Human Reason and Christian Denominations

[vulcanlogician]

What a bunch of dogmatic horseshit, GC. Paul's teachings did not come directly from Jesus. They came from his own warped mind.

Prove your assumption, one atheist make all the time and never, ever give proof.

Here's a start:

https://www.jesuswordsonly.com/books/175...jesus.html


****The above link should be proof enough, but I can track down scholarly analyses arguing that Paul was unfamiliar with the life and teachings of Christ if you need further proof****


And some quotes from some of my favorite wise guys on the matter (not proof... just thrown in for flavor):

In the teachings of Christ, religion is completely present tense: Jesus is the prototype and our task is to imitate him, become a disciple. But then through Paul came a basic alteration. Paul draws attention away from imitating Christ and fixes attention on the death of Christ The Atoner. What Martin Luther, in his reformation, failed to realize is that even before Catholicism, Christianity had become degenerate at the hands of Paul. Paul made Christianity the religion of Paul, not of Christ. Paul threw the Christianity of Christ away, completely turning it upside down, making it just the opposite of the original proclamation of Christ.

The Jesus of the Sermon on the Mount is completely opposed to Paul.

Paul was the first corrupter of the doctrines of Jesus.

[Godscreated]

Prove your assumption, one atheist make all the time and never, ever give proof.

Here's a start:

https://www.jesuswordsonly.com/books/175...jesus.html


****The above link should be proof enough, but I can track down scholarly analyses arguing that Paul was unfamiliar with the life and teachings of Christ if you need further proof****


And some quotes from some of my favorite wise guys on the matter (not proof... just thrown in for flavor):

In the teachings of Christ, religion is completely present tense: Jesus is the prototype and our task is to imitate him, become a disciple. But then through Paul came a basic alteration. Paul draws attention away from imitating Christ and fixes attention on the death of Christ The Atoner. What Martin Luther, in his reformation, failed to realize is that even before Catholicism, Christianity had become degenerate at the hands of Paul. Paul made Christianity the religion of Paul, not of Christ. Paul threw the Christianity of Christ away, completely turning it upside down, making it just the opposite of the original proclamation of Christ.

The Jesus of the Sermon on the Mount is completely opposed to Paul.

Paul was the first corrupter of the doctrines of Jesus.

 You go to the Bible and show me that Paul opposed Christ's teachings. Paul said we are to live as Christ did. These men you quoted were at best a non-believing Jew, a deist president at best and a non-Christian philosopher who believed he was right about all things, none are credible Christians that sought truth from the Bible on the contrary two looked for their own truth and one never believed in the NT. 

GC

[vulcanlogician]

Here's a start:

https://www.jesuswordsonly.com/books/175...jesus.html


****The above link should be proof enough, but I can track down scholarly analyses arguing that Paul was unfamiliar with the life and teachings of Christ if you need further proof****


And some quotes from some of my favorite wise guys on the matter (not proof... just thrown in for flavor):

 You go to the Bible and show me that Paul opposed Christ's teachings. Paul said we are to live as Christ did. These men you quoted were at best a non-believing Jew, a deist president at best and a non-Christian philosopher who believed he was right about all things, none are credible Christians that sought truth from the Bible on the contrary two looked for their own truth and one never believed in the NT. 

GC

Kierkegaard was a Christian who most certainly did NOT believe he was right about all things.

Did you read the link from the non-Pauline Christian site? All it is is citations from the Bible contrasting the teachings of Paul and Jesus.

[KevinM1]

VL, you've just committed one of the classic blunders!

The first is "never engage in a land war in Asia," but only slightly less known is this: don't expect GC to read anything that doesn't confirm his bias!

[Godscreated]

 You go to the Bible and show me that Paul opposed Christ's teachings. Paul said we are to live as Christ did. These men you quoted were at best a non-believing Jew, a deist president at best and a non-Christian philosopher who believed he was right about all things, none are credible Christians that sought truth from the Bible on the contrary two looked for their own truth and one never believed in the NT. 

GC

Kierkegaard was a Christian who most certainly did NOT believe he was right about all things.

Did you read the link from the non-Pauline Christian site? All it is is citations from the Bible contrasting the teachings of Paul and Jesus.

 Just because some people believe that Paul did not see eye to eye with Christ doesn't make it's true and I do not need to go to some site that contradicts both Christ and Paul, I've read and studied the NT for a long time and have never seen one thing differing between the two. I pick up on things like that very well in all things I read.

GC

[RoadRunner79]

Kierkegaard was a Christian who most certainly did NOT believe he was right about all things.

Did you read the link from the non-Pauline Christian site? All it is is citations from the Bible contrasting the teachings of Paul and Jesus.

 Just because some people believe that Paul did not see eye to eye with Christ doesn't make it's true and I do not need to go to some site that contradicts both Christ and Paul, I've read and studied the NT for a long time and have never seen one thing differing between the two. I pick up on things like that very well in all things I read.

GC

You also have the historical actions of the Church. Everything seems to indicate that the other apostles accepted and agreed with Paul. You just don’t see these different factions that some suppose in history, nor a clash of two different teachings.

[John V]

Did you read the link from the non-Pauline Christian site? All it is is citations from the Bible contrasting the teachings of Paul and Jesus.

Pick one of them and we can discuss.

[John V]

Hey look, a page on the interwebs that says Paul and Jesus said the same things:

https://carm.org/questions/other-questio...same-thing

Take that, atheist!

[RoadRunner79]

Hey look, a page on the interwebs that says Paul and Jesus said the same things:

https://carm.org/questions/other-questio...same-thing

Take that, atheist!

I think it’s one of those arguments that only sound good, when you don’t know what you are talking about.

[Joods]

What's interesting to me about all the different sects of Christianity is that it is a prime example of humans using their own reason to create a belief system. Look at how varied some denominations are. Some will allow a homosexual to lead a church while others will not let a known gay person through the door. They all use the same Bible but use their own reason to decide what parts to emphasize and how to properly interpret scripture. It's not like some supernatural being is communicating them to tell them exactly what to do. If some Christians here believe that is the case then feel free to provide evidence of your communication with this being.

That sounds silly to me too!   We all have different backgrounds, different biases, and different understandings about a number of things.  I wouldn't expect Christianity to be any different.  I don't think that any of us, are above reproach;  I've been wrong on things before, I changed my mind on things, and I've had to eat crow on occasion.   I'm still growing, still learning, and I'm sure still screwing up.

I do disagree, however, that any of this means that people are just making things up (perhaps some are).  But some of us, don't believe that we are free to just make things up, or that thins are subjective.   Some believe that there is an objective truth, that we are trying to achieve.

So the fact that Christians claim that the "bible is the infallible word of God, means nothing? 

So many Christians come here and preach that atheists don't understand the word of god (the bible), accusing us of having never read the bible, or that there are theists who aren't True Christians© because they don't understand the bible. We have one theist who claims he never mis-translates the bible. That it is everyone else who does it. 
This is quite simple. If your religion is making the claim that the bible has been translated from translations of translations of copies of copies of copies of original manuscripts (that no one has ever been able to prove exists), then the bible can only be interpreted in one way. And that way would be the way that those who have transcribed the document, intended for it to be read. 

Unless you're all just making this shit up and can't prove in any way that your particular type of Christianity got it right.


I'm gonna go with that. Yeah. It's definitely that. What the bible is, is a fictional work of literature that, just like any other novel, has flaws and gaps and some holes in the story. Problem is, it probably could have been written better had editors and other people in the book business been around back then to check facts, spelling and grammar.