LIES THAT PAUL MADE
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
18-01-2014, 04:19 PM
RE: LIES THAT PAUL MADE
(18-01-2014 03:22 PM)alpha male Wrote:  
(18-01-2014 03:15 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Name ONE physics professor you know. The "laws of motion aren't really laws".
Fallacy of the false analogy. The observed event s are consistent, UNLIKE the writings of the people named Paul. The question is not the label, but the content.
Have you ever considered taking a Critical Thinking class ? And you know that EXACTLY how, about Paul ? Were you there ? Did YOu talk to him/them ? Fact is, just like all apologists, you make up shit, to suit the moment, and expect people to swallow your shit.
Quite the ramble. Drooling

Quite the evasion, (as per your usual). Nice try. Didn't answer the point.
Do you people get a class or at least a chapter called "Equivocating for Jebus, ... or how to deflect ANY argument by not answering the question".

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Bucky Ball's post
18-01-2014, 04:26 PM
RE: LIES THAT PAUL MADE
(18-01-2014 04:19 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Do you people get a class or at least a chapter called "Equivocating for Jebus, ... or how to deflect ANY argument by not answering the question".

It's right next to the classroom on how to be a rude customer.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Foxen's post
18-01-2014, 05:08 PM
RE: LIES THAT PAUL MADE
(18-01-2014 03:08 PM)alpha male Wrote:  It's a practice common to many fields. When people are first studying physics, they're taught the laws of motion. Later, when they're more mature in the field, they learn that those laws aren't really laws. You don't spin those things as contradictions which require contortions to explain away. The professor teaching the laws of motion likely knew they weren't laws at the time. He wasn't lying or denying deeper concepts. Same with Paul.

You're making this up. Paul was a liar. He wrote different things to different groups of people, and made out what he wrote to suit the different groups. He would've had no idea some of his letters would much later be compared with each other.

He even admitted he was a liar. He wrote,
“For if the truth of God hath more abounded through my lie unto his glory; why yet am I also judged as a sinner?” (Rom. 3:7, KJB.)

He knew 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 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 wouldn’t have known his letters would one day be critically examined and compared with each other.

He was preaching and writing to people who, judged by today’s standards, 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
18-01-2014, 05:13 PM
RE: LIES THAT PAUL MADE
(18-01-2014 03:28 PM)Foxen Wrote:  
(18-01-2014 03:25 PM)alpha male Wrote:  What benefits were those?

The same benefits all charlatans crave.

(18-01-2014 03:25 PM)alpha male Wrote:  How do you determine that probability? Consider

It is just a guess. Would not be surprised if it was accurate. After all, one has to be messed up in the head to believe in something for which there is no evidence to support its existence.

I came to the same conclusion.

I think he was mildly mentally unwell. He was anxious, obsessive, insecure, a touch paranoid, quite delusional, introspective and egocentric. I suspect he was never quite at ease with himself, nor comfortable in a world he couldn’t totally control. He was probably pretty miserable, and there was no good treatment to be had in those days. He insisted on telling others how to live their lives, yet it was he who needed the help! He would have been a difficult patient. A therapist would try to stop him talking, get him to put his feet up, and suggest he try just listening to the wind and birds. Paul was probably too immersed in his own delusions to follow anyone else’s advice. He would corner the counselor and lecture her about Christ or some other rationalization of his current obsession. There’d be no peaceful moments in Paul’s presence.
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
18-01-2014, 05:18 PM (This post was last modified: 18-01-2014 05:30 PM by Mark Fulton.)
RE: LIES THAT PAUL MADE
(18-01-2014 03:25 PM)alpha male Wrote:  
(18-01-2014 03:21 PM)Foxen Wrote:  Paul was nothing more than an inhumane con man who realized the benefits of pretending to be taken with the holy spirit.
What benefits were those?
Quote:He probably had some sort of mind disease, akin to syphilis, just as all the other biblical writers had.
How do you determine that probability? Consider

Re
"What benefits were those?"

Like all cult leaders, he did his best to bolster his personal power and prestige. I think his ego was partly responsible for his self-styled theology. Despite his wordy protestations that he was only working for everyone else’s welfare, his letters lay bare his burning need to browbeat the reader into believing that he was the ultimate authority. He often called his teachings
“my gospel,” (Rom 2;16 and 16;25-27) a very apt description. His gospel elevated him to the status of the master teacher, as no one else in his immediate circle was an authority on it. He arrogantly insisted this gospel of his was the only path to salvation:
“Brothers, I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you, the gospel that you received and in which you are firmly established; because the gospel will save you only if you keep believing exactly what I preached to you - believing anything else will not lead to anything” (1 Cor. 15:1–3, NJB.) Sophisticated men are interested in others’ opinions, but the puerile Paul couldn’t cope with competing convictions. Magnanimous men aren’t overly dogmatic; they give people space to find their own paths, but he’d have none of that. Authentic teachers don’t need to threaten their students; he did. I’m surprised today’s Christians aren’t appalled and turned off by his narcissism.

