Jesus had hemorrhoids for our sins
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
13-03-2015, 12:57 PM
RE: Jesus had hemorrhoids for our sins
(11-03-2015 01:24 PM)Leo Wrote:  Animal sacrifice ( Old Testament ) and human sacrifice ( Jebus ) . What a disgusting religion christianity really is.

you forgot the "balls must be crushed before entering church" part
along with the "gouge out your eyes if you see a hot babe"
and not to mention "kills disobedient children"
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Ace's post
14-03-2015, 01:17 AM (This post was last modified: 14-03-2015 01:27 AM by Mark Fulton.)
RE: Jesus had hemorrhoids for our sins
(13-03-2015 09:40 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  Paul did not teach original sin. Romans 5 is clear--despite what Augustine, then others, added. I'm not Catholic and do not hold to the non-biblical, traditional doctrine of original sin. Nor did Paul. Understand Augustine pulled it from a twist of Romans 5 then read Romans 5 for yourself.

Substitutionary atonement is biblical, was promulgated by others than Paul, and explains better the ritual sacrifices in the HB from the shedding of blood at the temple, tabernacle and earlier (animals were killed as far back as to make coverings for Adam and Eve). I see your notes about church leaders cashing in as intercessors, the Reformation did a good job of explaining why that need not be so.

I was quoting Hebrews to answer a post from a TTA member. No, I don't know who wrote Hebrews but I agree with those conservatives who think it was Paul or perhaps Apollos. However, I also don't know who wrote "I'm rubber, your glue..." but I find the concept compelling, and usually whenever I read TTA posts assaulting my intelligence.

No, I don't know who wrote Hebrews but I can see the clear indications that mistakes weren't made including it in the NT canon. For example, it has more details regarding the necessity of a blood/death atonement, specifically which (covenant, death of a testator as quoted) you skipped entirely in your responses. "Why did I quote it?" asks Mark. Because it adds knowledge regarding the atonement that is clearly lacked at TTA.

And yes, I'm already familiar with atheist objections, none of which are reasoned, to atonement or the idea of God loving you enough to die for you. A benevolent judge once fined a guilty yet contrite man $300. The man had no money and was destined to serve 30 days in prison. The judge, being just, sentenced him to the fine anyway. Being also benevolent, he then paid the man's fine of his own wallet. Yes, God passed the sentence and defined the Law. Yes, sin is obviously powerful and leads to death. But just as I would step in front of a bus for my kids... bu-bu-but I also commissioned the bus driver to drive down the street where my child is crossing has nothing to do with it. WHERE the bus came from, East or West, or where it's going, has nothing to do with my stepping in front of the bus. While you stand there and judge the bus, the driver and the bus commission, you get squashed. Bad call IMO.

First three articles I came across on google said that Paul taught original sin. But I can't be bothered reading them because frankly it is just not that interesting. I once spent a few months trying to get my Head around Paul's nonsense and it's seriously not worth the effort. Never again. Yet it appears you are wrong

http://www.romanity.org/htm/rom.10.en.or...aul.01.htm

http://experimentaltheology.blogspot.com...never.html

http://experimentaltheology.blogspot.com...never.html
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-03-2015, 01:36 AM
RE: Jesus had hemorrhoids for our sins
(13-03-2015 09:40 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  Paul did not teach original sin. Romans 5 is clear--despite what Augustine, then others, added. I'm not Catholic and do not hold to the non-biblical, traditional doctrine of original sin. Nor did Paul. Understand Augustine pulled it from a twist of Romans 5 then read Romans 5 for yourself.

Substitutionary atonement is biblical, was promulgated by others than Paul, and explains better the ritual sacrifices in the HB from the shedding of blood at the temple, tabernacle and earlier (animals were killed as far back as to make coverings for Adam and Eve). I see your notes about church leaders cashing in as intercessors, the Reformation did a good job of explaining why that need not be so.

I was quoting Hebrews to answer a post from a TTA member. No, I don't know who wrote Hebrews but I agree with those conservatives who think it was Paul or perhaps Apollos. However, I also don't know who wrote "I'm rubber, your glue..." but I find the concept compelling, and usually whenever I read TTA posts assaulting my intelligence.

No, I don't know who wrote Hebrews but I can see the clear indications that mistakes weren't made including it in the NT canon. For example, it has more details regarding the necessity of a blood/death atonement, specifically which (covenant, death of a testator as quoted) you skipped entirely in your responses. "Why did I quote it?" asks Mark. Because it adds knowledge regarding the atonement that is clearly lacked at TTA.

And yes, I'm already familiar with atheist objections, none of which are reasoned, to atonement or the idea of God loving you enough to die for you. A benevolent judge once fined a guilty yet contrite man $300. The man had no money and was destined to serve 30 days in prison. The judge, being just, sentenced him to the fine anyway. Being also benevolent, he then paid the man's fine of his own wallet. Yes, God passed the sentence and defined the Law. Yes, sin is obviously powerful and leads to death. But just as I would step in front of a bus for my kids... bu-bu-but I also commissioned the bus driver to drive down the street where my child is crossing has nothing to do with it. WHERE the bus came from, East or West, or where it's going, has nothing to do with my stepping in front of the bus. While you stand there and judge the bus, the driver and the bus commission, you get squashed. Bad call IMO.

OH...ok....I'll look at Romans 5.....here it is

Romans 5 King James Version (KJV)

5 Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ:

2 By whom also we have access by faith into this grace wherein we stand, and rejoice in hope of the glory of God.

3 And not only so, but we glory in tribulations also: knowing that tribulation worketh patience;

4 And patience, experience; and experience, hope:

5 And hope maketh not ashamed; because the love of God is shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Ghost which is given unto us.

6 For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly.

7 For scarcely for a righteous man will one die: yet peradventure for a good man some would even dare to die.

8 But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.

9 Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him.

10 For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life.

11 And not only so, but we also joy in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have now received the atonement.

12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

13 (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.

14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.

15 But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many.

16 And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offences unto justification.

17 For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.)

18 Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.

19 For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.

20 Moreover the law entered, that the offence might abound. But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound:

21 That as sin hath reigned unto death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord.

I feel nauseated!

I could only get through the first half of that, and had to go get myself a beer.

Seriously.... This is utter drivel.

This Paul character was a lying, manipulative, anxious, pigheaded, narcissistic, over imaginative git!

I got to the bit where he starts talking about original sin ....that'll do me for today.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Mark Fulton's post
14-03-2015, 05:04 AM
RE: Jesus had hemorrhoids for our sins
(13-03-2015 09:40 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  Because it adds knowledge regarding the atonement that is clearly lacked at TTA.

LOL! Did you know that this is an atheist site? I don't give a fuck about Jeebus blood magic pagan rituals. It's an amazing aspect of human psychology that a grown adult takes any of this seriously. You live in a world where these blood magic rituals actually make sense, I want no part of this barbaric insanity.

So how big of a hyssop branch is needed to sprinkle the blood in the temple?
Was the hyssop branch not necessary with Jesus' blood? Was it not necessary to sprinkle Jesus' blood with a hyssop branch on an altar in the temple?

If you think any of us here find any of this stuff interesting or real, you're sadly mistaken.

Gods derive their power from post-hoc rationalizations. -The Inquisition

Using the supernatural to explain events in your life is a failure of the intellect to comprehend the world around you. -The Inquisition
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like TheInquisition's post
14-03-2015, 06:47 AM
RE: Jesus had hemorrhoids for our sins
(13-03-2015 09:40 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  Paul did not teach original sin. Romans 5 is clear--despite what Augustine, then others, added. I'm not Catholic and do not hold to the non-biblical, traditional doctrine of original sin. Nor did Paul. Understand Augustine pulled it from a twist of Romans 5 then read Romans 5 for yourself.

Substitutionary atonement is biblical, was promulgated by others than Paul, and explains better the ritual sacrifices in the HB from the shedding of blood at the temple, tabernacle and earlier (animals were killed as far back as to make coverings for Adam and Eve). I see your notes about church leaders cashing in as intercessors, the Reformation did a good job of explaining why that need not be so.

I was quoting Hebrews to answer a post from a TTA member. No, I don't know who wrote Hebrews but I agree with those conservatives who think it was Paul or perhaps Apollos. However, I also don't know who wrote "I'm rubber, your glue..." but I find the concept compelling, and usually whenever I read TTA posts assaulting my intelligence.

No, I don't know who wrote Hebrews but I can see the clear indications that mistakes weren't made including it in the NT canon. For example, it has more details regarding the necessity of a blood/death atonement, specifically which (covenant, death of a testator as quoted) you skipped entirely in your responses. "Why did I quote it?" asks Mark. Because it adds knowledge regarding the atonement that is clearly lacked at TTA.

And yes, I'm already familiar with atheist objections, none of which are reasoned, to atonement or the idea of God loving you enough to die for you. A benevolent judge once fined a guilty yet contrite man $300. The man had no money and was destined to serve 30 days in prison. The judge, being just, sentenced him to the fine anyway. Being also benevolent, he then paid the man's fine of his own wallet. Yes, God passed the sentence and defined the Law. Yes, sin is obviously powerful and leads to death. But just as I would step in front of a bus for my kids... bu-bu-but I also commissioned the bus driver to drive down the street where my child is crossing has nothing to do with it. WHERE the bus came from, East or West, or where it's going, has nothing to do with my stepping in front of the bus. While you stand there and judge the bus, the driver and the bus commission, you get squashed. Bad call IMO.


[attachment=2569]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Mark Fulton's post
14-03-2015, 07:07 AM
RE: Jesus had hemorrhoids for our sins
(14-03-2015 06:47 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  
(13-03-2015 09:40 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  Paul did not teach original sin. Romans 5 is clear--despite what Augustine, then others, added. I'm not Catholic and do not hold to the non-biblical, traditional doctrine of original sin. Nor did Paul. Understand Augustine pulled it from a twist of Romans 5 then read Romans 5 for yourself.

Substitutionary atonement is biblical, was promulgated by others than Paul, and explains better the ritual sacrifices in the HB from the shedding of blood at the temple, tabernacle and earlier (animals were killed as far back as to make coverings for Adam and Eve). I see your notes about church leaders cashing in as intercessors, the Reformation did a good job of explaining why that need not be so.

I was quoting Hebrews to answer a post from a TTA member. No, I don't know who wrote Hebrews but I agree with those conservatives who think it was Paul or perhaps Apollos. However, I also don't know who wrote "I'm rubber, your glue..." but I find the concept compelling, and usually whenever I read TTA posts assaulting my intelligence.

No, I don't know who wrote Hebrews but I can see the clear indications that mistakes weren't made including it in the NT canon. For example, it has more details regarding the necessity of a blood/death atonement, specifically which (covenant, death of a testator as quoted) you skipped entirely in your responses. "Why did I quote it?" asks Mark. Because it adds knowledge regarding the atonement that is clearly lacked at TTA.

And yes, I'm already familiar with atheist objections, none of which are reasoned, to atonement or the idea of God loving you enough to die for you. A benevolent judge once fined a guilty yet contrite man $300. The man had no money and was destined to serve 30 days in prison. The judge, being just, sentenced him to the fine anyway. Being also benevolent, he then paid the man's fine of his own wallet. Yes, God passed the sentence and defined the Law. Yes, sin is obviously powerful and leads to death. But just as I would step in front of a bus for my kids... bu-bu-but I also commissioned the bus driver to drive down the street where my child is crossing has nothing to do with it. WHERE the bus came from, East or West, or where it's going, has nothing to do with my stepping in front of the bus. While you stand there and judge the bus, the driver and the bus commission, you get squashed. Bad call IMO.

[Image: MWg8sz0.gif]

The people closely associated with the namesake of female canines are suffering from a nondescript form of lunacy.
"Anti-environmentalism is like standing in front of a forest and going 'quick kill them they're coming right for us!'" - Jake Farr-Wharton, The Imaginary Friend Show.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-03-2015, 08:37 AM
RE: Jesus had hemorrhoids for our sins
(13-03-2015 09:40 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  Because it adds knowledge regarding the atonement that is clearly lacked at TTA.

FYI this is a site for apostates to get together and talk about stuff

no one here gives a damn about jebus losing blood and dying for everyone else to be forgiven of the crime committed by two people eating an apple that should have been better guarded by the almighty asshole

lets see according to the bible god knows everything and whats going ot happen yet he gets mad about it instead of trying ot change the future which he friggen foresaw

god is not exempt from our criticism under any circumstances

he will be judged and criticized the same we we do it to others
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Ace's post
14-03-2015, 04:03 PM (This post was last modified: 14-03-2015 04:06 PM by Mark Fulton.)
RE: Jesus had hemorrhoids for our sins
Q, all this nonsense about Jesus's blood and the atonement was made up by the noxious Paul.

If you examine the question of who Paul was and what he was trying to do and from where he sourced his ideas, you will realise that all of his ideas are utter nonsense.

I suggest you read the following, and I'll be interested in your comments.

The Source of Paul’s Theology

It cannot be assumed that Paul had a legitimate and verifiable source for his hypotheses, since the evidence is quite to the contrary. Imagine going back in time to ask him what he thought it was. He got anxious when his credibility was questioned, so his answer would be intense. He frequently wrote at length about himself, so he’d probably tell us how hard he works, how genuine he is, how he’s suffered for his beliefs, and how sure he is that what he preaches is the truth. The actual truth about the source of his ideas is embedded in his own writing.

Paul wrote,
“The fact is, brothers, and I want you to realize this, the Good News I preached is not a human message that I was given by men, it is something I learned only through a revelation of Jesus Christ. You must have heard of my career as a practicing Jew, how merciless I was in persecuting the Church of God, how much damage I did to it, how I stood out among other Jews of my generation, and how enthusiastic I was for the traditions of my ancestors. Then God, who had specifically chosen me while I was still in my mother’s womb, called me through his grace and chose to reveal his son in me, so that I may preach the Good News about him to the pagans” (Gal. 1:11–24, NJB.) This is from one of his best-known letters.

Here Paul specifically stated that the message he preached came not from human sources, but from God, “through a revelation of Jesus Christ.” Just why “God” would need to talk to Paul via “a revelation of Jesus Christ,” when Jesus could speak for himself just a few years earlier, is never explained by Paul.

This was not the only occasion he said God inspired him;
“I, Paul, appointed by God to be an apostle” (1 Cor. 1:1, NJB) and
“But our sufficiency is from God” (2 Cor. 3:5 NKJB.)

What he meant was that he thought he had a God given talent enabling him to interpret scripture. That was, after all, the job description for a Pharisee. He openly communicated that his God, with whom he thought he had a special relationship with, was the source of his “Good News.” That may have impressed naïve people two thousand years ago, but today we can read any number of over imaginative accounts from people who also claim, without evidence, that they’ve talked to God. Some of them are mentally unwell. Paul had no more credibility than them. This style may have been a legitimate means of communication during his time and working with his patrons, yet it fails to pass the legitimacy test today.

Paul took things one step further than his more traditional colleagues when interpreting scripture. He thought he alone had a divine mandate from God. Consider the opening lines of his letter to the Romans:

“From Paul, a servant of Christ Jesus who has been called to be an apostle, and specially chosen to preach the Good News that God promised long ago through his prophets in the scriptures” (Rom. 1:1–3, NJB.)

He promoted himself as a uniquely special interpreter of scripture, and he castigated anyone who happened to disagree with him (see 1 Corinthians 15:1–3, http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?sea...sion=KJV).

Yet today’s Jewish scholars are adamant that Paul’s “good news” isn’t in scripture. (http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articl...f-tarsus).

Moreover, it is quite clear Paul often changed the meaning of scripture to suit himself. For example, he wrote,

“so that all beings in the heavens, on earth and in the underworld, should bend the knee at the name of Jesus and that every tongue should acclaim Jesus Christ as Lord to the glory of the Father” (Phil. 2:10–11, NJB.) The actual source that Paul borrowed heavily from was

“Before me every knee shall bend, by me every tongue shall swear, saying ‘From Yahweh alone come victory and strength.’” (Isa. 45:23–24, NJB.) Paul merely replaced Yahweh with Christ, to fit with his own manufactured theology.

One of Paul’s main themes differentiating this theology from that of the Jews was that Gentiles could be God’s special people too. He wrote,

“Well, we are those people; whether we were Jews or pagans we are the ones he has called. That is exactly what God says in Hosea: ‘I shall say to a people that was not mine, ‘you are my people,’ and to a nation I never loved ‘I love you’” (Rom. 9:24, NJB.)

However a reading of chapters one and two of Hosea (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?sea...rsion=KJV) reveals that “God” wasn’t referring to Gentiles, but Jews whom he was accepting back under his wing after a misdemeanor. Paul changed the meaning of scripture to sell his own story to Gentiles living in Rome.

Mithras, the pagan god of an ancient Persian cult, had remarkable similarities with Paul’s Christ, and Paul’s home town was a major center of Mithraic belief. (http://jdstone.org/cr/files/paulandthepa...ism.html). As Paul would have known of Mithras, it is probable that he manufactured his Christ partly based on the Mithraic model.

It is not unreasonable to consider whether Paul’s Christ was also, in part, an invention to counter the political dreams of the Nazarenes, who were hoping for a messiah.

Paul’s theology was the product of a complex mishmash of concepts from other cults, innovative interpretations of Jewish scripture, his personal ambitions, his desire to undermine messianic Judaism and his own imagination. One could label him a master confabulator, a man who invented fictions and interpretations to support his own views.

He must have known he was fabricating, but didn’t let that niggle at his conscience. He was on a mission to snare converts, and the end justified the means. I suspect the more he thought and talked about the divinity of his Christ, his sacrificial death, and his resurrection, the more real and useful these ideas became to him. I think it either didn’t bother him, or he wasn’t aware, that his ideas were fundamentally odd. He wouldn’t have wasted time questioning his own themes. He was too busy for that, too obsessed with winning people over. He couldn’t have known his letters would one day be critically examined and compared with each other.

He was preaching and writing to people in ancient times who, judged by today’s standards, while obviously not unintelligent, were naïve, unsophisticated, isolated, and unread. Most of them would have had Paul’s epistles read to them. A well-written letter must have been impressive. When he appeared in person he was probably a self-righteous and confident teacher, which would have been enough to give him some credibility. He presumed his readers would be impressed by his claims that God inspired him, yet there’s clearly no objective reason why modern readers should be.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Mark Fulton's post
16-03-2015, 10:29 AM
RE: Jesus had hemorrhoids for our sins
(14-03-2015 04:03 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  Q, all this nonsense about Jesus's blood and the atonement was made up by the noxious Paul.

If you examine the question of who Paul was and what he was trying to do and from where he sourced his ideas, you will realise that all of his ideas are utter nonsense.

I suggest you read the following, and I'll be interested in your comments.

The Source of Paul’s Theology

It cannot be assumed that Paul had a legitimate and verifiable source for his hypotheses, since the evidence is quite to the contrary. Imagine going back in time to ask him what he thought it was. He got anxious when his credibility was questioned, so his answer would be intense. He frequently wrote at length about himself, so he’d probably tell us how hard he works, how genuine he is, how he’s suffered for his beliefs, and how sure he is that what he preaches is the truth. The actual truth about the source of his ideas is embedded in his own writing.

Paul wrote,
“The fact is, brothers, and I want you to realize this, the Good News I preached is not a human message that I was given by men, it is something I learned only through a revelation of Jesus Christ. You must have heard of my career as a practicing Jew, how merciless I was in persecuting the Church of God, how much damage I did to it, how I stood out among other Jews of my generation, and how enthusiastic I was for the traditions of my ancestors. Then God, who had specifically chosen me while I was still in my mother’s womb, called me through his grace and chose to reveal his son in me, so that I may preach the Good News about him to the pagans” (Gal. 1:11–24, NJB.) This is from one of his best-known letters.

Here Paul specifically stated that the message he preached came not from human sources, but from God, “through a revelation of Jesus Christ.” Just why “God” would need to talk to Paul via “a revelation of Jesus Christ,” when Jesus could speak for himself just a few years earlier, is never explained by Paul.

This was not the only occasion he said God inspired him;
“I, Paul, appointed by God to be an apostle” (1 Cor. 1:1, NJB) and
“But our sufficiency is from God” (2 Cor. 3:5 NKJB.)

What he meant was that he thought he had a God given talent enabling him to interpret scripture. That was, after all, the job description for a Pharisee. He openly communicated that his God, with whom he thought he had a special relationship with, was the source of his “Good News.” That may have impressed naïve people two thousand years ago, but today we can read any number of over imaginative accounts from people who also claim, without evidence, that they’ve talked to God. Some of them are mentally unwell. Paul had no more credibility than them. This style may have been a legitimate means of communication during his time and working with his patrons, yet it fails to pass the legitimacy test today.

Paul took things one step further than his more traditional colleagues when interpreting scripture. He thought he alone had a divine mandate from God. Consider the opening lines of his letter to the Romans:

“From Paul, a servant of Christ Jesus who has been called to be an apostle, and specially chosen to preach the Good News that God promised long ago through his prophets in the scriptures” (Rom. 1:1–3, NJB.)

He promoted himself as a uniquely special interpreter of scripture, and he castigated anyone who happened to disagree with him (see 1 Corinthians 15:1–3, http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?sea...sion=KJV).

Yet today’s Jewish scholars are adamant that Paul’s “good news” isn’t in scripture. (http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articl...f-tarsus).

Moreover, it is quite clear Paul often changed the meaning of scripture to suit himself. For example, he wrote,

“so that all beings in the heavens, on earth and in the underworld, should bend the knee at the name of Jesus and that every tongue should acclaim Jesus Christ as Lord to the glory of the Father” (Phil. 2:10–11, NJB.) The actual source that Paul borrowed heavily from was

“Before me every knee shall bend, by me every tongue shall swear, saying ‘From Yahweh alone come victory and strength.’” (Isa. 45:23–24, NJB.) Paul merely replaced Yahweh with Christ, to fit with his own manufactured theology.

One of Paul’s main themes differentiating this theology from that of the Jews was that Gentiles could be God’s special people too. He wrote,

“Well, we are those people; whether we were Jews or pagans we are the ones he has called. That is exactly what God says in Hosea: ‘I shall say to a people that was not mine, ‘you are my people,’ and to a nation I never loved ‘I love you’” (Rom. 9:24, NJB.)

However a reading of chapters one and two of Hosea (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?sea...rsion=KJV) reveals that “God” wasn’t referring to Gentiles, but Jews whom he was accepting back under his wing after a misdemeanor. Paul changed the meaning of scripture to sell his own story to Gentiles living in Rome.

Mithras, the pagan god of an ancient Persian cult, had remarkable similarities with Paul’s Christ, and Paul’s home town was a major center of Mithraic belief. (http://jdstone.org/cr/files/paulandthepa...ism.html). As Paul would have known of Mithras, it is probable that he manufactured his Christ partly based on the Mithraic model.

It is not unreasonable to consider whether Paul’s Christ was also, in part, an invention to counter the political dreams of the Nazarenes, who were hoping for a messiah.

Paul’s theology was the product of a complex mishmash of concepts from other cults, innovative interpretations of Jewish scripture, his personal ambitions, his desire to undermine messianic Judaism and his own imagination. One could label him a master confabulator, a man who invented fictions and interpretations to support his own views.

He must have known he was fabricating, but didn’t let that niggle at his conscience. He was on a mission to snare converts, and the end justified the means. I suspect the more he thought and talked about the divinity of his Christ, his sacrificial death, and his resurrection, the more real and useful these ideas became to him. I think it either didn’t bother him, or he wasn’t aware, that his ideas were fundamentally odd. He wouldn’t have wasted time questioning his own themes. He was too busy for that, too obsessed with winning people over. He couldn’t have known his letters would one day be critically examined and compared with each other.

He was preaching and writing to people in ancient times who, judged by today’s standards, while obviously not unintelligent, were naïve, unsophisticated, isolated, and unread. Most of them would have had Paul’s epistles read to them. A well-written letter must have been impressive. When he appeared in person he was probably a self-righteous and confident teacher, which would have been enough to give him some credibility. He presumed his readers would be impressed by his claims that God inspired him, yet there’s clearly no objective reason why modern readers should be.

Interesting post, Mark, but it sure looks like you are critiquing the author rather than responding to my point - that Augustinian doctrine misinterprets Romans 5.

I'm told atheists on forums like TTA are bitter and angry. If you are not, your posts to me will be respectful, insightful and thoughtful. Prove me wrong by your adherence to decent behavior.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-03-2015, 10:32 AM
RE: Jesus had hemorrhoids for our sins
(14-03-2015 05:04 AM)TheInquisition Wrote:  
(13-03-2015 09:40 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  Because it adds knowledge regarding the atonement that is clearly lacked at TTA.

LOL! Did you know that this is an atheist site? I don't give a fuck about Jeebus blood magic pagan rituals. It's an amazing aspect of human psychology that a grown adult takes any of this seriously. You live in a world where these blood magic rituals actually make sense, I want no part of this barbaric insanity.

So how big of a hyssop branch is needed to sprinkle the blood in the temple?
Was the hyssop branch not necessary with Jesus' blood? Was it not necessary to sprinkle Jesus' blood with a hyssop branch on an altar in the temple?

If you think any of us here find any of this stuff interesting or real, you're sadly mistaken.

You know that hyssop is a plant and Jesus died upon a tree for us? You know that John 19 specifically mentions that when (other) prophecy was fulfilled, Jesus took sour wine from a sponge held on a hyssop branch? You know that the writer of Hebrews, anticipating your question, explains why Jesus didn't die in the temple area--specifically right from Hebrews where we were discussing why Jesus had to die earlier in THIS thread?

The point of all this is I've concluded that if you feel the NT is some kind of written conspiracy(s) to trick you, that the conspirators did a more than admirable job of addressing every vital doctrine and hundreds if not thousands of prophecies.

I'm told atheists on forums like TTA are bitter and angry. If you are not, your posts to me will be respectful, insightful and thoughtful. Prove me wrong by your adherence to decent behavior.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: