1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadAs I have said before, the fact that Paul was a contemporary of the disciples of Jesus gives him an added bonus of credibility above those who came after Paul. In addition, he was well versed in the Torah and a once well respected Pharisee which gave him an even higher bonus of credibility.
I have known Christians who walked the walk and were the 'real deal'. Some of them would even question some of Pauls writings.
I think those who target Paul do so based on the fact that from a laymans point of view - without the benefit of the Holy Spirit translating - it sure looks like Pauls message is rather different from Jesus' and in some ways less eal', and wrote copious works, and yet did not manage to get their writings into the Bible.[/b]
I just love Paul. 😀
Originally posted by PinkFloydFar be it from me to plunge you into a morass of uncertainty [and just think of those hideous gaps in the pages and the damage to the binding! Ugh!]
Am I to just excise all the books Paul wrote from my Bible? Then what if someone says that John was not inspired? Or Luke was Paul's lackey?
Originally posted by twhiteheadThen you would be wrong. I never had Thomas in my bible; I was never told it wasn't (or was, for that matter) inspired; and if it was there, I would NOT rip it out, regardless of what I was told concerning its "inspiration". Looks like you are wrong wrong wrong! I'll see if you're big enough to apologize for making such a brash, thoughtless statement about me.
I have no doubt whatsoever that when someone said that St Thomas was not inspired you were quite happy to excise his book (The Gospel of Thomas) from your Bible.
The only Christians I have ever heard question whether a book should remain in the bible are my parents who questioned whether the book of revelation should be included - but I doubt even they would have actually tried to remove it. Sometimes tradition is stronger than good sense.
Originally posted by whodeyI was merely pointing out that the qualities you listed are not a good reason to revere someone. If you now want to tag on a claim that Paul refused to inflict evil then it obviously changes things. However I think you will find it much harder to support such a claim. In fact some of the things for which Paul is criticized such as his views on women and homosexuality may be considered 'inflicting evil' by some.
So you are comparing suicidal murderers to that of Paul? It is like comparing Ghandi to a suicide bomber because both may be willing to give up their life for their cause but one is willing to inflict evil to do so while the other refuses. 🙄
Originally posted by whodeyAnd I strongly suspect that you do not agree with the Torah and that as a Pharisee he was not respected by Christians.
As I have said before, the fact that Paul was a contemporary of the disciples of Jesus gives him an added bonus of credibility above those who came after Paul. In addition, he was well versed in the Torah and a once well respected Pharisee which gave him an even higher bonus of credibility.
I just love Paul. 😀
I don't think that the fact that he was a contemporary of the disciples gives Paul any added credibility. Would you like to explain why it would do so? How would it make Paul more honest, a better theologian or more likely to be speaking the word of God than any of the similar people who came after him?
1 edit
Originally posted by PinkFloydThat you are ignorant of the fact that the Gospel of Thomas was excised from your Bible is no fault of mine and I see no reason to apologize for that.
Then you would be wrong. I never had Thomas in my bible; I was never told it wasn't (or was, for that matter) inspired; and if it was there, I would NOT rip it out, regardless of what I was told concerning its "inspiration". Looks like you are wrong wrong wrong! I'll see if you're big enough to apologize for making such a brash, thoughtless statement about me.
I suspect that you got my point but do not wish to address it in a reasonable and civilized manner.
Originally posted by twhiteheadSo, when was the gospel of Thomas ever a part of the Bible?
That you are ignorant of the fact that the Gospel of Thomas was excised from your Bible is no fault of mine and I see no reason to apologize for that.
I suspect that you got my point but do not wish to address it in a reasonable and civilized manner.
Originally posted by twhiteheadAgain you "suspect" wrong. I am quite aware of the history of Thomas' Gospel--as well as many other "Lost Books". I own many--including Thomas. So you see, it hasn't been "excised" from my collection--I can't help that it was excised by others who didn't ask my permission--(that it was done some 1700 years before my birth may have been the problem) That's TWO "ass"umptions you've made about me that have been wrong. Care to do the manly thing and apologize yet, or continue your little psssing contest 'til hll freezes over? So far, I'm the only reasonable and civilized one involved in our discourse.
That you are ignorant of the fact that the Gospel of Thomas was excised from your Bible is no fault of mine and I see no reason to apologize for that.
I suspect that you got my point but do not wish to address it in a reasonable and civilized manner.
Originally posted by twhiteheadAs Christ once said, there is no greater love than to lay down your life for your friends. I would argue that doing so IS a reason to revere someone. Name one person who has done so without being revered.
[b]I was merely pointing out that the qualities you listed are not a good reason to revere someone.
Of course, as I said, there is a difference between murdering people in the process or having suicidal tendencies.
Originally posted by twhiteheadWhat? The Torah was the only religious book that Christians had to read from. In fact, Christ quoted from it continuously and said that he did not come to break the law but to fulfill it.
And I strongly suspect that you do not agree with the Torah and that as a Pharisee he was not respected by Christians.
I don't think that the fact that he was a contemporary of the disciples gives Paul any added credibility. Would you like to explain why it would do so? How would it make Paul more honest, a better theologian or more likely to be speaking the word of God than any of the similar people who came after him?
Originally posted by PinkFloydMy sincere apologies.
Again you "suspect" wrong. I am quite aware of the history of Thomas' Gospel--as well as many other "Lost Books". I own many--including Thomas. So you see, it hasn't been "excised" from my collection--I can't help that it was excised by others who didn't ask my permission--(that it was done some 1700 years before my birth may have been the problem) Tha ...[text shortened]... r? So far, I'm the only reasonable and civilized one involved in our discourse.
So, do you consider the Gospel of Thomas to be part of your Bible? What about the writings attributed to Paul? Is your answer based on your own judgment of the validity of the documents or a decision made 1700 years before you were born? And obviously the same questions apply to John and Luke.
Do people hold onto the current set for rational or theological reasons or because of tradition (ie they were told that 'that is the way it is'😉?
2 edits
Originally posted by whodeyI do not know the circumstances surrounding Pauls death. Can you enlighten me. Who did he lay his life down for?
As Christ once said, there is no greater love than to lay down your life for your friends. I would argue that doing so IS a reason to revere someone. Name one person who has done so without being revered.
I believe that a genuine believer in the afterlife is not in fact making as big a sacrifice as an atheist would be.