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.
Being alittle presumptive about me being presumptive aren't you?
I was responding to a conversation in which GCSTroop and I were having and I happen to feel that (actually he/she basically came out and told me) this poster has a lot of "I can do it myself".
I will quit posting now, sorry
Dont drag me into this , I was just saying that I have come to the conclusion that I am an athiest. There really is no middle ground.
And by the way there are 13 letters attributed to Paul in the New Testament. Romans and 1 Corinthians are very long and were written to teach people about the Gospel. But in all of Paul's long letters there is almost nothing about the life of Jesus. Paul knew that Jesus had been crucified, but he never mentions any miracles, any parables, any exorcisms etc.
He never mentions the Lord's Prayer, the Transfiguration, the Sermon on the Mount, Mary, Joseph, Bethlehem, the 3 Wise Men,Herod's Slaughter of the Innocents, Galilee, Nazareth, Pontius Pilate, Judas Iscariot, Gethsemane, Calvary, the Temptation by Satan etc etc. He never refers to Jesus as the 'Son of Man', one of Jesus's favourite ways of describing himself. 1 Timothy 6:13 mentions Pilate, but 1 Timothy is not by Paul.
According to the Gospels, the Pharisees were bitter enemies of Jesus, yet Paul makes no mention of this and regards his having been a Pharisee as a sign of his having tried to lead a righteous life.
You told me to find it for my self, is this your answer? - Paul never mentions the gospel stories because the people he was writing to were so familiar with them that they went without saying. I think this is a silly solution. Have you ever heard a preacher decide not to mention a story about Jesus because his audience were familiar with it? 1 Corinthians 15 was written because the Corinthians doubted the Resurrection. Were the people who doubted the Resurrection also the people who knew the gospel stories off by heart? In Galatians 1:6-9, Paul chides the Galatians for following different gospels. Were the people who followed different gospels also the people who knew the gospel stories off by heart?
Nobody has ever even provided any evidence that the Romans and Colossians and Galatians etc were so familiar with the Gospel stories that Paul could take knowledge of them for granted. Indeed, the third Bishop of Rome , Clement, shows a very poor knowledge of the Gospel stories when he wrote 1 Clement.
If stories need not be mentioned because audiences are already familiar with them, why does Paul mention so many stories from the Old Testament? His audience must have already been familiar with them as, as for example in 1 Corinthians 10, he mentions many details from Old Testament stories in passing, expecting his audience to pick up the references. He does not allow the fact that his audience knew the stories to stop him mentioning them. Why does he allow the 'fact' that his audience knew the Gospel stories to stop him mentioning them?
So my question is have you even read Pauls letters because it sounds like you have not, and if you have then you are reading the wrong letters.
[quote=Karrsquest;4612543]Dont drag me into this , I was just saying that I have come to the conclusion that I am an athiest. There really is no middle ground. [quote]
Ouch, when there is a quote directly in front of what is written, usually the words written by the poster refer to those quoted phrases.
Not sure where you got I was even quoting you unless post under two different names.
I am done now, but don't go accusing me of bringing you into this, it seems you did that by mis-quoting my posts...
And by the way there are 13 letters attributed to Paul in the New Testament. Romans and 1 Corinthians are very long and were written to teach people about the Gospel. But in all of Paul's long letters there is almost nothing about the life of Jesus. Paul knew that Jesus had been crucified, but he never mentions any miracles, any parables, any exorcisms etc.
He never mentions the Lord's Prayer, the Transfiguration, the Sermon on the Mount, Mary, Joseph, Bethlehem, the 3 Wise Men,Herod's Slaughter of the Innocents, Galilee, Nazareth, Pontius Pilate, Judas Iscariot, Gethsemane, Calvary, the Temptation by Satan etc etc. He never refers to Jesus as the 'Son of Man', one of Jesus's favourite ways of describing himself. 1 Timothy 6:13 mentions Pilate, but 1 Timothy is not by Paul.
According to the Gospels, the Pharisees were bitter enemies of Jesus, yet Paul makes no mention of this and regards his having been a Pharisee as a sign of his having tried to lead a righteous life.
You told me to find it for my self, is this your answer? - Paul never mentions the gospel stories because the people he was writing to were so familiar with them that they went without saying. I think this is a silly solution. Have you ever heard a preacher decide not to mention a story about Jesus because his audience were familiar with it? 1 Corinthians 15 was written because the Corinthians doubted the Resurrection. Were the people who doubted the Resurrection also the people who knew the gospel stories off by heart? In Galatians 1:6-9, Paul chides the Galatians for following different gospels. Were the people who followed different gospels also the people who knew the gospel stories off by heart?
Nobody has ever even provided any evidence that the Romans and Colossians and Galatians etc were so familiar with the Gospel stories that Paul could take knowledge of them for granted. Indeed, the third Bishop of Rome , Clement, shows a very poor knowledge of the Gospel stories when he wrote 1 Clement.
If stories need not be mentioned because audiences are already familiar with them, why does Paul mention so many stories from the Old Testament? His audience must have already been familiar with them as, as for example in 1 Corinthians 10, he mentions many details from Old Testament stories in passing, expecting his audience to pick up the references. He does not allow the fact that his audience knew the stories to stop him mentioning them. Why does he allow the 'fact' that his audience knew the Gospel stories to stop him mentioning them?
Karrsquest, I'm curious, have you ever read, "The Mythmaker: Paul and the invention of Christianity"? It's a slightly older book, (printed in 1986), written by a Talmudic scholar by the name of Hyam Maccoby. I stumbled across a copy on the Barnes and Noble sales rack, a couple of years ago, and bought it. Obviously, as a non-scholar, in any professional sense, (particularly Talmudic), I cannot verify everything he said in his book, but, I did find Maccoby's argument, that Paul invented Christianity, quite interesting. It's actually not the first time, of course, I had heard of such a thing, but the book was the first scholarly attempt I had ever read on the subject, (some folks call it Pauline Christianity), by someone with apparent reputable credentials. I suspect that at the time of it's original publication, it upset, and angered a great many Christians, (understandably so, of course, as no likes to have their faith called into question), but I've often wondered how many of them actually read it, instead of merely hearing of it, from their preachers, etc.? Obviously, one does not have to believe a word the author wrote, (I'm sure he had his own axe to grind, as do most people, when we make our opinions known. LOL!), but I think more Christians should read it, to have another perspective on the possible development of Christianity, if for no other reason than to be better equipped to defend their faith.
This has been a very interesting thread, by the way. There were a few times that I thought of entering the fray, but decided against it. The only reason I did so, now, was to mention the book.
Last edited by CelticLady1; 07-27-2008 at 05:39 AM..
Karrsquest, I'm curious, have you ever read, "The Mythmaker: Paul and the invention of Christianity"? It's a slightly older book, (printed in 1986), written by a Talmudic scholar by the name of Hyam Maccoby. I stumbled across a copy on the Barnes and Noble sales rack, a couple of years ago, and bought it. Obviously, as a non-scholar, in any professional sense, (particularly Talmudic), I cannot verify everything he said in his book, but, I did find Maccoby's argument, that Paul invented Christianity, quite interesting. It's actually not the first time, of course, I had heard of such a thing, but the book was the first scholarly attempt I had ever read on the subject, (some folks call it Pauline Christianity), by someone with apparent reputable credentials. I suspect that at the time of it's original publication, it upset, and angered a great many Christians, (understandably so, of course, as no likes to have their faith called into question), but I've often wondered how many of them actually read it, instead of merely hearing of it, from their preachers, etc.? Obviously, one does not have to believe a word the author wrote, (I'm sure he had his own axe to grind, as do most people, when we make our opinions known. LOL!), but I think more Christians should read it, to have another perspective on the possible development of Christianity, if for no other reason than to be better equipped to defend their faith.
This has been a very interesting thread, by the way. There were a few times that I thought of entering the fray, but decided against it. The only reason I did so, now, was to mention the book.
No, But I just looked it up on amazon and it sounds like an intresting read, I will have to check it out Thanks
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.
), I cannot verify everything he said in his book, but, I did find Maccoby's argument, that Paul invented Christianity, quite interesting. It's actually not the first time, of course, I had heard of such a thing, but the book was the first scholarly attempt I had ever read on the subject, (some folks call it Pauline Christianity), by someone with apparent reputable credentials. I suspect that at the time of it's original publication, it upset, and angered a great many Christians, (understandably so, of course, as no likes to have their faith called into question), but I've often wondered how many of them actually read it, instead of merely hearing of it, from their preachers, etc.? Obviously, one does not have to believe a word the author wrote, (I'm sure he had his own axe to grind, as do most people, when we make our opinions known. LOL!), but I think more Christians should read it, to have another perspective on the possible development of Christianity, if for no other reason than to be better equipped to defend their faith.
There were a few times that I thought of entering the fray, but decided against it.
Thanks 
