@thinkofone saidPoint taken.
Of course you could actually take the time read and comprehend (in its entirety) what's said in the following:The great theologian Soren Kierkegaard, writing in The Journals. Quote:
"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 altera ...[text shortened]... it.[/b]"
Pasted from <http://www.wizanda.com/modules/article/view.article.php/article=52>
Let's suppose for a moment that Paul was telling the truth about his encounter with Jesus. Why the hell would he then spend the rest of his life distorting the very message he was supposed to deliver??
@fmf saidThe Judas discrepancy seems like a big one.
I think it's generally accepted that Paul’s contributions are the oldest portion of the NT - i.e. approximately 30 years after Jesus was executed by the Romans - so they were written maybe 10 or 20 years before the Gospels. Paul doesn't mention the virgin birth, nor any miracles, nor the empty tomb, nor does he mention any physical resurrection [only a spiritual one], and he also ...[text shortened]... suggests the story about Judas committing suicide wasn't made up until maybe a decade or more later.
I don't know the context of what Paul said, but was the 'suicide' supposed to have taken place before Jesus appeared to the Apostles? According to the Gospels?
@chaney3 saidDoesn't it make much more sense that Paul wasn't telling the truth about his encounter with Jesus?
Point taken.
Let's suppose for a moment that Paul was telling the truth about his encounter with Jesus. Why the hell would he then spend the rest of his life distorting the very message he was supposed to deliver??
You also might want to consider the following:
In his own day, although he was a major figure within the very small Christian movement, he also had many enemies and detractors, and his contemporaries probably did not accord him as much respect as they gave Peter and James. Paul was compelled to struggle, therefore, to establish his own worth and authority.
https://www.britannica.com/biography/Saint-Paul-the-Apostle
1 edit
Doesn't it make much more sense that Paul wasn't telling the truth about his encounter with Jesus?
No. I think the NT makes more sense if we believe his testimony and the testimony of others concerning him.
Paul's frank transparency is more believable then the stealth, secrecy, and concealment with which you hide your true feelings about God's non-existence with a shroud of Jesus referencing humanism as a facade.
@sonship saidIn Romans 9:25-26, Paul quotes two passages from the book of the prophet Hosea (1:10 and 2:23), where God says those who are “not my people” will be called “my people” and will be “children of the living God.”
@ThinkOfOneDoesn't it make much more sense that Paul wasn't telling the truth about his encounter with Jesus?
No. I think the NT makes more sense if we believe his testimony and the testimony of others concerning him.
Paul's frank transparency is more believable then the stealth, secrecy, and concealment with which you hide your true feelings about God's non-existence with a shroud of Jesus referencing humanism as a facade.
Paul reads “not my people” as Gentiles who are then called by God to become “my people” - making Gentiles equal partners with Israel which has been on God’s mind all along.
Only, Hosea isn’t talking about God having mercy on Gentiles. “Not my people” refers to the rejected and stubborn Israel whom God will restore as his beloved people after a period of punishment.
The way that Paul interprets these texts is not what Hosea meant to say. Not at all. I therefore challenge your assertion regarding Paul's 'frank transparency.'
1 edit
@sonship saidIf you understood the context of the question to C3, you'd have realized that the question wasn't about how to make the "NT make more sense". But you didn't and you went off on a completely unrelated tangent as you're wont to do.
@ThinkOfOneDoesn't it make much more sense that Paul wasn't telling the truth about his encounter with Jesus?
No. I think the NT makes more sense if we believe his testimony and the testimony of others concerning him.
Paul's frank transparency is more believable then the stealth, secrecy, and concealment with which you hide your true feelings about God's non-existence with a shroud of Jesus referencing humanism as a facade.
Try reading my response in its entirety in conjunction with C3s post.
Seriously jaywill, take a class in reading comprehension.
@fmf saidThis is the post you should be replying to dive, with your juvenile insults.
I think it's generally accepted that Paul’s contributions are the oldest portion of the NT - i.e. approximately 30 years after Jesus was executed by the Romans - so they were written maybe 10 or 20 years before the Gospels. Paul doesn't mention the virgin birth, nor any miracles, nor the empty tomb, nor does he mention any physical resurrection [only a spiritual one], and he also ...[text shortened]... suggests the story about Judas committing suicide wasn't made up until maybe a decade or more later.
Page 3, second post.
FMF has challenged the validity of what Paul wrote, not me.....but alas, you neglected to confront his posts.
Coward.
-Removed-Coward.
FMF has single handedly challenged Paul's conversion, what he wrote, and the timeline of his writings and that of the gospels.
He did it publicly, in this thread, and for you to ignore it, while waiting for someone else to comment....then pounce on that comment shows your dishonesty and poor forum etiquette.
I don't give a rat's ass if you've discussed things privately with him....he has challenged your beliefs publicly.