Originally posted by rapalla7Would it be relevant to the Bible if paul could be discredited as an "Apostle". Even if he did it for his own gain, be it vanity or status?
Ivanhoe,
The artical I gave was just one of many, I don't know the source of Feivels.
Would it be relevant to the Bible if paul could be discredited as an "Apostle". Even if he did it for his own gain, be it vanity or status?
It would seem more of the point of that particular article that it would be pointing out Pauls own personal sin. Even if ...[text shortened]... is just exploring and questioning his faith or maybe he is just cementing lack of it.
Mike
Well Paul is the author (writer if you prefer) of about 70% of the new testament. Also Paul epistles are the earliest writings from the new testament. Like it or not, due to Paul's being so early, a strong influence of Paul can be found through the entire new testament. Christianity will not and could not survive without Paul but what was the way of jesus, which is extremely different from "Paulianity" will survive.
Feivel
Originally posted by rapalla7
Ivanhoe,
The artical I gave was just one of many, I don't know the source of Feivels.
Would it be relevant to the Bible if paul could be discredited as an "Apostle". Even if he did it for his own gain, be it vanity or status?
It would seem more of the point of that particular article that it would be pointing out Pauls own personal sin. Even if ...[text shortened]... is just exploring and questioning his faith or maybe he is just cementing lack of it.
Mike
If you read my posts you will see how these views Feivel is advocating are trying to twist and turn everything around. These views are clearly designed to discredit Paul and the whole of Christianity. We have seen this before and we will see this again and again.
Originally posted by rapalla7Feivel: "Anyway I don't think discrediting paul would bring Christianity to it's knees."
Ivanhoe,
The artical I gave was just one of many, I don't know the source of Feivels.
Would it be relevant to the Bible if paul could be discredited as an "Apostle". Even if he did it for his own gain, be it vanity or status?
It would seem more of the point of that particular article that it would be pointing out Pauls own personal sin. Even if ...[text shortened]... is just exploring and questioning his faith or maybe he is just cementing lack of it.
Mike
I don't think so either, but Feivel thinks it is worth a try.
Originally posted by FeivelFeivel: "...... Paul but what was the way of jesus, which is extremely different from "Paulianity" will survive."
[b]Would it be relevant to the Bible if paul could be discredited as an "Apostle". Even if he did it for his own gain, be it vanity or status?
Well Paul is the author (writer if you prefer) of about 70% of the new testament. Also Paul epistles are the earliest writings from the new testament. Like it or not, due to Paul's being so early, a strong i ...[text shortened]... t was the way of jesus, which is extremely different from "Paulianity" will survive.
Feivel[/b]
.... extremely different ? of course you will not elaborate on that one, although it is obviously the key point of this thread.
Originally posted by FeivelI will not argue the point of pauls influence. What I meant is that even though "arguably" you could make issue of the man, but can you say that his teachings were not valid?
[b]Would it be relevant to the Bible if paul could be discredited as an "Apostle". Even if he did it for his own gain, be it vanity or status?
Well Paul is the author (writer if you prefer) of about 70% of the new testament. Also Paul epistles are the earliest writings from the new testament. Like it or not, due to Paul's being so early, a strong i ...[text shortened]... t was the way of jesus, which is extremely different from "Paulianity" will survive.
Feivel[/b]
That his teachings were not "the word"?
I dont know how else to say it but, just because the salesman is a jerk, does that make his product junk?
Mike
Originally posted by rapalla7No it doen't make the salesman's product bad just because the salesman is bad. Paul's product however is not the same product as jesus. If it was, I wonder why there is no argument from any type of reasonable perspective from the christian side? perhaps in this case they are giving tacit agreement by their silence on the subject?
I will not argue the point of pauls influence. What I meant is that even though "arguably" you could make issue of the man, but can you say that his teachings were not valid?
That his teachings were not "the word"?
I dont know how else to say it but, just because the salesman is a jerk, does that make his product junk?
Mike
Feivel
Originally posted by FeivelOk, I will bite. How was pauls product different from that of Jesus?
No it doen't make the salesman's product bad just because the salesman is bad. Paul's product however is not the same product as jesus. If it was, I wonder why there is no argument from any type of reasonable perspective from the christian side? perhaps in this case they are giving tacit agreement by their silence on the subject?
Feivel
2 edits
I wonder....is it possible that you "Feivel" beleive that the teachings of paul were a conspiracy to throw the "true" teachings of christ off track?
Or
perhaps to gain some administrative authority over the teachings of christ?
It would make for an exceptional book.