He insisted his readers imitate him:
“Take me for your model, as I take Christ” (1 Cor. 11:1, NJB.) He thought he was the next best thing to God; that he was the personal deputy of his deity.

A few years later he wrote,
“I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me” (Gal. 2:20, KJV.) By then God’s right hand man had become God himself. His shoddily disguised delusions of grandeur were pathetic.

Status and power weren’t all Paul pursued. He needed food and shelter, items that usually needed to be bought. Money was a niggling issue:

“That is why I have thought it necessary to ask these brothers to go on to you ahead of us, and make sure in advance that the gift you promised is all ready, and that it all comes as a gift out of your generosity and not by being extorted from you. Do not forget that thin sowing means thin reaping; the more you sow, the more you reap. Each one should give what he has decided in his own mind, not grudgingly or because he is made to, for God loves a cheerful giver” (2 Cor. 9:5–7, NJB.) Cult leaders trying to earn a quid love a cheerful giver too!

Paul tried to justify living off the communities he visited:
“Nobody ever paid money to stay in the army, and nobody ever planted a vineyard and refused to eat the fruit of it. Who has there ever been that kept a flock and did not feed on the milk from his flock?” (1 Cor. 9:7, JB.) He must have milked money from his fraternities. Anyone he clashed with was compromising not just his ego, but his income too.

He didn’t have an easy time selling his ideas, as he repeatedly wrote about his own credentials. If he’d impressed more people, he wouldn’t have needed to sell himself.
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
18-01-2014, 05:27 PM (This post was last modified: 18-01-2014 06:12 PM by Mark Fulton.)
RE: LIES THAT PAUL MADE
(18-01-2014 03:50 PM)alpha male Wrote:  
(18-01-2014 03:44 PM)Foxen Wrote:  The thing about crazy people is that they tend to not know they are crazy,
Yes, as you apparently don't realize you're crazy to claim that charlatans are after beatings from crowds. Drooling

You (alpha male) have a poor understanding of the history. Allow me to put Paul's so called arrest in context for you...

The two faced Paul probably tried to ingratiate himself with the Nazarenes when in their company, but they became implacably opposed to him, as verified by the verbal confrontation described in Galatians chapter two, and the adamantly anti-Pauline assertions in James’ letter.

Paul knew he wasn’t a popular figure amongst traditional Jews. In his letter to the Romans he expressed his nervousness that the Nazarenes in Jerusalem might reject him, which, if the story in Acts is true, is precisely what happened. James summoned Paul to Jerusalem when it became apparent Paul was preaching against the Torah, and sent him to the temple to be purified and prove he was still a true Jew, (see Acts 21, http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts 21&version=KJV) which led to Paul’s so called arrest and eventual transportation to Rome. James, Jesus’ brother, effectively terminated Paul’s missionary career!

When Paul was forced to admit that he was a Roman citizen, his cover was well and truly blown. Nazarenes were implacably opposed to Rome. According to Acts, Roman authorities had to dedicate considerable resources (500 soldiers) to protect him from angry Jews. They were looking after one of their own. That’s about the same number of soldiers who arrested Jesus.

Paul wasn’t deterred. He kept writing letters from Rome.

His modern-day reputation as an honest evangelist, and the implication he taught Yeshua’s message, have no foundation, yet they’ve become part of Christian tradition, largely because of Acts, written some time in the early second century. Paul’s legitimacy must have lacked credibility, so the author had Jesus’ ghost appear to Paul on the road to Damascus, which was obviously a fiction, as was the story of Paul becoming best friends with Jesus’ disciples. The author even tried to shore up Paul’s status by having him (and his handkerchief) perform a number of miracles. Yet Paul failed to mention Jesus’ ghost or his own miracles; impossible omissions if they were true. Paul revealed many personality traits in his letters, but genuine modesty definitely wasn’t one of them.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Mark Fulton's post
18-01-2014, 05:35 PM
RE: LIES THAT PAUL MADE
(18-01-2014 03:50 PM)alpha male Wrote:  
(18-01-2014 03:44 PM)Foxen Wrote:  The thing about crazy people is that they tend to not know they are crazy,
Yes, as you apparently don't realize you're crazy to claim that charlatans are after beatings from crowds. Drooling

Some zealots, blinded by egotism, entirely misjudge the situation facing them. Thumbsup

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Bucky Ball's post
18-01-2014, 07:35 PM
RE: LIES THAT PAUL MADE
(18-01-2014 03:50 PM)alpha male Wrote:  
(18-01-2014 03:44 PM)Foxen Wrote:  The thing about crazy people is that they tend to not know they are crazy,
Yes, as you apparently don't realize you're crazy to claim that charlatans are after beatings from crowds. Drooling

Have you ever wondered why so many Jews, including Jesus' family and disciples, hated Paul's guts? Here’s the historical reality.

