement of the sacerfice is well established for the forgiveness of sins.

What a wonderful pattern, Paul invents himself a christ, you invent a conversation.

[Minimalist]

Do you have any biblical examples of Parables being used outside of the one Christ used in the bible?

I do not doubt the effectivness of parables, I simply pointed out a fact.

"Jack and the Beanstalk." a parable is simply: The word "parable" comes from the Greek παραβολή (parabolē), meaning "comparison, illustration, analogy".[4] It was the name given by Greek rhetoricians to any fictive illustration in the form of a brief narrative. Later it came to mean a fictitious narrative, generally referring to something that might naturally occur, by which spiritual and moral matters might be conveyed

Note the fictitious part and apply it to your godboy.

[FallentoReason]

Us too you have saved by shedding blood which grants eternity.

Drich, this is an inscription commonly found at sites where there is a depiction of Mithras slaying the bull. Accompanying the inscription is a scene with a raven on Mithras' shoulder, a serpent accompanied by a cup underneath the bull, a dog lapping at the fatal wound of the bull and a scorpion attached to the bull's genitals. This act by Mithras which could very well be seen as something plausible in reality (the slaying of a bull) is clearly a map of the heavens; the bull representing Taurus, Canis Minor the dog, Hydra the serpent, Crater the cup, Corvus the raven and Scorpio the scorpion. Clearly, the belief in what Mithras accomplished wasn't related to the realm we live in. Before you ask, I got this information from a book I read at university today entitled Hellenistic Religions.

When Paul confesses that 'the gospel preached by me is not man's, for I did not receive it from any man but through revelation of Jesus Christ' (paraphrasing Galatians 1:11,12) I have no choice but to dismiss the claim that the Gospel(s) was/were in circulation and that believers knew the stories already. The 'events' Paul speak of are no different to the slaying of the bull, which happened somewhere in the cosmos or 'heavens' but most certainly not on planet Earth and this is made evident by the apostle's ignorance of Jesus' life.

[Drich]

[quote='FallentoReason' pid='317350' dateline='1343715691']
Us too you have saved by shedding blood which grants eternity.

[quote]Drich, this is an inscription commonly found at sites where there is a depiction of Mithras slaying the bull.[/quote]Sheding of blood means nothing in of itself. So much so Paul speaks to the meaningless sheding of blood offered to anyone.

[quote] Accompanying the inscription is a scene with a raven on Mithras' shoulder, a serpent accompanied by a cup underneath the bull, a dog lapping at the fatal wound of the bull and a scorpion attached to the bull's genitals. This act by Mithras which could very well be seen as something plausible in reality (the slaying of a bull) is clearly a map of the heavens; the bull representing Taurus, Canis Minor the dog, Hydra the serpent, Crater the cup, Corvus the raven and Scorpio the scorpion. Clearly, the belief in what Mithras accomplished wasn't related to the realm we live in. Before you ask, I got this information from a book I read at university today entitled Hellenistic Religions. [/quote]
I guess you've run out of topical points to argue...

[quote]When Paul confesses that 'the gospel preached by me is not man's, for I did not receive it from any man but through revelation of Jesus Christ' (paraphrasing Galatians 1:11,12) I have no choice but to dismiss the claim that the Gospel(s) was/were in circulation and that believers knew the stories already.[/quote]What a bs arguement. You have spent 6 pages denying the fact paul even preached the gospel now when you see the futility of your hopless effort, you change gears and say the gospel paul preached was not up to the standard recorded by gospel writers. Pick a direction.

[quote]The 'events' Paul speak of are no different to the slaying of the bull, which happened somewhere in the cosmos or 'heavens' but most certainly not on planet Earth and this is made evident by the apostle's ignorance of Jesus' life.[/quote]
Then please properly critque Paul's 'gospel' line by line and show us where he falters from the Gospel account... Oh, wait but that's going to be a proplem. Paul (In the NT accounts) is not a gospel teacher/evangelist and the Gospel He taught was never recorded, He only points back to the works recorded in the book of Acts.

