Who was Saint Paul?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
16-08-2015, 10:45 AM
RE: Who was Saint Paul?
Personally, I am of the opinion that Paul (a Roman citizen), was in fact, Jewish or half Jewish by birth.

It was not uncommon at the time for young Jewish women, either employed or enslaved in Roman households, to bear offspring of their Roman employer/owner. It would be up to the discretion of the Roman homeowner to vouch for his progeny as a Roman citizen and many often were.

This would certainly explain why Paul was permitted an audience with Cesar - this would not be a possibility for a mere Jew.

Oh well, just an idea.
***
I recently finished Nick Toches' interesting, novel approach to the suspect "historicity of Jesus" called Under Tiberius. It is quite good - beautifully written - I do recommend it. I really enjoyed the audio version. Drinking Beverage

A new type of thinking is essential if mankind is to survive and move to higher levels. ~ Albert Einstein
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like kim's post
16-08-2015, 11:26 AM (This post was last modified: 16-08-2015 12:58 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Who was Saint Paul?
(16-08-2015 10:02 AM)Free Wrote:  You do not understand. Paul regarded Christ as a god, and equal to God. It doesn't matter in the slightest what any Jew would think, because Paul was not practicing Judaism at this point, but instead he was propagating his own theology.

Sorry, but you have no clue what you're talking about.

1. You have no idea what Paul actually thought.
2. The title "son of god" (at that time, in that culture) was a general honorific, accorded to many .. politicians, generals, heroes of many sorts, and to "righteous men". It IN NO WAY meant they had "divine status", and it CERATINLY did not mean they were gods, or in any way ''equivalent to Yahweh". The statement "Paul was not *practicing Judaism betrays a profound ignorance on your part. Paul WAS a Jew, through and through. He did not just "practice" Judaism. Throughout his letters he refers to his cultural underpinnings, and in some places says that some things (such as women being silent) were "required by (the Jewish) law".

Sorry. You may be an historian, but clearly you are a dilatant when it comes to THIS particular culture and period.

(16-08-2015 10:02 AM)Free Wrote:  If you are the son of a lion, you are a lion. If you are the son of an elephant, you are an elephant. If you are the son of a man, you are a man.

No. Thanks for demonstrating your ignorance of Hebrew culture.

(16-08-2015 10:02 AM)Free Wrote:  Joh 10:30 I and my Father are one.
Joh 10:31 Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him.
Joh 10:32 Jesus answered them, "I have shown you many good works from my Father, for which of those works do you stone me?"
Joh 10:33 The Jews answered him saying, "We are not stoning you for any good deeds, but for blasphemy because you, being but a man, have made yourself God.
<-(Right here is the problem. How do we know the capitalized "God" is wrong? You can tell by Jesus' response in the very next verse).
Joh 10:34 Jesus answered them, "Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?" <-- (If Jesus thought they were accusing him of claiming to be God the Almighty, why then does he answer them in the lower-case "gods" and with the connotation of polytheism? Should Jesus have not responded with, "I have said you are God?" But no he does not, and the verse he is quoting comes from Psalms, and in its entirety reads as...)

Psa_82:6 I have said, You are gods; and all of you sons of the Most High.

Jesus then goes on to explain his reasoning below:

Joh 10:35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;
Joh 10:36 Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am a Son of God?


Jesus explains that since the OT demonstrates that God had proclaimed others in the past as being gods, and therefore sons of God, then those who were accusing him had no basis for the accusation because a precedence has been demonstrated.

Now you know the meaning of John 10:30. Jesus was not defending himself against an accusation of being the Supreme Deity, but rather defending himself against an accusation of being polytheistic. I suspect that someone in the past redacted the last part of that Psalm Jesus was quoting ("and all of you sons of the Most High") because it demonstrates that Jesus was not the one and only son of God as per Christian teachings, and it also demonstrates his polytheism, something Christians of antiquity failed to completely cover up.

John 10:33 should be understood as this:

Joh 10:33 The Jews answered Him, saying, We do not stone you for a good work, but for blasphemy, and because you, being a man, make yourself a god.


Therefore, the same thing happened to Paul's writing. Christians decided to capitalize the word "God," instead of using the original "a god."