Devout Jews (such as the Nazarenes) despised Paul and rejected his ramblings. The idea that their mysterious, perfect, one and only God could be incarnated in a Christ was unthinkable to them. They couldn’t imagine that their God could die, or that a Christ’s death somehow addressed man’s sins. For them the kingdom of God promised in scripture never was in a hypothetical heaven, but was to be on earth in the here and now. Their messiah wasn’t some savior of souls, but a leader of the Jews who heralded in a glorious age in which Israel triumphed and pagans recognized the glory of their god, Yahweh. He was to build the temple, (Ezek. 37:26–28) gather all Jews back to Israel, (Isa. 43:5–6) and, importantly, bring an end to Roman rule. He was supposed to end all exploitation, corruption, famine, disease, and war. Paul’s fictional Christ had done none of this!

Paul claimed:
“Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified” (Gal. 2;16, KJV) and
“Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law” (Gal. 3:13, KJV) and
“Before faith came, we were allowed no freedom by the Law; we were being looked after till faith was revealed. The law was to be our guardian until the Christ came and we could be justified by faith. Now that that time has come we are no longer under that guardian, and you are, all of you, sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. All baptized in Christ, you have all clothed yourself in Christ, and there are no more distinctions between Jew and Greek, slave and free, male and female, but all of you are one in Christ Jesus.” (Gal. 3:23–28, NJB.)

Jews didn’t buy this. They wouldn’t be Jewish if they did. They believed - and still do - that the way to find favor with God was to obey “the Law” - that is, the Torah, as allegedly taught by Moses. There’s no mention in their scriptures about an end to the covenant God made with their ancestors on Mount Sinai. Jews regarded the Law almost like a gift from their God, not a curse, or an imposition on freedom. They knew there was no such thing as a “new covenant.” Why would they give up centuries of tradition to believe a renegade like Paul?

Imagine a hypothetical modern analogy; a fanatic from a small cult, such as the “branch davidians,” grabbing a microphone during a Catholic mass at the Vatican, and proclaiming that David Koresh was Jesus’ son, and Koresh’s teachings replaced the sermon on the mount. Paul was behaving like a deluded fanatic.

Paul had an ambivalent attitude to Jewish scripture, which varied with the audience he was writing to. At times he used it to justify his own ideas, such as when writing to “Hellenized” Jews in the diaspora. Yet when writing to Gentiles he claimed large parts of it were redundant.

Yeshua had died over a decade before Paul appeared on the scene, and I think would have been perplexed and offended by the idea that his death could somehow give Gentiles a ticket to heaven. He hated the Romans, (they did nail him to a cross!) and never imagined that Yahweh, whom he never regarded as his temporal sire, would grant them a place in heaven!

Jesus said,
“Do not imagine that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets. I have come not to abolish them but complete them. I tell you solemnly, till heaven and earth disappear, not one dot, not one little stroke, shall disappear from the Law until its purpose is achieved” (Matt. 5:17–18 JB.) Paul and Jesus contradicted each other! So much for biblical infallibility! (http://www.essene.org/Yahowshua_or_Paul.htm).

Many people today insist that Jesus came to do away with the Jewish Law. They’re not considering Jesus’ words, but Paul’s (or Paul’s proponents like Luther or Calvin.)
Most Jews believed God dwelt in the temple, in Jerusalem, Israel’s capital. Paul made a cavalier dismissal of the importance of Israel by suggesting that all believers become a temple for God:
“And that is what we are—the temple of the living God" (2 Cor. 6:15, NJB) and
“Didn’t you realize that you were God’s Temple” (1 Cor. 3:16 JB.) He was trying to expand God’s seat of power out of Jerusalem and into the whole known world. Yet for most first century Jews this downplayed the importance of the temple, the geographical pivot of Judaism.

Jews thought they were Abraham’s descendants and God’s special people. Yet Paul claimed:
"Those therefore who rely on faith receive the same blessing as Abraham, the man of faith." (Gal. 3:9, NJB,) and
“Merely by belonging to Christ you are the posterity of Abraham, the heirs he was promised” (Gal. 3:29, NJB.) He wanted believing Gentiles to consider themselves God’s chosen, so that they too were special, and weaken the patriotic fervor of Jews by downplaying their exclusivity.

Throughout Paul’s travels, he was initially welcome in synagogues because he masqueraded as a traditional Jew, but after Jews heard what he had to say, he was rejected, sometimes even beaten and pelted with rocks; a repetitive pattern portrayed in Acts. They liked to think they were a chosen race, superior in all ways, and in God’s eyes, to the pagan hordes. These Jews must have imagined Paul was upsetting their God, and the whole Jewish community would suffer as a consequence. Is it any wonder they physically attacked him? Jesus’ own people were attacking Paul because he was promoting Christian ideas, a fact that should raise eyebrows in today’s churches.

In the decades Paul was preaching, the Nazarenes were expanding into a significant force under James’ leadership in Jerusalem. They also enjoyed a strong membership among Jews throughout the empire. They definitely didn’t preach the divinity of Christ, nor intend to start a new religion. Paul, when he wasn’t pretending to be one of them, considered them competitors. He got very upset when he encountered rival missionaries, who were probably Nazarene, and complained bitterly about them hijacking “his” converts. He cursed them, using the undeniable truth of his own gospel as justification:
“I am astonished at the promptness with which you have turned away from the one who called you and have decided to follow a different version of the Good News. Not that there can be more than one Good News; it is merely that some trouble makers among you want to change the Good News of Christ; and let me warn you that if anyone preaches a version of the Good News different from the one that we have already preached to you, whether it be ourselves or an angel from heaven, he is condemned” (Gal. 1:6–9, NJB.) He sounds like an upset child whose best friend has gone off to play with someone else. It’s ironic that he was accusing his adversaries of the very thing he was guilty of - preaching a fabrication! He clearly undermined Yeshua’s family and disciples behind their backs. He was surprised and angry to find himself competing with them for people’s allegiance. They were treading on what he considered his turf. How dare they preach old-fashioned Jewish theology and disrupt his mission to set up communities of believers! Those annoying war-mongering Jews promoted subversive fantasies about a messiah, but today’s God had revealed to him the real Christ, the up-to-date modern Christ! He, not them, was plugging the “good news.” He claimed he knew what the flexible, expansionist, less violent, less Judaic God expected in these modern, pro-Roman times. He thought of himself as an educated, savvy sophisticate who knew a stack more about selling religion than the old fashioned anti-Roman bumpkins from Jerusalem!

The two faced Paul probably tried to ingratiate himself with the Nazarenes when in their company, but they became implacably opposed to him, as verified by the verbal confrontation described in Galatians chapter two, and the adamantly anti-Pauline assertions in James’ letter.

Paul knew he wasn’t a popular figure amongst traditional Jews. In his letter to the Romans he expressed his nervousness that the Nazarenes in Jerusalem might reject him, which, if the story in Acts is true, is precisely what happened. James summoned Paul to Jerusalem when it became apparent Paul was preaching against the Torah, and sent him to the temple to be purified and prove he was still a true Jew, (see Acts 21, http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts 21&version=KJV) which led to Paul’s so called arrest and eventual transportation to Rome. James, Jesus’ brother, effectively terminated Paul’s missionary career!
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-01-2014, 05:19 AM
RE: LIES THAT PAUL MADE
(18-01-2014 03:53 PM)Foxen Wrote:  When they do not realize that what they believe is a lie, they are quite prepared to get beaten and die for that lie. Thumbsup

That is how misguided martyrs are created.
You're talking out of both sides of your mouth. A con man sells something which he doesn't believe for purposes of personal gain. A crazy person actually believes it. You flip back and forth and mix the two arguments. Make up your mind. Which is it?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-01-2014, 05:34 AM
RE: LIES THAT PAUL MADE
(18-01-2014 05:08 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  You're making this up. Paul was a liar. He wrote different things to different groups of people, and made out what he wrote to suit the different groups.
That's what good writers/speakers do. I give presentations to professionals and write a blog for general consumption. The speech to professionals is a lot different than a blog post on the same topic, but I'm not lying in either.
Quote:He would've had no idea some of his letters would much later be compared with each other.
Speaking of making things up and being a liar. Paul actually instructed that letters be circulated and compared:
Col 4
16 Now when this epistle is read among you, see that it is read also in the church of the Laodiceans, and that you likewise read the epistle from Laodicea.
Quote:He even admitted he was a liar. He wrote,
“For if the truth of God hath more abounded through my lie unto his glory; why yet am I also judged as a sinner?” (Rom. 3:7, KJB.)
Except that was a rhetorical statement. Are you lying or just ignorant? In context:
5 But if our unrighteousness demonstrates the righteousness of God, what shall we say? Is God unjust who inflicts wrath? (I speak as a man.) 6 Certainly not! For then how will God judge the world?

7 For if the truth of God has increased through my lie to His glory, why am I also still judged as a sinner? 8 And why not say, “Let us do evil that good may come”?—as we are slanderously reported and as some affirm that we say. Their condemnation is just.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: