=====================================
If he passed it on then he didn't invent it.
What the source of Paul's inspiration might be is a separate matter, =====================================
Paul's preaching of the redemptive death and resurrection of Christ is a separate matter from the inspiration to preach such ? The inspiration was to proclaim something that he believed was a wonderful historical truth.
=================================
for now I am focussed on the sequence of events.
=================================
The importance about the sequence in his epistle is that -
"I delivered to you, first of all, that which I also received ..."
Before he taught it in Corinth, he received it. That's the sequence of events that's important here.
And some scholars say that the wording was a traditional formula used by Jewish scribes in thier assuring that they were faithfully transmitting teachings which they received from a revered predecessor/s. "I delivered to you, first of all, that which I also received"
==============================
For my purposes then what matters is that you agree any passing on was done through Paul and not, for example, through any of the disciples of Jesus amd indeed Acts describes a process by which Paul had to convert the Jerusalem based followers of Jesus.
================================
I didn't say that passing on was done exclusively by Paul and NOT through any of the other disciples of Jesus.
Paul didn't convert the Jerusalem based followers of Jesus. If they were followers of Jesus they were already converted.
Thousands just lingered somewhat in the ways of the old covenant. Unfortunate as that was, it is understandable and typical. The incidents in Jerusalem merely shows the tension of historical transition. Besides, the mob that wanted to drag Paul out of the temple is not specifically discribed as the people from the church in Jerusalem.
Luke's history there is very realistic. The disciples lingered with one foot still in the old ways, including the enfluencial James.
==========================
jw:
You're too hung up on when things were written.
That is because you wrote as follows:
Point out to me what Paul "invented" which I cannot find in the four Gospels or preached by the forerunning apostles in the book of Acts.
You want,in a circular way, to use the product of Paul's teaching as evidence that he was right and that is illogical.
==============================
That he was right or wrong is important but beside the point of him only First - persecuting the Christian faith, Second - deciding to teach and preach it instead of persecuting it.
Saying the whole New Testament was written based on what Paul wrote first is your own silly conspiracy theory.
So you think the writers of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John had before them Paul's letters and fabricated the Gospel accounts to agree with Paul's letters?
===========================
You want to refer to the words of Jesus as evidence supporting Paul,
=============================
Why not ? Can you site an early church "father" who wouldn't do the same ? And they were at least about two thousand years closer to the events than you and I.
===============================
but your source for these words is not an independent historical source, it is indeed the account written by Christians after Paul in order to set out their religious convictions, which takes us back in a circle. There is nothing "forrunning" about material written after Paul. It is afterruning. It runs after.
===================================
With the same amount of conspiracy paranoia I can decide that your posts here are done on a PC which is being used by multiple people. And several people using the tag finnagan are all posting comments pretending to be one person.
You're not teaching me much about the history of NT documents. You're telling me about the suspicious desperate skepticism of your own mind.
==============================
So stop setting me irrational and illogical tasks like that one quoted.
========================
Stop with inventing a supposed fool proof method of assuring that no one can tell what is the origin of the Christian faith.
You're simply jury rigging the discussion to weight it towards your need to completely blur the origins of the Christian faith.
=======================
jw:
Bottom line here is you have to BLAME the Christian faith and the existence of the Christian church on Jesus Christ, not Paul.
The choice of the word "blame" is your own. You are wrong for three reasons.
==============================
"Blame," "Ascribe," "Trace," ... whatever.
============================
First Jesus did not set up a new Christian religion as your friend FreakyKBH agreed earlier and neither did his disciples when he died. He and they remained within the Jewish faith and worshipped in the temple in Jerusalem.
=====================================
Jesus established the Christian faith.
They crucified Jesus because of the "new" things this "Rabbi" was teaching.
He rose from the dead and those "new" things continued to be proclaimed by men suddenly transformed by the truth of them.
You have no case. In terms of the bare basics of the Christian faith, you have no case. Which first to fourth century CE church "father" concurs with you the Gospels were tailored around what Paul wrote ?
All I've really gotten from you is "I Don't Believe the New Testament ".
Originally posted by biffo konkerworks are the manifestation of faith. for example if your faith teaches that you should
Could you explain what 'works' and 'outworking' mean in this sense? I do not understand what 'doing works' means exactly.
love other people, just by way of example, then that quality should be evident in your
actions, in other words it should be manifest by loving acts, these are the works of that
faith and the act of showing love to others is a demonstration that your faith is alive.
