Whitefox
Offline See, here's my problem with Paul having this 'physical encounter with Jesus': Paul doesn't describe it the same way twice. Ever. In one telling, he sees Christ. In another, he sees a bright light. In a third, he sees nothing, but hears a voice. Once, his companions are witness to everything. Then they're not. At first, he's told to go seek another, who will tell him what he must do. Then later, everything is his own idea.
Paul doesn't even begin his 'mission' until 12 years after his 'conversion'. He's called to Jerusalem to answer questions about his theology, and chastised, then turns around and claims that he was welcomed and recognized as equal to the Twelve. Paul lays claim to the title Apostle, and at every chance, repeats his claims and admonishments to remember that HE isn't claiming it, GOD laid it on him. And yet, the only source for this is... Paul, while the Twelve were specifically (and most importantly) publicly and visibly called by Christ, and the term 'Apostle' applied directly and only to them, among all of the Disciples. Paul's repeated reminders and utter inconsistency, as well as the increasing claims of his own primacy (he does away with the idea that he was sent to someone to be cured of his blindness... probably because his poor vision keeps cropping up and is referenced in all of the epistles actually accepted as Paul's. He eventually claims to be the founder of communities and congregations Barnabas first ministered to years before Barnabas convinced Paul to join him) all point to a liar and a con artist trying to shout down suspicion.
He openly opposed the Twelve, the chosen group of men who had the best direct knowledge of Jesus Christ, his ministry, and his life, a knowledge Paul himself admits he did not possess. He turned the celebration of Christ's life and teachings into a death-cult, and once again, openly contradicted the direct word of Jesus Christ. How can he be taking the message of Christ to its logical conclusion, if the message he is taking contradicts Christ? Why does Paul claim it's perfectly ok for him to act like a Jew when among Jews, but a Gentile while among Gentiles ('I am all things to all men', another claim Christ specifically denounced and warned his Apostles against attempting), and then openly mocked Cephas for following Paul's example in Paul's residence? Why does he insist that he is always the best at everything, telling his congregation how he has spoken in tongues, cast out demons (including, in the only instance actually related about such an act, 'exorcising' a young woman's gift of divination, when all she had done was to proclaim, before any introduction, that Barnabas' group was doing the work of The Lord, and Jesus Christ) and performed miracles far more than any of them ever could. Paul is saying nothing short of the words Wierd Al used in "Amish Paradise": 'I know I'm a million times as humble as thou art'.
Among those whose Gospels Paul admonishes his followers not to listen to, are Cephas and James the Just, Christ's brother.
A)He lets pass no opportunity to aggrandise himself,
B)He takes credit for work he has not done.
C)He openly threatens congregations that have begun to listen to 'other men', specifically Cephas and James, and in doing so
D)He actively works against the teachings of the Twelve, those who knew Christ best,
E)He openly and unabashedly contradicts the actual, direct, words of Jesus Christ.
Tell me: How is a man who teaches that Jesus' words are wrong, and turns his ministry into nothing more than a political manipulation to maintain his own lifestyle in any way spreading the message of Jesus Christ?
How can he be spreading the message of Christ if his message is the very antithesis of Christ's?
"You've got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know... morons." - The Waco Kid
- Login to post comments
It may benefit you to read my article on Paul.
Oh, indeed. Paul's theology was not that of the followers of the living Christ, of the Twelve who knew him. Rather it was his own, informed by the hellenistic upbringing of a jew growing up in Asia Minor.
But far more than that, it was Paul's vehicle for self-promotion, for seeking authority, and he gathered like-minded people to him, while those of more truly spiritual motivation, like Mark, turned away from him as they saw what he was becoming.
"You've got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know... morons." - The Waco Kid
I have a doubt about that last bit. Mark clearly was a follower of Pauline theology. So much so, that Mark used some of Paul's experiences and put them in his narrative. Paul's own words are echoed from Jesus' lips. Mark was very much so a follower and reciprocator of Pauline theology. Matthew certainly did not agree with Paul very often, however.
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists. Books by Rook Hawkins (Thomas Verenna)
I wish to apologize for my absence. I vacationed a lot this summer. Put a 24 foot swimming pool in my backyard. Stained the fences. Bought an 87 Turbo T-Bird. Worked on it to get it certified for half the summer. Basically spent all my time outdoors and left my computer turned off for almost two months. Prior to that I was doing a lot of visitation to a relative who died of cancer and my father in-law also died this spring. I seem also to have a flaw that I tend to do one thing at a time and do not multitask as I did when I was younger and good looking like Rook. I must explain that currently until October 14th I am running for Member of Parliment as the Candidate for the region in which I live representing a fringe party called the "Christian Heritage Party". I have no expectation to win the election but to advocate during this time for "Social Conservative belief" and to tell people to "vote according to their concience." I also maintain constant contact with several Imans in private chat and the such privately as far as chat rooms go. Anyone who actually want private chat with me may join me on Skype id "BIBLEDOOR". I am better at response to live chat, audio, video and the such for brief chats. I am guilty of negligence here in the forum and do not see participating much until after this Canadian election I am participating in currently. Any Canadians interested in learning about the party www.chp.ca. I hope to come back to all the threads in late October. I will try to participate in this thread fully for now.
This topic is one that is of great interest to Muslims that I talk to. It is one that will not go away. It is a primary attack that is made by skeptics whether they be Muslims, Atheists, Jehovahs witnesses and basically anyone who wishes to deny the gospel message that Jesus Christ is the Messiah (Annointed One) that He is the Perfect one without flaw. And that in order to be perfect we must come to the rational conclusion that He is God. As such He is able to redeem the rest of us who are have flaws in our character which result in flaws in our behaviour on occassion which the bible calls sin. Even if we could improve our behaviour and never be flawed again by following the LAWS OF MOSES. Exod 20,21 (Ten Commandments and the such) we tend to fail occassionaly proving that "None are perfect, No not one" (Psalms, forget the exact referecce) and that "All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" Romans 3:23. "The wages for sin is death" (Romans 6:23) We experience death physically at the end of life here on earth but we all also experience death in terms of our Spirits which are hindered from knowing God because we are dead in our sins and trespasses. (A loose quote which is from somewhere in the bible). Some people at Pauls time sought to negate the purpose for which Christ came. If mans sins were not able to be forgiven by Christ's sacrifice on the cross then there was absolutely no reason for his comming or for the bible constantly predicting that he would come in the Old Testament texts. "To take away the sins of the world".
Paul argued against those that wished to negate Christ's role in salvation of mans sins. One of the arguments he gave in Hebrews was that Abraham was a saved person based on his Faith (Hebrews 11) and that Abraham predated Moses so he was not able to even know the Mosaic Laws. So how could the Mosaic Laws save Abraham? Yet the Jews being addressed and the Muslims for that matter claim Abraham as their spiritual father and claim at the same time that strict observance of the Mosaic law is requried for salvation. Paul is in line with the gopel message that salvation is dependent on Christ alone. John pointed out in John 14 that Salvation is dependent on knowing God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit personally. John said that the Holy Spirit comes into a persons life to dwell inside of them "forever" in (John 14). Later in Revelation 3:20 John again aluded to this "Behold I (Jesus) stand at the door an knock. If any man hears my voice and opens the door I will come in and sup with Him and He with me." Paul picked up on this in Ephesians 1:13,14 "13 In Him you also trusted, after you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation; in whom also, having believed, you were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise, 14 who is the guarantee of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, to the praise of His glory. " Pauls teachings are the same as that given by the four gospels and Christ himself.