Therefore in like manner Paul should be understood as this:

Php 2:5-6 Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus, Who,being in the form of a god, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:

At the end of the day, both Jesus of Nazareth and Paul were actually polytheists.

They were not.
All made up bullshit. Not present in ANY of the synoptics. Written by GREEK Gnostics many many many years later, with an entirely different view of things than Jews, and the "words placed in their mouths" (as a literary device). You can't support your fantasies about Paul and Jesus by what's in John.

There is an extensive body of research and long scholarly discussions concerning other "divine beings" (which you clearly are totally unaware of) in Hebrew culture. The "heavenly host" was populated with many divine beings, (starting in the OT when the Witch of Endor conjures the shade of Samuel for Saul). Saul asks her what she saw, and she replies "I see a divine being". That in no way, whatsoever, meant she saw a god, or someone equivalent to Yahweh. Sorry dude. You're just flat out wrong here.
I am stunned by the "presentism" in your views of all this.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-08-2015, 01:42 PM
RE: Who was Saint Paul?
(16-08-2015 11:26 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(16-08-2015 10:02 AM)Free Wrote:  You do not understand. Paul regarded Christ as a god, and equal to God. It doesn't matter in the slightest what any Jew would think, because Paul was not practicing Judaism at this point, but instead he was propagating his own theology.

Sorry, but you have no clue what you're talking about.

1. You have no idea what Paul actually thought.

Yes ... I ... do.

Quote:2. The title "son of god" (at that time, in that culture) was a general honorific, accorded to many .. politicians, generals, heroes of many sorts, and to "righteous men".

True, but that is not all it meant.

Quote:It IN NO WAY meant they had "divine status", and it CERATINLY did not mean they were gods, or in any way ''equivalent to Yahweh". The statement "Paul was not *practicing Judaism betrays a profound ignorance on your part. Paul WAS a Jew, through and through. He did not just "practice" Judaism. Throughout his letters he refers to his cultural underpinnings, and in some places says that some things (such as women being silent) were "required by (the Jewish) law".

And this is where you just banged the stick of stupidity over your fucking head.

If Paul was a practicing Jew when he wrote his letters, then what the fuck does his theology represent? Judaism? Ya think?

He mixed in some Judaism with his theology, and by simply doing that HE WAS NO LONGER A PRACTICING JEW.

Ya dumb bastard.

Quote:Sorry. You may be an historian, but clearly you are a dilatant when it comes to THIS particular culture and period.

(16-08-2015 10:02 AM)Free Wrote:  If you are the son of a lion, you are a lion. If you are the son of an elephant, you are an elephant. If you are the son of a man, you are a man.

No. Thanks for demonstrating your ignorance of Hebrew culture.

Just "no?" No explanation of why you think it's incorrect?

That's exactly what you do not understand. To the culture in the 1st century, that is exactly how they viewed things. Not just the Jews either, but all the entire monochrome.

Quote:
(16-08-2015 10:02 AM)Free Wrote:  Joh 10:30 I and my Father are one.
Joh 10:31 Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him.
Joh 10:32 Jesus answered them, "I have shown you many good works from my Father, for which of those works do you stone me?"
Joh 10:33 The Jews answered him saying, "We are not stoning you for any good deeds, but for blasphemy because you, being but a man, have made yourself God.
<-(Right here is the problem. How do we know the capitalized "God" is wrong? You can tell by Jesus' response in the very next verse).
Joh 10:34 Jesus answered them, "Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?" <-- (If Jesus thought they were accusing him of claiming to be God the Almighty, why then does he answer them in the lower-case "gods" and with the connotation of polytheism? Should Jesus have not responded with, "I have said you are God?" But no he does not, and the verse he is quoting comes from Psalms, and in its entirety reads as...)

Psa_82:6 I have said, You are gods; and all of you sons of the Most High.

Jesus then goes on to explain his reasoning below:

Joh 10:35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;
Joh 10:36 Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am a Son of God?


Jesus explains that since the OT demonstrates that God had proclaimed others in the past as being gods, and therefore sons of God, then those who were accusing him had no basis for the accusation because a precedence has been demonstrated.

Now you know the meaning of John 10:30. Jesus was not defending himself against an accusation of being the Supreme Deity, but rather defending himself against an accusation of being polytheistic. I suspect that someone in the past redacted the last part of that Psalm Jesus was quoting ("and all of you sons of the Most High") because it demonstrates that Jesus was not the one and only son of God as per Christian teachings, and it also demonstrates his polytheism, something Christians of antiquity failed to completely cover up.

John 10:33 should be understood as this:

Joh 10:33 The Jews answered Him, saying, We do not stone you for a good work, but for blasphemy, and because you, being a man, make yourself a god.


Therefore, the same thing happened to Paul's writing. Christians decided to capitalize the word "God," instead of using the original "a god."

Therefore in like manner Paul should be understood as this:

Php 2:5-6 Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus, Who,being in the form of a god, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:

At the end of the day, both Jesus of Nazareth and Paul were actually polytheists.

They were not.

All made up bullshit. Not present in ANY of the synoptics. Written by GREEK Gnostics many many many years later, with an entirely different view of things than Jews, and the "words placed in their mouths" (as a literary device). You can't support your fantasies about Paul and Jesus by what's in John.

Do you really think so? Well then ...

1Co_8:5 For though there are those who are called gods, whether in Heaven or in earth, as there are many gods and many lords,

Didn't see that coming, did you? No, you didn't.

Paul states clearly that there are many gods existing either in Heaven or in the earth, and despite his claim that, to him (next verse) that there is only 1 God and 1 Lord, there is no escaping the fact that he believed in the existence of other gods. His very words state exactly that.



Quote:There is an extensive body of research and long scholarly discussions concerning other "divine beings" (which you clearly are totally unaware of) in Hebrew culture. The "heavenly host" was populated with many divine beings, (starting in the OT when the Witch of Endor conjures the shade of Samuel for Saul). Saul asks her what she saw, and she replies "I see a divine being". That in no way, whatsoever, meant she saw a god, or someone equivalent to Yahweh. Sorry dude. You're just flat out wrong here.

It's called "polytheism", dude. The first example is right in the 1st line of the bible:

You see this:

Gen 1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

But it actually says this:

Gen 1:1 In the beginning the gods created the heavens and the earth.

Judaism BEGINS with polytheism, and it doesn't fucking matter what the Jews say about it. It is what it is, and both Paul and Jesus knew it.

Quote:I am stunned by the "presentism" in your views of all this.

No presentism used. Unlike you, I put myself back into the 1st century frame of mind, and view hings from that perspective. I study how these texts were translated into English, and look for missing idioms in the translation.

It's you who is using presentism dude.

How can anyone become an atheist when we are all born with no beliefs in the first place? We are atheists because we were born this way.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-08-2015, 02:26 PM
RE: Who was Saint Paul?
Quote:If Yeshua had been an inspiring, miracle working individual, someone with real feelings, empathy for his fellows, and charisma, who preached wise anecdotes that had so impressed his disciples and the crowds, Paul would have documented it, and he did not. Paul knew none of these stories about Yeshua.

Mark, consider the following train of thought:

1. We already know that Paul wrote his letters before the Gospels, and I agree with you that he was the first Christian author.

2. Since the Gospels had not yet been written during the time that Paul wrote his letters, then the embellishments of the life of Yeshua that we currently see in the Gospels would not have existed in Paul's time.

3. Paul knew none of these miracle claims regarding Yeshua, except for one; the resurrection.

4. Since Paul believed in the resurrection of Yeshua, then that is why Paul regarded Yeshua as the son of God.

Paul knew very little, but he believed in the rumor that Jesus was resurrected, and knew nothing of the rest of the purported miracles for the simple reason that the gospels had not yet been written.

It's that simple, Mark.

More to come ...

How can anyone become an atheist when we are all born with no beliefs in the first place? We are atheists because we were born this way.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-08-2015, 02:39 PM (This post was last modified: 16-08-2015 03:21 PM by Mark Fulton.)
RE: Who was Saint Paul?
(16-08-2015 10:02 AM)Free Wrote:  
(15-08-2015 08:57 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  No. Paul here is quoting some form of ritual "hymn" or poem. The words speak of the god as "other" and in Hebrew culture "divinity" (as all members of the heavenly host were *divine beings*), does not mean Christ "was god". That idea to a Jew was absolutely impossible.

You do not understand. Paul regarded Christ as a god, and equal to God. It doesn't matter in the slightest what any Jew would think, because Paul was not practicing Judaism at this point, but instead he was propagating his own theology.

Jesus = Son of Man.
Christ = Son of God.

If you are the son of a lion, you are a lion. If you are the son of an elephant, you are an elephant. If you are the son of a man, you are a man.

Therefore, if you are the son of God, you are a god.

It's more than the words, Bucky; it is also the mindset of 1st century religious fanatics. It's the IDIOM in both the Greek language and the 1st century culture.

What you see in English is not a great representation of what is actually there. You need to understand that as English evolved, so did punctuation, capitalization, grammar, etc, none of which existed in the original text.

For example, If you read John 10:30 to 10: 37 with this in mind, you will see how Christians used capitalization of the word "God" in John 10:33, to give you the impression that the verse has the Jews accusing Jesus of being God, because Christians want you to think that way as an understanding of what Jesus meant in John 10:30.

How do I know that the capitalized God in John 10:33 is wrong? You can tell it's wrong because Jesus' response in the very next verse does not address an accusation of him claiming to be God, as in the supreme Deity. It addresses an accusation of him proclaiming himself to be a god, something the Christian scribes failed to consider, which creates a contradiction.

Observe:

Joh 10:30 I and my Father are one.
Joh 10:31 Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him.
Joh 10:32 Jesus answered them, "I have shown you many good works from my Father, for which of those works do you stone me?"
Joh 10:33 The Jews answered him saying, "We are not stoning you for any good deeds, but for blasphemy because you, being but a man, have made yourself God.
<-(Right here is the problem. How do we know the capitalized "God" is wrong? You can tell by Jesus' response in the very next verse).
Joh 10:34 Jesus answered them, "Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?" <-- (If Jesus thought they were accusing him of claiming to be God the Almighty, why then does he answer them in the lower-case "gods" and with the connotation of polytheism? Should Jesus have not responded with, "I have said you are God?" But no he does not, and the verse he is quoting comes from Psalms, and in its entirety reads as...)

Psa_82:6 I have said, You are gods; and all of you sons of the Most High.

Jesus then goes on to explain his reasoning below:

Joh 10:35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;
Joh 10:36 Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am a Son of God?


Jesus explains that since the OT demonstrates that God had proclaimed others in the past as being gods, and therefore sons of God, then those who were accusing him had no basis for the accusation because a precedence has been demonstrated.

Now you know the meaning of John 10:30. Jesus was not defending himself against an accusation of being the Supreme Deity, but rather defending himself against an accusation of being polytheistic. I suspect that someone in the past redacted the last part of that Psalm Jesus was quoting ("and all of you sons of the Most High") because it demonstrates that Jesus was not the one and only son of God as per Christian teachings, and it also demonstrates his polytheism, something Christians of antiquity failed to completely cover up.

John 10:33 should be understood as this:

Joh 10:33 The Jews answered Him, saying, We do not stone you for a good work, but for blasphemy, and because you, being a man, make yourself a god.


Therefore, the same thing happened to Paul's writing. Christians decided to capitalize the word "God," instead of using the original "a god."

Therefore in like manner Paul should be understood as this:

Php 2:5-6 Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus, Who,being in the form of a god, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:

At the end of the day, both Jesus of Nazareth and Paul were actually polytheists.

Are you saying that you think all Jews at the time of Jesus and Paul were polytheists?
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-08-2015, 02:49 PM (This post was last modified: 16-08-2015 03:19 PM by Mark Fulton.)
RE: Who was Saint Paul?
(16-08-2015 02:26 PM)Free Wrote:  
Quote:If Yeshua had been an inspiring, miracle working individual, someone with real feelings, empathy for his fellows, and charisma, who preached wise anecdotes that had so impressed his disciples and the crowds, Paul would have documented it, and he did not. Paul knew none of these stories about Yeshua.

Mark, consider the following train of thought:

1. We already know that Paul wrote his letters before the Gospels, and I agree with you that he was the first Christian author.

2. Since the Gospels had not yet been written during the time that Paul wrote his letters, then the embellishments of the life of Yeshua that we currently see in the Gospels would not have existed in Paul's time.

3. Paul knew none of these miracle claims regarding Yeshua, except for one; the resurrection.

4. Since Paul believed in the resurrection of Yeshua, then that is why Paul regarded Yeshua as the son of God.

Paul knew very little, but he believed in the rumor that Jesus was resurrected, and knew nothing of the rest of the purported miracles for the simple reason that the gospels had not yet been written.

It's that simple, Mark.

More to come ...

Sorry, I disagree with point 4.

I don't think Paul believed in the resurrection of Yeshua (a recently departed, human who was the brother of James). I think Paul believed, or pretended to believe, in a resurrected Christ, who was something, or someone else.

I don't think Yeshua rising from the dead was ever in the gospels until well into the second century, and therefore wasn't a "rumour" until then. Consider the interpolated ending in Mark.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-08-2015, 03:05 PM
RE: Who was Saint Paul?
(16-08-2015 01:42 PM)Free Wrote:  Yes ... I ... do.

You do not.

Quote:True, but that is not all it meant.

You failed to mention any other meaning, since you knew nothing about it. We know it did not mean what you claimed it meant.

Quote:And this is where you just banged the stick of stupidity over your fucking head.

If Paul was a practicing Jew when he wrote his letters, then what the fuck does his theology represent? Judaism? Ya think?

Don't be a fool. As Bart Ehrman writes in his latest book, everything Paul writes about flows from his Jewish worldview, and utterly dependent on it. Your artificial, simplistic childish ''practicing Judaism" is seriously ignorant. He had to retain his Jewish roots as the Jerusalem community were Jews, and "Christians" remained Jews for decades, if not centuries. At the end of the First Century the High Priest
required the expulsion curses to be read. They were all still very much a sect of Judaism. Whether he "practiced" Judaism is irrelevant. Everything he wrote and did is dependent on it, including his concept of "the anointed one" (the messiah).

(16-08-2015 01:42 PM)Free Wrote:  It's called "polytheism", dude. The first example is right in the 1st line of the bible:

I'm well aware that Jews were (not polytheists, but) monolateralist polytheists. They acknowledged many gods , (as well as many divine beings), but they were NOT of the same status and no other divine being was equal to Yahweh), including his "sons".

(16-08-2015 01:42 PM)Free Wrote:  Judaism BEGINS with polytheism, and it doesn't fucking matter what the Jews say about it. It is what it is, and both Paul and Jesus knew it.

There is no "monochrome", except in your fantasy world.

That's not where Judaism "began", and clearly, (like many "historians") you think you know about Hebrew culture, and you don't. In fact you know almost nothing about it, as you have clearly demonstrated here today.

(16-08-2015 01:42 PM)Free Wrote:  1Co_8:5 For though there are those who are called gods, whether in Heaven or in earth, as there are many gods and many lords,

Didn't see that coming, did you? No, you didn't.
Paul states clearly that there are many gods existing either in Heaven or in the earth, and despite his claim that, to him (next verse) that there is only 1 God and 1 Lord, there is no escaping the fact that he believed in the existence of other gods. His very words state exactly that.

So you now move the goal-posts. YOU claimed that Paul said Jesus was EQUAL to Yahweh "as a son". There is no evidence he ever said that, and there is no evidence that Jesus did either. And in the context of the time, it makes no sense at all. Paul said Jesus was "exalted" (raised up), and became the anointed one.

You're totally out of your depth here, dude.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
16-08-2015, 03:15 PM (This post was last modified: 16-08-2015 03:28 PM by Mark Fulton.)
RE: Who was Saint Paul?
(16-08-2015 01:42 PM)Free Wrote:  
(16-08-2015 11:26 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Sorry, but you have no clue what you're talking about.

1. You have no idea what Paul actually thought.

Yes ... I ... do.

Quote:2. The title "son of god" (at that time, in that culture) was a general honorific, accorded to many .. politicians, generals, heroes of many sorts, and to "righteous men".

True, but that is not all it meant.

Quote:It IN NO WAY meant they had "divine status", and it CERATINLY did not mean they were gods, or in any way ''equivalent to Yahweh". The statement "Paul was not *practicing Judaism betrays a profound ignorance on your part. Paul WAS a Jew, through and through. He did not just "practice" Judaism. Throughout his letters he refers to his cultural underpinnings, and in some places says that some things (such as women being silent) were "required by (the Jewish) law".

And this is where you just banged the stick of stupidity over your fucking head.

If Paul was a practicing Jew when he wrote his letters, then what the fuck does his theology represent? Judaism? Ya think?

He mixed in some Judaism with his theology, and by simply doing that HE WAS NO LONGER A PRACTICING JEW.

Ya dumb bastard.

Quote:Sorry. You may be an historian, but clearly you are a dilatant when it comes to THIS particular culture and period.


No. Thanks for demonstrating your ignorance of Hebrew culture.

Just "no?" No explanation of why you think it's incorrect?

That's exactly what you do not understand. To the culture in the 1st century, that is exactly how they viewed things. Not just the Jews either, but all the entire monochrome.

Quote:They were not.

All made up bullshit. Not present in ANY of the synoptics. Written by GREEK Gnostics many many many years later, with an entirely different view of things than Jews, and the "words placed in their mouths" (as a literary device). You can't support your fantasies about Paul and Jesus by what's in John.

Do you really think so? Well then ...

1Co_8:5 For though there are those who are called gods, whether in Heaven or in earth, as there are many gods and many lords,

Didn't see that coming, did you? No, you didn't.

Paul states clearly that there are many gods existing either in Heaven or in the earth, and despite his claim that, to him (next verse) that there is only 1 God and 1 Lord, there is no escaping the fact that he believed in the existence of other gods. His very words state exactly that.



Quote:There is an extensive body of research and long scholarly discussions concerning other "divine beings" (which you clearly are totally unaware of) in Hebrew culture. The "heavenly host" was populated with many divine beings, (starting in the OT when the Witch of Endor conjures the shade of Samuel for Saul). Saul asks her what she saw, and she replies "I see a divine being". That in no way, whatsoever, meant she saw a god, or someone equivalent to Yahweh. Sorry dude. You're just flat out wrong here.

It's called "polytheism", dude. The first example is right in the 1st line of the bible:

You see this:

Gen 1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

But it actually says this:

Gen 1:1 In the beginning the gods created the heavens and the earth.

Judaism BEGINS with polytheism, and it doesn't fucking matter what the Jews say about it. It is what it is, and both Paul and Jesus knew it.

Quote:I am stunned by the "presentism" in your views of all this.

No presentism used. Unlike you, I put myself back into the 1st century frame of mind, and view hings from that perspective. I study how these texts were translated into English, and look for missing idioms in the translation.

It's you who is using presentism dude.

"And this is where you just banged the stick of stupidity over your fucking head."

Gentleman...please keep your egos in your back pockets

We are not at the council of Nicea bashing each other up over the status of JeebusBig Grin
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-08-2015, 03:19 PM
RE: Who was Saint Paul?
(16-08-2015 02:26 PM)Free Wrote:  4. Since Paul believed in the resurrection of Yeshua, then that is why Paul regarded Yeshua as the son of God.

It's that simple, Mark.

More to come ...

It's not "that simple", despite that fact that one of our resident amateurs would like it to be. Paul thought Jesus had been "exalted" like the other Jewish apocalyptic heroes, (not "raised") as Ehrman and many others have discussed. He never claimed Jesus was of equal status with Yahweh.

http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...other-look

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-08-2015, 03:23 PM (This post was last modified: 16-08-2015 03:27 PM by Alla.)
RE: Who was Saint Paul?
Questions to FREE

Isaiah 62
1 The Spirit of the Lord GOD is upon me, because the LORD(Yahweh) has anointed me to preach good tidings. Question: (the LORD is YAHWEH, He anointed to preach the Gospel/good tidings, Jesus preached good tidings, but Who is the Lord GOD?)
........


Isaiah 25
1 O LORD, thou art my God
8 He will swallow up death (Jesus swallowed up death) in victory;
and the Lord GOD will wipe away tears off all faces: for the LORD hath spoken it. Question: (Who is Lord GOD if LORD God is Yahweh who swallowed the death?)

English is my second language.
I AM DEPLORABLE AND IRREDEEMABLE
SHE PERSISTED WE RESISTED
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: