Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I am reading through Romans right now. It is like a glimpse into the mind of a Christian believer. I first began to suspect it was a church fabrication when he mentions honoring parents. Because that is what a lot of the Bible seems to teach against. (Abraham, Jesus) But I guess people interpret it different ways. Now I think this could have all come from the same author.
As I read through it the author reminds me very much of the kind of people I felt mentally oppressed by while I was in church. It is obvious that he is twisting the meaning of old testament verses into something that fits into his Christian belief. When I read the old testament verses that he mentions, I get a completely different meaning from them. (This confirms for me that Christianity is a lie.) He obviously transformed whatever the original message of Jesus was. Which I doubt that the church ever attempted to preserve.
It is a fascinating glimpse into the mind of a Christian believer. But not a place where I would like to spend a lot of time. A good reminder of why I avoid most churches. It is because of the kinds of people who believe, and the fact that you are surrounded by so many of these people.
What are your honest thoughts about Paul?
(My question is directed towards people who have read his epistles but are not believers themselves.)
I think, had he known what was going to happen he would have been way more careful. he just thought he was "texting".
I think, had he known what was going to happen he would have been way more careful. he just thought he was "texting".
It was more than that, old mate. He was (If I am right that his bio.notes are Gen, more or less) conducting a vigorous and well -planned campaign to sell Jesus -faith to the Gentiles to 'Save' them. He 'Texted' as you say, but he also evidently visited quite a lot, often taking his collection tin with him.
I agree totally that, if he had known that his fulminations against those who undermined his teachings would become transformed in the Gospels into hate of Jews in general, and what that eventually led to, he would have topped himself.
It was more than that, old mate. He was (If I am right that his bio.notes are Gen, more or less) conducting a vigorous and well -planned campaign to sell Jesus -faith to the Gentiles to 'Save' them. He 'Texted' as you say, but he also evidently visited quite a lot, often taking his collection tin with him.
I agree totally that, if he had known that his fulminations against those who undermined his teachings would become transformed in the Gospels into hate of Jews in general, and what that eventually led to, he would have topped himself.
I think, had he known what was going to happen he would have been way more careful. he just thought he was "texting".
I understand. He might have been trying to really make an impact. Never knowing that his words would be so widely read and perhaps misunderstood for thousands of years.
I think that if he had changed his message, then his writings would have gone unnoticed and maybe someone else would have written something to take their place.
Who can know to what extent Paul saw what he was putting in motion. Given that, for his time, he was traveling the then-known world and building a worldwide movement, he might have had some inkling. I don't know to what extent he was a shrewd student of human nature and was building either by design or feeling his way, a set of beliefs he thought / hoped would be durable. I don't know how much of it was original with him, how much was his, how much was accidental. Nor can we know how much of his exploits, either self-described or in the Acts of the Apostles, are ... embellished.
What I am pretty sure of however is that the later fleshing out of Christian orthodoxy via the gospels and early church councils, while leveraging Paul's writings and ideas to an extent, were also fairly critical to Christianity's ultimate success. Taking Jesus out of "the heavenlies" and making him a relatable fellow human being, however divine, sealed the deal, I feel. I think what is know known as the gnostic heresy might have produced a kinder, gentler, less self-loathing Christianity, but it might not have been as enduring and adaptable an orthodoxy as what the world ended up with.
There is no doubt in my mind that Paul was a false prophet, a man intent on getting people to follow his beliefs, (which were his opinions and nothing more) rather than anything Jesus taught.
Further, I think it is shameful that so many Christian churches have a Pauline base and treat his words and letters as equal to Jesus rather than using them as some historical insight into the early church. Churches that focus more on Jesus and less on Paul would probably attract more members.
Who can know to what extent Paul saw what he was putting in motion. Given that, for his time, he was traveling the then-known world and building a worldwide movement, he might have had some inkling. I don't know to what extent he was a shrewd student of human nature and was building either by design or feeling his way, a set of beliefs he thought / hoped would be durable. I don't know how much of it was original with him, how much was his, how much was accidental. Nor can we know how much of his exploits, either self-described or in the Acts of the Apostles, are ... embellished.
What I am pretty sure of however is that the later fleshing out of Christian orthodoxy via the gospels and early church councils, while leveraging Paul's writings and ideas to an extent, were also fairly critical to Christianity's ultimate success. Taking Jesus out of "the heavenlies" and making him a relatable fellow human being, however divine, sealed the deal, I feel. I think what is know known as the gnostic heresy might have produced a kinder, gentler, less self-loathing Christianity, but it might not have been as enduring and adaptable an orthodoxy as what the world ended up with.
I have a theory.... ...that Paul accepted the Apostolic (I mean theirs, not the Vatican's) belief that Jesus was going to return and usher in the last days in their lifetimes - which is what the Gospels clearly say, though they were running out of live disciples when Luke was written. Paul was in a hurry as he wanted to convert and save as many of his Gentile fellow-citizens as he could.
His heavenly ascent was the contents of the open graves rising up to meet the descending Jesus in mid -air, though this is Interpreted today as deceased believers rising to heaven to be judged on an individual basis, not a sorting into sheep and goats as the gospels actually say. The idea of living in heaven with Jesus was not the gospel idea.
Our posting pal Eusebius is right when he points out that Gehenna is the use of the rubbish burning in the vale of Hinnom (South of Jerusalem) as a metaphor o what will be done with the 'Goats' or the "tares". Paul did not want his gentiles to be discarded and burned when God finally called Full Time.
I understand. He might have been trying to really make an impact. Never knowing that his words would be so widely read and perhaps misunderstood for thousands of years.
I think that if he had changed his message, then his writings would have gone unnoticed and maybe someone else would have written something to take their place.
yet another reasonable conclusion.
The assemblers of the bible choose by how old the writings were too right? They choose not to much magic and as close to Jesus' times as possible. No magic was kind of impossible for that time, but they limited it as much as they could.
There are few historical events that bum me out more than the burning of Alexander's library. I try not to even think about what could have been.
I agree with you about the burning of the Library at Alexandria..it\s amazing how the blame gets shifted around. The story of how and why the books of the Bible were selected by Constantine's committee is an interesting one. I gather that Marcion started his own 'Bible' and Constantine's religious advisors were alarmed that he wanted to cut all the Jewish material. They put together their own collation with the OT included and proscribed Marcion's effort.
There is no doubt in my mind that Paul was a false prophet, a man intent on getting people to follow his beliefs, (which were his opinions and nothing more) rather than anything Jesus taught.
Further, I think it is shameful that so many Christian churches have a Pauline base and treat his words and letters as equal to Jesus rather than using them as some historical insight into the early church. Churches that focus more on Jesus and less on Paul would probably attract more members.
Google hyperdispensationalism sometime; there are people who believe that the writings of Paul are the pinnacle of the NT and in fact the only part that is binding on us today -- in the same way that most fundamentalists believe the OT is no longer binding (except when it's convenient for it to be at least).
Given that Paul's writings were incorporated into the NT canon, I think it's fair to conclude that whatever heresy Paul may have represented was legitimized or co-opted by the church fathers. I doubt they included him in Holy Writ to provide historical background.
In any battle, including a doctrinal one, the victors get to write history.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It was more than that, old mate. He was (If I am right that his bio.notes are Gen, more or less) conducting a vigorous and well -planned campaign to sell Jesus -faith to the Gentiles to 'Save' them. He 'Texted' as you say, but he also evidently visited quite a lot, often taking his collection tin with him.
...that Paul accepted the Apostolic (I mean theirs, not the Vatican's) belief that Jesus was going to return and usher in the last days in their lifetimes - which is what the Gospels clearly say, though they were running out of live disciples when Luke was written. Paul was in a hurry as he wanted to convert and save as many of his Gentile fellow-citizens as he could.