-Removed-no its not specific, for it ignores a plethora of other scriptures that were cited, are you
just going to ignore them as you have done here? or will you try to reconcile them with
your present understanding? I will state it again, its a very convenient excuse for the
church goer not to do anything about their faith which is why, in my opinion the
majority of church goers are absolutely passive, we dont need to do anything, we are
saved by virtue of our faith, not according to Christ, Paul and James your not.
-Removed-nope some people with do anything to avoid manifesting works, even citing the excuse that we are saved by faith,
(James 2:14-17) . . .if a certain one says he has faith but he does not have works?
That faith cannot save him, can it? If a brother or a sister is in a naked state
and lacking the food sufficient for the day, yet a certain one of you says to them: “Go
in peace, keep warm and well fed,” but you do not give them the necessities for [their]
body, of what benefit is it? Thus, too, faith, if it does not have works, is dead in
itself.
Originally posted by finnegan=================================
[b] If he passed it on then he didn't [b]invent it. [/b]
What the source of Paul's inspiration might be is a separate matter, for now I am focussed on the sequence of events. For my purposes then what matters is that you agree any passing on was done through Paul and not, for example, through any of the disciples of Jesus amd indeed Acts describes a te the founding of this new religion to Jesus since in fact I attribute it to Paul.[/b]
First Jesus did not set up a new Christian religion as your friend FreakyKBH agreed earlier and neither did his disciples when he died. He and they remained within the Jewish faith and worshipped in the temple in Jerusalem.
Thirdly I clearly do not "have to" attribute the founding of this new religion to Jesus since in fact I attribute it to Paul.
====================================
The early Christians met in the temple and from house to house. Eventually, they must have been expelled from the temple.
They met then from house to house. Five thousand were saved in one preaching of Peter. Three thousand at another preaching. Conservatively, the church in Jerusalem then could have consisted of 10,000 believers.
Ten thousand believers meeting from house to house, meant they must have been meeting in hundreds of houses throughout the city and outskirts of Jerusalem.
=========================
Secondly, the words placed in Jesus' mouth in the Gospels are evidence of what the authors intended to achieve,
===========================
They intended to achieve not letting die with them a record of the most astounding historical figure that they had ever known, And one who did and spoke things which no other human had ever done.
The task only got for them persecution and death.
================================
and it is their choice of words, their selection of incidents to report, their presentation of context that is seen there.
===============================
I have little doubt the elements of style and even arrangements of certain sayings reveal indivdual preferences. This evidence of individual touch is not nearly enough to desuade me that Jesus Christ had a cataclysmic impact on these recorders.
It seems obvious that Luke arranges some sayings differently then Matthew arranges them. It forms not excuse for me to suspicion that this Jesus did or said none of these things.
So the order of temptations in the wilderness from the Devil differ in Matthew then they do in Luke. They both cannot be right about the order. This does not cause me to doubt the event of Christ's experience in the desert.
Using that descrepancy to furnish unbelief is straining out a gnat to swallow a camel. Let's not miss the point.
===============================
If there were no Christian religion then these gospels would not have been written at all, because they are not disinterested academic histories, they are religious works written for the benefit of practising Christians.
====================================
If there were no gospel message the gospels would not have been written ? Okay. So there was a gospel message and they were written.
And I'm sorry if you never had anything worth being excited about to tell the world.
What are you looking for? Are you looking for a first century Atheist who being an Atheist is writing that Jesus is the Son of God ?
That will probably never be. It sounds like you need a first century Atheist to write that Jesus was God incarnate, and then you'll believe.
Don't hold your breath. It is enough for me that former opposers and persecuters did turn to become Christians. I don't need to read of an Atheist who somehow believes what he doesn't believe, in the first century.
Originally posted by jaywillAnd arbitrarily limiting the words of Jesus to those before His resurrection and ascension is just you demanding that your counterpart embrace your own unbelief.
Every post I ever wrote in response to you shot down your errors.
And arbitrarily limiting the words of Jesus to those before His resurrection and ascension is just you demanding that your counterpart embrace your own unbelief.
Why should I be arguing on behalf YOUR unbelief ?
And, I bet you would not include all of the words of Jesus spoken in hing is left from you but attacks on the other's personality.
You haven't changed a bit.
Why should I be arguing on behalf YOUR unbelief ?
When Jesus walked the Earth, He repeatedly emphasized the importance of following HIS word to His followers. To follow the words He had already shared with them. Jesus did not say to follow the word of Paul or any of the other writers of the NT or OT. Jesus taught His followers what is and what is not righteous as well as the requirements for "salvation"/"eternal life"/"heaven". In short, when Jesus walked the Earth, He explained everything His followers needed to know to become righteous, i.e., one with God.