Pauls rebukes to the apostles were recorded by another apostle named LUKE. It is the book of Acts authored by LUKE that you read the account of his interactions in Jeruslem. This is important because Paul had collaborators. In that Luke argues in favor of Paul not against him by the way he gives the narration, leading the reader to conclude that Paul is the one taking the higher ground. Peter apologize to Paul and the 12 Disciples apologize to him in Acts. Then Peter agrees that Paul is an apostle in that narration to the NONJEWS (Gentiles) you and I who are not of Jewish descent. It was 14 years after Paul began his ministry that this meeting took place.
Several centuries later there were attempts by perverted Cults which had sprung up namely the Gnostics who were writing "other gospels" which were prophecied would happen by Paul by the way who wrote gosples such as the gospel of Barnabus who began to argue against Paul. It was also the gnostics which successfully influenced the Roman Catholic Church to worship Mary (Marionism) which you can find no support for in the four gospels and in the writings of any of the disciples. Gnostics predated Christianity but decided to infiltrate it. They had worshiped the goddess Sophia but were willing to rename her as Mary. All support historically for the arguments against Paul sprung up in the fouth century from writings which were written hundreds of years after the death of all fo the disciples and the death and resurection of the Lord Jesus Christ. That is why we do not allow these writings into our bibles as scripture. The writings we allow into our bibles are based on first hand account and eye witness account. Paul explains his own role as apostle and the role of eyewitness account in 1 Corinthians 15.
God says "Come let us reason together, though your sins be as scarlet you shall be white as snow."
www.truthiswhatmatters.com & www.bibledoor.com
No worries, man. That's life, we've all been there.
Nope. Check again. Not arguing anything against Christ there, or the message of the Gospels. Talking purely about Paul. They are not synonymous, no matter how hard Paul worked to make them so.
Luke was a gospel author, yes. He was also a friend of Paul's. He was not one of the Twelve. The Twelve were:
Simon, called Peter; his brother Andrew; James and John, the sons of Zebedee; Phillip; Bartholemew; Matthew; Judas Thomas, usually referred to as Thomas; James the Just; Thaddeus, sometimes called Jude; Simon the Zealot, and Judas Iscariot.
Judas Iscariot was replaced by Matthias between the time of the Ressurection and the Ascension, which can be taken to mean that he, too, passed direct muster by Christ. Luke, however, is not among them.
Indeed, and Luke, as has been mentioned, was a friend of Paul's at the time of that writing, and not one of the Twelve. Whose version of events do you think he heard, or hearkened to?
Also, I note that you don't address that Paul can't keep his story straight between any two tellings of it, nor that he directly contradicts the words of Jesus Christ when it comes to the criteria for salvation at the Judgement. Christ stated in unequivocal terms that it would not be faith, but deeds, that separated the goats from the sheep, whereas Paul repeatedly claims that works are meaningless, that faith alone will save Man.
Also, just to take a moment to address the point you do raise:
Christ's death features, in fact, nowhere in his ministry. Christ's death and resurrection were, from the ministry we are presented with as his, his sacrifice on our behalf. The lessons of that sacrifice are ones we, as limited and mortal beings, cannot learn. We cannot overcome death through only our own nature. Rather, the lessons of Christ's ministry are 'I will clear the slate for you. Your part is to follow my teachings, to follow the example I have set you; to care for one another without regard for yourself.' We cannot take part in Christ's sacrifice. To do so would, in fact, be to render that sacrifice impotent: Christ sacrificed himself for us. To then say that we must be part of that sacrifice is to say that Christ's sacrifice was insufficient of itself.
Moreover, the ministry of the Twelve was a continuation of the ministry of Christ's life, not his death. Paul is the one who turns the communal meal into what we might recognize as a mass, who turns an occassion one of the Twelve might use to remember the life and ministry of their friend and rabbi, and to look forward to the time when they will see him again, into an act of symbolic human sacrifice and cannibalism. It is not enough that Christ sacrificed himself in order to wipe away the sins of Man and give each person the chance to start fresh. Rather, Paul insists that he be sacrificed anew in countless ceremonies each week. "This is my body, this is my blood" are words of Paul's creation and insertion.
"You've got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know... morons." - The Waco Kid