Mike
If I have gotten on track here, who knows maybe I am way off. I hope you are working up to a point here.😉
Originally posted by rapalla7s it possible that you "Feivel" beleive that the teachings of paul were a conspiracy to throw the "true" teachings of christ off track?
I wonder....is it possible that you "Feivel" beleive that the teachings of paul were a conspiracy to throw the "true" teachings of christ off track?
Or
perhaps to gain some administrative authority over the teachings of christ?
It would make for an exceptional book.
Mike
If I have gotten on track here, who knows maybe I am way off. I hope you are working up to a point here.😉
Although some people do claim exactly what you are saying, no I do not feel it was a "conspiracy" although it was clearly a case of "modifying" jesus to fit Paul's mold.
perhaps to gain some administrative authority over the teachings of christ?
Now that is not only a good poosibilty that is a very astute observation. Paul did gain some kind of control and he did so with no authority whatsoever to change jesus. That is what I hope we can examine by looking at Paul.
It would make for an exceptional book.
It already has. The title is The MythMaker.
I hope you are working up to a point here.😉
Yes but your questions have made the topic swerve somewhat. We are still discussing Paul but what about the question I asked regarding the why and how he was on the road to Damascus. And what power did he have over a region that was ruled by King Aretas who was neither Jewish nor Roman.
Feivel
Originally posted by rapalla7As we already looked at in another thread just examine jesus answer to the enquiring young man. Jesus told him for eternal life he must follow the commandments. Paul's answer was everybody who calls on the name of the lord will be saved. That is totally different from what jesus said and if you really want, just search the web and you can find many more. In any event, don't you think it would be better to examine Paul before we can make any conclusions about his product being the same or different from jesus'? The topic at hand is Paul. We can look at his "product" (that's a different term) later.
Ok, I will bite. How was pauls product different from that of Jesus?
Feivel
Originally posted by rapalla7first of all they are not sure he was in the city of Damascus, or another city in the area.
first of all they are not sure he was in the city of Damascus, or another city in the area.
Anyway he was suposedly granted autority by the Jerusalem priesthood, but he had no authority over the king.
The question of the validity of Damascus is not in question. The bible does say that the city was Damascus and it was under king Atreas. Also it is mentioned (almost offhand) in the bible that some believers went to Damascus to escape Paul for the reason that you said...He or the High Priest had no authority in Damascus
Anyway he was suposedly granted autority by the Jerusalem priesthood
Thank you for answering that question. Yes we read in Acts that Paul was granted "authority" by the high priest but the focus (or my focus) is on the word supposedly. Since the High Priest had no authority outside of roman rule (Roman NOT Jewish) did he actually give Paul authority to do anything? Was Paul going to Damascus on his own authority? Was Paul even who he claimed to be? That is why we must examine Paul before we attempt to answer any questions about his "product."
Feivel
1 edit
Originally posted by FeivelNot everyone will get into heaven.
As we already looked at in another thread just examine jesus answer to the enquiring young man. Jesus told him for eternal life he must follow the commandments. Paul's answer was everybody who calls on the name of the lord will be saved. Th ...[text shortened]... ook at his "product" (that's a different term) later.
Feivel
Matthew 19:16-30
16 And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life? 17 And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments. 18 He saith unto him, Which? Jesus said, Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, 19 Honour thy father and thy mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. 20 The young man saith unto him, All these things have I kept from my youth up: what lack I yet? 21 Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me. 22 But when the young man heard that saying, he went away sorrowful: for he had great possessions.
23 Then said Jesus unto his disciples, Verily I say unto you, That a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven. 24 And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God. 25 When his disciples heard it, they were exceedingly amazed, saying, Who then can be saved? 26 But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible. 27 Then answered Peter and said unto him, Behold, we have forsaken all, and followed thee; what shall we have therefore? 28 And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. 29 And every one that hath forsaken houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my name's sake, shall receive an hundredfold, and shall inherit everlasting life. 30 But many that are first shall be last; and the last shall be first.
http://www.christnotes.org/bible.asp?ViewBible=Matthew+19%3A16-30&Version=KJV
Originally posted by FeivelPlease explain.
[b]first of all they are not sure he was in the city of Damascus, or another city in the area.
The question of the validity of Damascus is not in question. The bible does say that the city was Damascus and it was under king Atreas. Also it is mentioned (almost offhand) in the bible that some believers went to Damascus to escape Paul for the reason tha ...[text shortened]... we must examine Paul before we attempt to answer any questions about his "product."
Feivel[/b]