Paul reshaping the church

[Aractus]

It is within the realm of possibility that Jesus and Paul were not historical people, just as it's within the realm of possibility that you aren't a historical person either Min. All you ever do here is quote from outliers. They're not even minority views, they're total outliers. I am willing to change my opinion when presented with evidence, you are not. Your views are irrespective of scholarly evidence.

Plus I'm sick to death of you trolling my threads for no good reason. Start your own thread about Paul-Myth Theory, don't bring it up in mine.

[Aractus]

1 Corinthians 10:25-33
25 Eat anything sold in the meat market without raising questions of conscience, 26 for, “The earth is the Lord’s, and everything in it.”

27 If an unbeliever invites you to a meal and you want to go, eat whatever is put before you without raising questions of conscience. 28 But if someone says to you, “This has been offered in sacrifice,” then do not eat it, both for the sake of the one who told you and for the sake of conscience. 29 I am referring to the other person’s conscience, not yours. For why is my freedom being judged by another’s conscience?30 If I take part in the meal with thankfulness, why am I denounced because of something I thank God for?

31 So whether you eat or drink or whatever you do, do it all for the glory of God. 32 Do not cause anyone to stumble, whether Jews, Greeks or the church of God— 33 even as I try to please everyone in every way. For I am not seeking my own good but the good of many, so that they may be saved.

Paul is basicially saying, "Don't be legalistic about the meat that comes from the marketplace...give thanks to God for all that is good. HOWEVER, if you KNOW that the meat has been sacrificed, then do not eat it."

This instruction is in line with the letter from the Council of Jerusalem which read in part:

Acts 15:29
You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality.

Sorry, you're right I misquoted it. But the substance of my argument remains the same. Paul says explicitly in no uncertain terms not to bother abstaining from "meat containing blood", and "strangled meats". Yet he did not have the authority to make this direction to people. In fact no one single early church leader in c.51 AD has that authority, as evidenced from the fact that they held a Council to decide upon it.

We know now that by the second century there were several different flavours of Christianity - not just Orthodox and Gnostic. Paul is one such splintering group, as is clearly evident from the fact that he does not follow the direction of what the Council decision was. I put it to you that unlike some of the other leaders of the time (James, Peter, etc) Paul went into the Council meeting with a clear state of mind about Circumcision and the Law of Moses, and that he left it without it having any effect over him whatsoever. Basically all he wanted from it was to convince the other leaders to do as he was doing.

What Jesus taught and what Paul taught were very different to each other. Jesus defended the Law of Moses to the letter - yet Paul says it's not important.

Paul's Christianity is a complete contradiction to the New Covenant that is prophesied by Jeremiah 31:31-34 (/Hebrews 8:8-12), in which it is made explicit that the New Covenant will be between Jehovah and the Judeans and the Isralites, and no one else, and that it will entirely replace the need for religious institution .

If Paul's branch of Christianity had died out we'd know very little about Paul just as we know precious little about James the Just. If Jame's Christianity had survived instead of Paul's it would today look very different. It'd be much more Jewish. The Gospel of John with its anti-Semitic tones would almost certainly not have survived, perhaps the Gospel of the Hebrews would have survived. Paul's letters would not have survived, in their place we would have Jame's letters.

My point is that in the first century the Church was highly malleable. Paul taught complete contradictions to what Jesus taught, and yet today Christians follow a branch of Christianity that later developed from Pauline Christianity.

[The Atheist]

That was really for the OP.

Like any fictional character, "paul" mouths whatever words the author who created him wants him to say.

Paul is regarded as an historical figure. At least seven epistles attributed to him are considered genuine.

No offense, but your ideas about Paul belong in the same trash can as creationism and ancient astronaut theory.

[Foxaèr]

Fish is meat.

[Minimalist]

They aren't MY ideas asshole.  There is a whole school of thought dedicated to it.

You should put your fucking bible down and read the Dutch Radical critics sometime.  It might help you look like less of a schmuck.

[Minimalist]

It is within the realm of possibility that Jesus and Paul were not historical people, just as it's within the realm of possibility that you aren't a historical person either Min. All you ever do here is quote from outliers. They're not even minority views, they're total outliers. I am willing to change my opinion when presented with evidence, you are not. Your views are irrespective of scholarly evidence.

Plus I'm sick to death of you trolling my threads for no good reason. Start your own thread about Paul-Myth Theory, don't bring it up in mine.

As a matter of fact I did.  You should read it.  It's in the History section since  I regard religion as fucking bullshit.


I assure you that I am historical. 


Once again though. you cannot refute their ideas so you simply call them quacks or now "outliers."  Detering is a Doctor of Theology.  I doubt that you are.  For you to call him a "quack" is the height of arrogance but I have come to expect that from you.

Oh, and one more thing. Once you start a thread it ceases to be "yours" it belongs to the board.  Go fuck yourself.

[Foxaèr]

If history has taught us anything, it is that nothing is ever truly learned from it.

[The Atheist]

They aren't MY ideas asshole.  There is a whole school of thought dedicated to it.

You should put your fucking bible down and read the Dutch Radical critics sometime.  It might help you look like less of a schmuck.

Well, I'm sure there are "whole school[s] of thought" devoted to many ideas, but when the mainstream rejects an idea, it's because the idea lacks evidence. It's true that I'm not a trained scholar. However, I don't think I'm an "a**hole" for deferring to the mainstream when it comes to an area outside of my expertise. If these "Dutch Radicals" had substantial insight, the mainstream would have no reason to roll its eyes.

[Aractus]

Once again though. you cannot refute their ideas so you simply call them quacks or now "outliers."  Detering is a Doctor of Theology.  I doubt that you are.  For you to call him a "quack" is the height of arrogance but I have come to expect that from you.

Dutch radical criticism was around in the 1800's when there were only a few hundred ancient Biblical manuscripts. Since then not only has the number and quality of the available manuscripts increased, but so too academic standards and methods have also advanced. This is to the detriment of traditional theists, as they can no longer hide behind their defences of literary problems in the Bible (whether contradictory or pseudepigraphic books or hard historical errors). We also know there were dozens of other gospels written in the first two centuries that have since been discarded. Overtime different churches have contradicted some of their long-held persistent beliefs. Such as the RCC's belief in the Vulgate as the authoritative form of the scripture texts. Or faith healings. Or denial of the patriarchal views of Jesus, the disciples, and Paul. Denial of other important historical events that occurred in the Levant in the first millennium BC.

I'm not talking purely about defending the majority view either as you well know. But discussing what is considered relevant within the scope of current academic thinking on the matter. There are more academically qualified Holocaust Deniers than there are Christ Mythers. For you to make us believe that it's worth considering that Jesus and Paul never had a historical existence is just as stupid as suggesting that we should think that Holocaust Denial is also worth serious consideration.

Oh, and one more thing. Once you start a thread it ceases to be "yours" it belongs to the board.  Go fuck yourself.

That's right, it becomes the forum's, it doesn't become yours. Go fuck yourself.

[Foxaèr]

There are procedures, no doubt, which historians accurately follow in order to determine whether or not someone historically existed. I am quite certain that many biblical characters quite fail in any regard due to the fact that reason wins over bias.