The fact you are jumping from one arguement to another says your efforts here are circling the bowl, and have been flushed. These are the last scraps of a desperate intelect trying to save an arguement by revisiting what has already been dismissed.

Again if you want to believe this, it is a simple matter of faith that you do. Paul has been established as a Elder/shepard in the church and his role as recorded by the New testament is one of Maintaining the flock or helping established believers, by maintaining their faith, and addressing spiritual issues they had. His role has been echoed throught the History of the church even to this very day. In that when a believer has an issue with their lives like with a maritial problem we do not turn to the nativity story and rehash the birth , ministry, persecution, death burrial and resurection of Christ... what foolishness is that to review something accepted when one's marriage is on the rocks? That is why Paul in 1cor7 addressed the issues the corthinians had with marriage rather than reestablish the name of Christ's mother.

Remember believers do not need to hear or see the gospel everyday of their lives. There is life beyond the first four books of the NT. for that matter Peter's and John's works in the New Testament also mirror the works of Paul as they do not rehash the Gospel message in their efforts outside of the Gospel. In this aspect their post gospel works, Their efforts are as paul's. to maintain established believers and not meant to 'convert' anyone.

You said you spent time in church. How could you have spent 3 months in a church and not seen this for yourself? Once you have been established as a believer the emphasis on the gospel stops and then it turns to your spiritual life/walk with God.

[FallentoReason]

What a bs arguement. You have spent 6 pages denying the fact paul even preached the gospel now when you see the futility of your hopless effort, you change gears and say the gospel paul preached was not up to the standard recorded by gospel writers. Pick a direction.

You've blurred the line between 'Gospel' (canonicals) and 'gospel' i.e. good news. My argument is that Paul did not know of any of the Gospel stories but clearly he preached his own gospel revealed to him through the OT and spirit.

I'm not going to respond to the rest because I get the vibe I'm crossing lines that I shouldn't be. Something tells me it's morally wrong to bring someone's belief down. I'm not saying that's what's happening but I can just sense you're getting a little worked up. Sorry about that.

---

P.s. I forgot what constellation it was, but you can actually 'witness' the crucifixion whenever you want, along with the two 'thieves' on either side of the constellation. I'll have to look this up again.

[Undeceived]

You've blurred the line between 'Gospel' (canonicals) and 'gospel' i.e. good news. My argument is that Paul did not know of any of the Gospel stories but clearly he preached his own gospel revealed to him through the OT and spirit.

Which parts of Paul's "gospel" were taken from the OT? Be specific.

[FallentoReason]

You've blurred the line between 'Gospel' (canonicals) and 'gospel' i.e. good news. My argument is that Paul did not know of any of the Gospel stories but clearly he preached his own gospel revealed to him through the OT and spirit.

Which parts of Paul's "gospel" were taken from the OT? Be specific.

Like Jesus being from the lineage of King David comes from Isaiah 9:7. Paul quite often brings up the prophets like in Romans 1:2.

[Undeceived]

Which parts of Paul's "gospel" were taken from the OT? Be specific.

Like Jesus being from the lineage of King David comes from Isaiah 9:7. Paul quite often brings up the prophets like in Romans 1:2.

What about borrowed theories or ideas? Ideologies? There's nothing in Romans 1:2 that suggests causality--Paul is simply pointing out that Jesus Christ was a descendant of David, as the Messiah was predicted to be (this is a standard persuasive technique). As far as theories or way of thinking, I see Paul's writings as a complement to the Old Testament, not more of the same. It has been the longstanding claim of atheists on this forum that the two testaments aren't linked at all, and that Paul created an entirely new religion. So which is it? If you say Paul references the OT to prove his new-age NT ideals, I and every Christian agrees with you. A better study would be checking how much of the Epistles have their root in the teachings of Jesus--I think you'd be more successful there.

[The Grand Nudger]

More "A or B" bullshit. Is Asatru actually norse paganism or is it it's own religion, invented by it's adherents, "A or B"?