Even if theism is a failure, it's still superior to atheism

[LinuxGal]

I base it upon what is recorded in the Gospels, namely, Mark, Chapter 1.

How is it that Paul's letters survived?

Dawn

Paul's letters didn't survive, we've four different authors for the Pauline epistles, none of whom can be convincingly linked with the original Saul of Tarsus.

Romans, 1&2 Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, 1 Thessalonians, and Philemon are authentic Paul.   The name "Saul" was an invention of the author of Acts to burnish his Jewish cred.  The author who forged 2 Thessalonians had the balls to say beware of forgeries like 1 Thessalonians, but that was to throw people off the scent of his own forgery, sort of like when Lindsey Graham votes against LGBT issues.

[The Grand Nudger]

"Authentic paul" doesn't actually mean that these are any pauls letters. It comes from the relationship between traditional attribution and the divergent styles or theologies of the other sets. A good example, especially since it's in your list above of authentic paul, is 2 corinthians. That's believed to be a composite - the underlying assumption being that it's a composite created out of some collection of some originals, which, while not the authors actual letters themselves, may have at least been dictated in some form at some time by that source. Probably compiled, even if we believe in a real paul, after that mans passing (and thus beyond his power to correct or denounce -just like the disputed and outright forgeries).

The search for the historical paul has been as much a failure as the search for a historical jesus, amusingly enough. The early church, for it's part, appears to have been aware of this business with the contents of those letters, btw..but, at the end of the day, the letters of some devout follower of pauls, in a "pauline style", were good enough for government work, so in they all went. To be fair, it makes plenty of sense in context (even though that context is nonsense, lol). It's really not of any importance to the faith or to the faithful - more an academic concern for people who want to know something other-than the contents of the faith - specifically in trying to study it's origin and development (and by extension, the developments of other belief sets as well). Thus "authentic paul" sounds to a believer or to the culturally indoctrinated to mean Real Pauls Real Letters..but it's understood by those researchers that they are not. Bit of cognitive engineering, if we were the cynical sort, eh.

[Fake Messiah]

anyone can call himself a Christian, but this doesnt mean he is one and any message can come in the name of Christianity but that doesnt mean it's part of it.

There is no objective way to determine if someone is a Christian. Usually, if someone says that they are a Christian, I consider them to be one.

too many try to legitimize varying impotent intensities of action under the name of Christianity by creating additional names for them ("Angry Christian", "Lazy Christian", "Compromising Christian, etc") and this just creates confusion and gives Christianity a bad name. but Jesus made it easier to identify his followers: "Ye shall know them by their fruits." not by a title but by their actions.

Jesus was also frequently angry if not maniacal and hardly rational, so does this mean he was also not a Christian?

[Pat Mustard]

Jesus was working class. Looking down on those with less education than 20th century Westerners reeks of elitism.

Says the biggest elitist around. Oh and before you start doing your usual throwing shades, I'm working class myself, I know exactly when somebody is trying to talk down to me.

[The Grand Nudger]

So, about that. The character of jesus and of christ in magic book wouldn't have been working class. It's portrayed, on the one hand, as both skilled and educated,...but on the other as a social dissident and unemployed malcontent. The one is higher than working class, the other lower. A woodworker who could talk down to priests on theological issues, and a beggar detested by all who went from one widows crib to the next with his posse of (likewise unemployed) homeboys.

Working class jesus is a retcon like buddy jesus.

[LinuxGal]

my purpose for being here is not to try to persuade anyone to accept any actions they believe to be evil that were done by those that use the name, but only to try to be a proper witness for Jesus Christ, to encourage members here not to reject the message on their account, *and perhaps to offer some hope or spirtual understanding to anyone who still has any hope left in the doctrine.

Maybe people are having a problem being a proper witness for Jesus Christ because nobody has seen him for two thousand years.

[Pat Mustard]

arewethereyet: i think having a bias for doing what we believe is right is the bias we should all have.

Grand Nudger: i think the connection between blood and sacrifice has always been recognized everywhere and always will be.  i think this is pretty obvious: if a person was offended by someone, a common response is to assault them, for the purpose of shedding blood in payment for the offense.  wars, fighting, etc.

as for vicarious redemption: if one lived his own life, he wouldnt concern himself with the debts other people have built for themselves because, unless he has the power to pay them all, it's none of his business.  but for another to pay for his own debt is a different matter and is a well-believed principle.  the freedoms we enjoy in this country are built on the sacrifice of soldiers, for example, and this is something we could not have earned for ourselves; it is a gift for which we can only be thankful.  and so is the case with Christ: God's free gift of redemption, which i believe none of us could have earned.

but i think the reason why you didnt understand this comes from being too concerned with the affairs of others instead of your own.  we have to remember not to speak for others, but only speak for ourselves.

Well then why are you so busy speaking for others and telling them what they are saying? Take the plank out of your own eyes before you try to remove the mote from ours, hypocrite.

[Jehanne]

Paul's letters didn't survive, we've four different authors for the Pauline epistles, none of whom can be convincingly linked with the original Saul of Tarsus.

Romans, 1&2 Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, 1 Thessalonians, and Philemon are authentic Paul.   The name "Saul" was an invention of the author of Acts to burnish his Jewish cred.  The author who forged 2 Thessalonians had the balls to say beware of forgeries like 1 Thessalonians, but that was to throw people off the scent of his own forgery, sort of like when Lindsey Graham votes against LGBT issues.

"Saul" & "Paul" may have been interchangeable names:

Wikipedia -- Paul the Apostle

[rlp21858]

Angrboda and Fake Messiah: yes, i definitely agree: there is no way to know who is or isnt a Christian. but a Christian isnt expected to know. it's not a Christian's business to judge: Christ is the judge. a Christian's job is to live by hope and be offensive to no one. so if one says he's a Christian, we're supposed to live by the hope that he is if we see no reason to disbelieve him at present (1 Corinthians 13:7, Romans 14:10-13).

i agree this matter of fruits can be confusing. but i believe what solves this is the mention of another type of tree: one that is barren. i think the interpretations can vary but i believe this allows us to inspect the actions that we see and live by hope accordingly.

LinuxGal: Paul constantly warns about "running/believing in vain", so i dont believe he's saying that deeds are not important. i think it's a matter of explaining the order in which conversion occurs, believing first with good actions coming after.

about improper witnessing, i think it's well explained in the New Testament how to do so properly. but i believe doing so requires cultivated faith, humility, and spiritual experience (which the Bible emphasizes), **none of which are necessarily developed from having the Bible memorized.

GUBU: i mentioned before that i believe the bias we all have is doing what is right. loving Christ first doesnt change this but perfects it: it makes us accomplish the same good actions but perfects the intentions behind those actions. for example, father and mother: i think a lot of kids do the actions they do to try to please their parents. so if the kid loves the parents above everything and the parents are evil, the kid turns evil and cant turn away from this. Christianity teaches that the real reason we are to obey our parents is to live in accordance with what God has ordained, which is that children have parents. therefore, we are obedient to them to stay on God's side, not our parents', so should our parents be/turn evil we wont.

[rlp21858]

GUBU: and i was speaking collectively in response to Grand Nudger to show that this is a matter we all struggle with, not to be a hypocrite.