It is not at all "arbitrary" to believe that Jesus spoke the truth to His followers when He walked the Earth.
Your assertion that I am somehow "demanding" that you "[argue] on behalf of [my] unbelief" doesn't make any sense at all.
Eventually, nothing is left from you but attacks on the other's personality.
You haven't changed a bit.
This doesn't make any sense either. Thus far, you have not addressed the points made in my OP to you (which was completely void of any semblance of personal attack). Instead you have done little but post personal attack after personal attack. Yet in your mind, it seems you somehow believe I'm the one who needs to change when it is you who are guilty of what you try to accuse me of here.
I imagine that if you were able to address my points in any meaningful way, you would. Since you can't, you have chosen to resort to personal attack as a way to avoid them.
Originally posted by jaywillYou jump to so many conclusions based on your own imagination, in particular about what you assume I think and assume I am trying to get to. I could extend this debate interminably by picking each of your sentences and making a clever response. Let's skip that stage and accept that it is possible without being useful.
It sounds like you need a first century Atheist to write that Jesus was God incarnate, and then you'll believe. Don't hold your breath. .... I don't need to read of an Atheist who somehow believes what he [b]doesn't believe, in the first century.[/b]
I think from my reading that Paul had an intense religious experience and passionately communicated to others what he felt and believed to be the case. I think that his formulation transformed what could have remained a Jewish sect into a new, non Jewish religion. I think this was based on an entirely fresh way to interpret the significance of Jesus. I am reasonably satisfied that my opinion is consistent with what is written in the New Testament.
In this I am the atheist, not Paul and clearly not you. Two things you seem to me to believe that I do not share.
One is that God (in the aspect of Jesus, the Holy Spirit or some other aspect) provided this insight to Paul. I think Paul arrived at it through a creative process that makes sense provided you accept that others have intense creative insights also, on diverse topics, religious and secular.
The other is that there is an absolute Truth, quite independent of human agency, which is the Truth of God, so that Paul did not create anything but rather achieved an insight into something that was and is eternally True. By contrast, I think that Paul was a religious genius and discovered a formula to bring together a number of important strands into a single, internally consistent story or myth, using that term "myth" not to mean a lie, but a powerful and persuasive act of imagination. These strands are evident to us in the history of his times and I will list some of them later if you want. I find it fascinating and maybe you could do this thought experiment - imagine you are an atheist with absolutely no Christian leanings whatever, but you still want to understand the appeal and historical impact of Christianity.
I am not disputing that Jesus did live and did teach as described. I am instead suggesting that we know of his teaching through the filter of Paul's insight. He argued passionately for his own religious insight and he converted many people to his vision. Indeed he was politically astute enough to understand the importance of convincing at least the key people among the Jerusalem followers of Jesus and spared no pains to that end, though we also know he preferred to work in areas where they had not yet been active. That is he avoided conflict with them.
I am not suggesting anything so crass as that Paul dictated what others would write, or wrote a draft which they turned into a final form, etc. What emerged could not be entirely his and included many contributions and variants. I am only arguing that Paul influenced, challenged and shaped through extensive and industrious debate the way Christianity was articulated and the way it was given a separate identity from the Jewish faith in its diverse contemporary forms.
[Quite a lot of your 10,000 believers in Jerusalem are likely to have perished in CE 70 with the Roman destruction of the city - specifically what they believed and how they acted on those beliefs is to a large extent lost to history but from the Roman point of view they perished as Jews.]
I agree that stuff happened - conversions, martyrdoms, et al. This has happened throughout history and within many religious and secular contexts. Christians have had no monopoly of suffering for their faith and beliefs. I find it tiresome when it is used as evidence for the Truth of their beliefs.
I consider that Christians have from their foundation had a tendency to paint their rivals in insulting terms. I do not accept that they have in practice shown the slightest hint of humility. I think they have always been politically astute and that this is evident in Romans and in the Acts, though Paul was certainly a political bruiser compared with the honeyed tongue of Luke.
While the religion has remarkable and very positive qualities, I also think it contains poisonous elements also which have been evident throughout its history.
I remain an atheist and so obviously consider that Paul was mistaken in many respects. That is not in any way equivalent to suggesting he was an atheist. He was what it says on the packet and it is far more interesting to try to understand him based on the evidence than to dismiss him out of hand as a religious bigot since he was, by any standards, remarkable.
So that is enough for now and maybe all you ever want to hear.
You'll be sorry to hear my grandson was sick in my car, stank at playgroup, and had a falling out with another toddler. It appears now that a T Rex is bigger than a lion, but eight lions are bigger than a T Rex. That's 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8. Boy I was glad to hand him back afterwards.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieWould your explanation simply deny that someone's belief could be to simply "be"? With such a belief a person could be acting out their beliefs by sitting in an empty room. To believe that all beliefs must have outward interactive physical manifestations is putting your beliefs above another's belief.
No i dont think you can state that its a lie, simply that its passive. For example you may believe in the cause and effect of Karma, but you may also sit in an empty room,by yourself, professing belief in the law of Karma and thinking good things about other people, but there is nothing tangible. This is the entire point, that faith, belief, ideolo ...[text shortened]... you will, must express its tendency otherwise, its useless. Its simply not enough to believe it.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieWhat I believe James is saying is that if you really have faith,
nope some people with do anything to avoid manifesting works, even citing the excuse that we are saved by faith,
(James 2:14-17) . . .if a certain one says he has faith but he does not have works?
[b]That faith cannot save him, can it? If a brother or a sister is in a naked state
and lacking the food sufficient for the day, yet a certai ...[text shortened]... of what benefit is it? Thus, too, faith, if it does not have works, is dead in
itself.[/b]
you will demonstate that faith in some way. If there is a fellow
Christian in our mist who is experiencing hard times, we should
do something to help him. We should not say to him "we will
pray for you" and let him leave with no assistance. If he needs
help physically we should attempt to help him. Maybe, we could
take up a collection of money to help him or provide him with
some food, clothing,etc. James is referring to faith and works in
a practical way. One example of faith that I have heard before
concerns a tight-rope walker that has demonstrated his ability to
carry a load between two tall buildings on a tight-rope. He then
asks you if you believe he could carry you across to the other
building and back. He then asks you to get on his back to show
your faith in him. This is the kind of faith we should put in Jesus.
The men being crucified with Jesus demonstrated their faith and
lack of faith by the words they said to Jesus. This was the only way
they could at the time. Belief and faith always comes first however.
It's like you don't have the ability to walk across the tight-rope to
safety on your own, so you must put your faith and trust in someone
who does. That someone is Jesus the Christ. Your works can't save
you; it's your faith and trust in Jesus to do it that saves you.
Originally posted by RJHindsUltimatum from God or just a very efficient way of controlling people?
Sorry, but that's the rule. Only one way to
salvation and all you have to do is believe.
Nothing hard about that, God has made
it very easy for us to choose either life or
death. So choose life and believe in the Lord
Jesus as your savior.
Originally posted by caissad4yes but the question therefore is, of what value does simply being have? If i am
Would your explanation simply deny that someone's belief could be to simply "be"? With such a belief a person could be acting out their beliefs by sitting in an empty room. To believe that all beliefs must have outward interactive physical manifestations is putting your beliefs above another's belief.
content to simply be a Christian, and sit in an empty room, being a Christian, has
not the casual observer the right to try to ascertain, of what value is his
Christianity? My argument is, that as in chess as in life, passivity has very little
value. Yes it may be argued that it has a potential, but unless that potential is
realised, of what use is it? We think of a damn, in which the water, being stored up
has a potential energy, unless it is channelled through a turbine, of what practical
value is it, simply just being? It appears to be nothing more than a large puddle,
unless its potential is released.
As for the second point, that is rather interesting, for you speak about infringing on
the rights of others, as if, somehow through the exercise of faith, we are putting our
beliefs ahead of another? If i approach as a casual observer, the passive person
who is meditating alone in their room and I ask them, if everything is fine, is there
anything they need or is there anything I can do, how is that infringing upon their
beliefs? If they tell me to go away, and i go away, what has been breached? the
draw bridge remains, their castle is intact and the island on which they dwell,
remains an island and life goes on.
Originally posted by RJHindsyes i agree my friend, but would go a step further, in that its not only to those who
What I believe James is saying is that if you really have faith,
you will demonstate that faith in some way. If there is a fellow
Christian in our mist who is experiencing hard times, we should
do something to help him. We should not say to him "we will
pray for you" and let him leave with no assistance. If he needs
help physically we should attempt t ...[text shortened]... . Your works can't save
you; it's your faith and trust in Jesus to do it that saves you.
share the Christian faith, but others as well. the parable of the Good Samaritan comes
to mind, but i agree wholeheartedly with your sentiments, faith must be demonstrated.