Who was Saint Paul?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
18-11-2012, 01:57 PM
RE: Who was Saint Paul?
An "epistle" is a letter. It's not "a" gospel. The word "gospel", is on old English translation of the Greek word "euangelion", which simply means "good news".


"The term evangelical has its etymological roots in the Greek word for "gospel" or "good news": ευαγγελιον (evangelion), from eu- "good" and angelion "message" ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evangelicalism )


It's not a written document, necessarily. In Romans 1:3, Paul says he "preached the gospel", (the good news, or *his* "good news"), it does not mean he had a written document. It, and every other reference he makes to his "gospel" is assumed by scholars to simply mean the "content" of his preaching, (his "good news"). No one has ever suggested that Saul of Tarsus wrote a "gospel". He never refers to a written document as such in the letters. Polycarp, Ignatius, and Clement are all reputed to be, and in some instances self-admitted liars. (See above).

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
18-11-2012, 04:32 PM (This post was last modified: 18-11-2012 04:45 PM by Free.)
RE: Who was Saint Paul?
Quote:An "epistle" is a letter. It's not "a" gospel. The word "gospel", is on old English translation of the Greek word "euangelion", which simply means "good news".


"The term evangelical has its etymological roots in the Greek word for "gospel" or "good news": ευαγγελιον (evangelion), from eu- "good" and angelion "message" ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evangelicalism )


It's not a written document, necessarily. In Romans 1:3, Paul says he "preached the gospel", (the good news, or *his* "good news"), it does not mean he had a written document. It, and every other reference he makes to his "gospel" is assumed by scholars to simply mean the "content" of his preaching, (his "good news"). No one has ever suggested that Saul of Tarsus wrote a "gospel". He never refers to a written document as such in the letters. Polycarp, Ignatius, and Clement are all reputed to be, and in some instances self-admitted liars. (See above).

I agree with most of this.

My point is that something had to be in written form to account for all the quotes of Jesus. The Apostolic Fathers use so many quotations that it is inconceivable that they could restrict all this information to mere memory. In addition to this, we do indeed have Paul clearly saying the following to the Galatians:

Gal_3:1 O foolish Galatians, who bewitched you not to obey the truth, to whom before your eyes Jesus Christ was written among you crucified?


Since the average dating of this letter is AD 55, we can use this as evidence that something was in written form before AD 55 in regards to this Jesus called "Christ" being crucified.

Also, to reinforce the position that Paul did indeed regard Jesus to be an actual flesh-and-blood human being who was crucified, we have the following from his letters:

Quote:Philippians 2:5:

Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus, who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God, but made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a servant, and coming in the likeness of men. And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient to the point of death, even the death of the cross.

It seems quite clear that Paul is speaking about a man named Jesus, whom he considered to be the Christ, and whom died on the cross.

Having problems with your computer? Visit our Free Tech Support thread for help!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-11-2012, 04:57 PM
RE: Who was Saint Paul?
(18-11-2012 04:32 PM)Free Wrote:  
Quote:An "epistle" is a letter. It's not "a" gospel. The word "gospel", is on old English translation of the Greek word "euangelion", which simply means "good news".


"The term evangelical has its etymological roots in the Greek word for "gospel" or "good news": ευαγγελιον (evangelion), from eu- "good" and angelion "message" ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evangelicalism )


It's not a written document, necessarily. In Romans 1:3, Paul says he "preached the gospel", (the good news, or *his* "good news"), it does not mean he had a written document. It, and every other reference he makes to his "gospel" is assumed by scholars to simply mean the "content" of his preaching, (his "good news"). No one has ever suggested that Saul of Tarsus wrote a "gospel". He never refers to a written document as such in the letters. Polycarp, Ignatius, and Clement are all reputed to be, and in some instances self-admitted liars. (See above).

I agree with most of this.

My point is that something had to be in written form to account for all the quotes of Jesus. The Apostolic Fathers use so many quotations that it is inconceivable that they could restrict all this information to mere memory. In addition to this, we do indeed have Paul clearly saying the following to the Galatians:

Gal_3:1 O foolish Galatians, who bewitched you not to obey the truth, to whom before your eyes Jesus Christ was written among you crucified?


Since the average dating of this letter is AD 55, we can use this as evidence that something was in written form before AD 55 in regards to this Jesus called "Christ" being crucified.

Also, to reinforce the position that Paul did indeed regard Jesus to be an actual flesh-and-blood human being who was crucified, we have the following from his letters:

Quote:Philippians 2:5:

Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus, who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God, but made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a servant, and coming in the likeness of men. And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient to the point of death, even the death of the cross.

It seems quite clear that Paul is speaking about a man named Jesus, whom he considered to be the Christ, and whom died on the cross.
Oh absolutely. I also agree with Free about "some" earlier written source. I forgot about the Q source. I don't know if anyone ever suggested when it might have been written, exactly. Some think besides Q, ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q_source ), there was another (never found also), Book of Sayings. Either way, the had to have been *something* written earlier, as the Synoptics had to have something in common they used. I also don't think I've ever read anything about whether Paul "knew" of it.

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
18-11-2012, 05:16 PM
RE: Who was Saint Paul?
Quote:Oh absolutely. I also agree with Free about "some" earlier written source. I forgot about the Q source. I don't know if anyone ever suggested when it might have been written, exactly. Some think besides Q, ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q_source ), there was another (never found also), Book of Sayings. Either way, the had to have been *something* written earlier, as the Synoptics had to have something in common they used. I also don't think I've ever read anything about whether Paul "knew" of it.

I think the scholars need to come to the realization that the NT is collection of works that represent both the Jewish & Gentile churches of 1st century Judea. It does not just represent Pauline Christianity. Even Paul himself makes that distinction quite clear several times.

Gal_2:9 and knowing the grace given to me, James, and Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, gave right hands of fellowship to Barnabas and me, that we go to the nations, but they to the circumcision.

In my view, they were the two big rival Christian factions. James headed up the Church of Jerusalem for the Jews, while Paul took his beliefs about Jesus to the Gentiles. Over time both factions grew apart due to conflicting views, and different gospels were being preached, as Paul alludes to.

Although the "Q" is still theoretical, I subscribe to this view. I also think the Gospel of Thomas is far more important than it's given credit for.

Having problems with your computer? Visit our Free Tech Support thread for help!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Free's post
18-11-2012, 05:27 PM
RE: Who was Saint Paul?
(18-11-2012 04:32 PM)Free Wrote:  Gal_3:1 O foolish Galatians, who bewitched you not to obey the truth, to whom before your eyes Jesus Christ was written among you crucified?


Since the average dating of this letter is AD 55, we can use this as evidence that something was in written form before AD 55 in regards to this Jesus called "Christ" being crucified.
How do historians come to a consensus on which written documents are evidence? I would think that biblical passages would be taken with a grain of salt.

If Jesus died for our sins, why is there still sin? If man was created from dust, why is there still dust? If Americans came from Europe, why are there still Europeans?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-11-2012, 05:38 PM
What the actual fuck???
What the actual fuck are you guys arguing about?

You are all atheists, you all agree the Bible is a pile of myth, so who the fuck cares
whether Paul/Saul/fuckhead knew Jesus' brother or fucked his sister or borrowed
his fucking credit card for a weekend in Hebron?

Seriously, you guys are just waving your dicks around, and have been for several pages.







OK, I feel better. Carry on. Drinking Beverage

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
18-11-2012, 05:39 PM (This post was last modified: 18-11-2012 05:57 PM by Free.)
RE: Who was Saint Paul?
(18-11-2012 05:27 PM)guitar_nut Wrote:  
(18-11-2012 04:32 PM)Free Wrote:  Gal_3:1 O foolish Galatians, who bewitched you not to obey the truth, to whom before your eyes Jesus Christ was written among you crucified?


Since the average dating of this letter is AD 55, we can use this as evidence that something was in written form before AD 55 in regards to this Jesus called "Christ" being crucified.
How do historians come to a consensus on which written documents are evidence? I would think that biblical passages would be taken with a grain of salt.


The distinction between what has "historical value" and what "should be taken with a grain of salt" lays with what can be demonstrated to be likely true, and what can be demonstrated to be exaggeration and unlikely.

For example(s):

1. It makes no sense for a Christian god to go down in flames by getting his butt handed to him by the Romans by getting himself crucified, unless this was true.

2. What are the chances that anybody is going to raise up from the dead, and then fly up into the sky to some ethereal place called Heaven? How reasonable is that?

So what is more likely to be true?

In addition to that, there is much more to this evidence thing than whether or not what is written is true or false. Evidence can be a broad term, and can include such things as carbon dating, prose, language used, idiom, lexicon, narrative, etc.

The argument here is not about whether or not Christianity is true, but about whether or not Jesus actually existed as a historical person who was crucified by the Romans.

All these things help to approximate the dating of ancient documents, among other things.

Having problems with your computer? Visit our Free Tech Support thread for help!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-11-2012, 05:43 PM
RE: What the actual fuck???
(18-11-2012 05:38 PM)Chas Wrote:  What the actual fuck are you guys arguing about?

You are all atheists, you all agree the Bible is a pile of myth, so who the fuck cares
whether Paul/Saul/fuckhead knew Jesus' brother or fucked his sister or borrowed
his fucking credit card for a weekend in Hebron?

Seriously, you guys are just waving your dicks around, and have been for several pages.







OK, I feel better. Carry on. Drinking Beverage
Thank you.

How's the coffee?

Having problems with your computer? Visit our Free Tech Support thread for help!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-11-2012, 06:16 PM (This post was last modified: 18-11-2012 06:21 PM by Vosur.)
RE: Who was Saint Paul?
(18-11-2012 05:39 PM)Free Wrote:  The argument here is not about whether or not Christianity is true, but about whether or not Jesus actually existed as a historical person who was crucified by the Romans.
I myself am agnostic about the possible existence of a historical Jesus. In the end, it doesn't matter to me all that much, because it ultimately comes down to this: Even if a Jewish preacher named Jesus existed in the first century, the miracles and divine status ascribed to him remain unsupported and above all implausible. For this reason, I find it quite funny that three atheists debate about this topic so passionately, as if the result of it actually mattered for their position. Oh well, I suppose it makes for good training.

(18-11-2012 05:38 PM)Chas Wrote:  What the actual fuck are you guys arguing about?

You are all atheists, you all agree the Bible is a pile of myth, so who the fuck cares
whether Paul/Saul/fuckhead knew Jesus' brother or fucked his sister or borrowed
his fucking credit card for a weekend in Hebron?

Seriously, you guys are just waving your dicks around, and have been for several pages.
That gave me a good laugh. Smile

[Image: 7oDSbD4.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Vosur's post
18-11-2012, 06:23 PM
RE: What the actual fuck???
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
Post Reply
Forum Jump: