Who was Saint Paul?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
28-11-2012, 02:54 AM
RE: Who was Saint Paul?
Re

"The Gospel of John is the original manuscript that orchestrated the
advent of the Gnostic movement, Mark. Papias was likely a Gnostic
"father" and not an orthodox Christian father."

Really! I'll look forward to that, as I have an entirely different understanding of gnosticism. I think I've posted enough today.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-11-2012, 08:28 AM
RE: Who was Saint Paul?
Quote:
Quote:What does this indicate Mark?"

Firstly, it means that someone, not necessarily honest, claimed to be quoting Papias.

It means that "Papias" had access to some written literature, which could be anything in the second century.

What is far more likely is that whoever is "quoting" Papias is trying to provide some legitimate foundation to John's gospel

I placed in bold your last statement above to demonstrate that you actually do see my point that it appears possible that Papias did have the Gospel of John in his possession, otherwise you wouldn't accuse someone of "trying to provide some legitimate foundation to John's gospel."

It seems unlikely that someone would edit what Papias said with such a subtle hand, Mark. What I have shown you has never been discussed even by today's scholars, because they don't even see it.

All I am trying to do is show you is what it actually takes to gain any ground in the scholarly community. You must demonstrate something new, that has textual support, reasoning, and cohesiveness.

Quote:Huh? Please tell me you don't think the author of John's gospel was a disciple of Jesus!

You'd have to be a goddam......Christian!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!......to believe something that stupid.

LOL!

Hell no. I will show you the author of John's gosepl later, and be prepared to be floored.

Clue 1: It is one of his disciples, but not John. He was but a teenager or a very young man at the time of Jesus.

Clue 2: He has a Greek name, but is a Jew. This indicates that Jesus put a new name to him such as he did to Peter, and such as he did to "The Sons of Thunder," James and John. But his Jewish name is ....

Best Clue: There is only 1 disciple of Jesus named in the Gospel of John as being the only one who Jesus professed love towards.

Can you name him?

I know you guys can figure out who he is, but can you find his Jewish name?

We'll get back to this.

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
28-11-2012, 09:52 AM (This post was last modified: 28-11-2012 10:28 AM by Free.)
RE: Who was Saint Paul?
[quote='Mark Fulton' pid='210016' dateline='1354068773']
[quote='Free' pid='209801' dateline='1354040868']

Sorry about my tone. The reason I do this is because you are writing a book, so view what I say as an example of the kind of criticism you will receive from people who I know will give you a much harder time than I am. It's nothing personal, but view my critique as experimental so that you learn what to expect.

When discussing this kind of stuff and using your method of argument, you will immediately be on the defensive by some exceptionally gifted people in the field, I assure you. My aim here is to tear your arguments apart and to show you what is wrong with them.

The most important thing you absolutely need to learn to do here to support your arguments with much more than "just what you think." You need to demonstrate textual evidence, solid reasoning, and a cohesive argument to be taken seriously.


You assert they were all lying.

Show me the evidence to support that assertion, please.

You see Mark, I will constantly put your assertions to the test by asking for eveidence to support them. This is what you can expect from highly skilled people in the field. You may as well start doing it now, for it is better to be prepared than to be left wanting in a field that takes no prisoners.


It's 100% true. A contemporary is someone who lived during a specific time, and in this case, Iraneus lived- and was an adult- at the time of Justin Martyr's death.


It meant the type of Christianity that evolved into what we have today.



I looked. I saw. I laughed at my typo.

1 Cor 11.23 - 25 for the betrayal and Last Supper.

Now for the rest:


Sure he could, but what is the best argument, Mark? Considering that Paul names Jesus as the Christ, names his apostles as noted in the gospels, quotes the last supper and the betrayal as per the gospels, tells us that Jesus faced Pilate, was crucified, resurrected as per the Gospels, then the one question you will need to answer if it were to come from a gifted historian would be:

Q: Can you please name one other person other than the Jesus of the Gospels whom the Apostolic Fathers, Justin Martyr, and all other ancient Christian writers wrote about, that fits all of the above criteria?

Now you are going to find yourself stuck, Mark. It's not going to be me you will be arguing against, you see. It will be history.




But this detail is found as originating with Jesus in the Gospel records, Mark.


Paul acknowledges that the Jesus he believed in is identical to the one James, Peter, and John knew. Here's some more textual evidence:


Who called Peter to be an apostle, Mark? Was that not Jesus, and who Paul says is the same one who called Paul to the Gentiles?

And what about the following:


Does Paul not appear to be talking about the same Jesus as which is described in the Gospels? The same Jesus whom the Gospels described as being seen by Cephas/Peter after his supposed resurrection?

And now for the kicker, which you try to dismiss as an interpolation when you provide no evidence:


Attempting to dismiss the quote of Paul above as an interpolation is not obtainable, Mark. There is simply not one shred of evidence to support that view.


I have provided textual evidence, reasoning, and a cohesive argument. You have provided no textual evidence, no reasoning, and your argument falls apart because you have provided no textual evidence, and no sound reasoning.

You need to improve your arguments before you dance the dance, Mark. Otherwise, there will be blood out on the dance floor, and it's going to be yours. When discussing history, it's all about the best argument to explain the evidence, and is never about what anyone merely "thinks," nor is anything ever conclusive.

The best argument wins every time, and it becomes the cream that rises to the top.

Wink
[/quote]



"Who called Peter to be an apostle, Mark?" JAMES

"Was that not Jesus?" NO, IT WAS JAMES

Here is the quote from the King James bible...
"8 For God, who was at work in Peter as an apostle to the circumcised, was also at work in me as an apostle to the Gentiles. 9 James,Cephas and John, those esteemed as pillars,gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship when they recognized the grace given to me.They agreed that we should go to the Gentiles,and they to the circumcised. 10 All they asked was that we should continue to remember the poor, the very thing I had been eager to do all along."


Paul is claiming that James, who was the undisputed leader of the Nazarenes, sent Peter off to evangelize Jews, and him off to the gentiles. (Paul was lying, but that's another story). Jeebus doesn't rate a mention. You just incorrectly assumed he was talking about Jeebus.
[/quote]
This is utterly disputed by the Gospel record, Mark.

James did not call Peter to be an apostle of Jesus.

[quote=]Luk 6:13 And when it was day, he called unto him his disciples: and of them he chose twelve, whom also he named apostles;
Luk 6:14 Simon, (whom he also named Peter,) and Andrew his brother, James and John, Philip and Bartholomew,
Luk 6:15 Matthew and Thomas, James the son of Alphaeus, and Simon called Zelotes,
Luk 6:16 And Judas the brother of James, and Judas Iscariot, which also was the traitor.


[quote=]Mat 10:1 And when he had called unto him his twelve disciples, he gave them power against unclean spirits, to cast them out, and to heal all manner of sickness and all manner of disease.
Mat 10:2 Now the names of the twelve apostles are these; The first, Simon, who is called Peter, and Andrew his brother; James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother;
Mat 10:3 Philip, and Bartholomew; Thomas, and Matthew the publican; James the son of Alphaeus, and Lebbaeus, whose surname was Thaddaeus;
Mat 10:4 Simon the Canaanite, and Judas Iscariot, who also betrayed him.



Jesus called Peter to be an apostle, and according to Paul's deluded mind, Jesus also called Paul to be an apostle.

Your argument fails, Mark. You seem to be confusing "who was called to be an apostle" with "who was sent out to evangelize."

Regardless, the originator of both was Yeshua.

The word "God" is not actually there in the Greek manuscript. It is "assumed" by the version you are reading. The actual Greek word is a simple "o" and it reflects "he."

By the way, I will give you guys a link to a very useful website that I have been using for the past 10 years which displays both the English and the Greek (with hyperlinks to the Greek definitions) of the King James version.

http://www.htmlbible.com/sacrednamebible.../index.htm

Some of you may find that website very useful.

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
28-11-2012, 10:28 AM
RE: Who was Saint Paul?
[quote='Mark Fulton' pid='210016' dateline='1354068773']
[quote='Free' pid='209801' dateline='1354040868']

Sorry about my tone. The reason I do this is because you are writing a book, so view what I say as an example of the kind of criticism you will receive from people who I know will give you a much harder time than I am. It's nothing personal, but view my critique as experimental so that you learn what to expect.

When discussing this kind of stuff and using your method of argument, you will immediately be on the defensive by some exceptionally gifted people in the field, I assure you. My aim here is to tear your arguments apart and to show you what is wrong with them.

The most important thing you absolutely need to learn to do here to support your arguments with much more than "just what you think." You need to demonstrate textual evidence, solid reasoning, and a cohesive argument to be taken seriously.


You assert they were all lying.

Show me the evidence to support that assertion, please.

You see Mark, I will constantly put your assertions to the test by asking for eveidence to support them. This is what you can expect from highly skilled people in the field. You may as well start doing it now, for it is better to be prepared than to be left wanting in a field that takes no prisoners.


It's 100% true. A contemporary is someone who lived during a specific time, and in this case, Iraneus lived- and was an adult- at the time of Justin Martyr's death.


It meant the type of Christianity that evolved into what we have today.



I looked. I saw. I laughed at my typo.

1 Cor 11.23 - 25 for the betrayal and Last Supper.

Now for the rest:


Sure he could, but what is the best argument, Mark? Considering that Paul names Jesus as the Christ, names his apostles as noted in the gospels, quotes the last supper and the betrayal as per the gospels, tells us that Jesus faced Pilate, was crucified, resurrected as per the Gospels, then the one question you will need to answer if it were to come from a gifted historian would be:

Q: Can you please name one other person other than the Jesus of the Gospels whom the Apostolic Fathers, Justin Martyr, and all other ancient Christian writers wrote about, that fits all of the above criteria?

Now you are going to find yourself stuck, Mark. It's not going to be me you will be arguing against, you see. It will be history.




But this detail is found as originating with Jesus in the Gospel records, Mark.


Paul acknowledges that the Jesus he believed in is identical to the one James, Peter, and John knew. Here's some more textual evidence:


Who called Peter to be an apostle, Mark? Was that not Jesus, and who Paul says is the same one who called Paul to the Gentiles?

And what about the following:


Does Paul not appear to be talking about the same Jesus as which is described in the Gospels? The same Jesus whom the Gospels described as being seen by Cephas/Peter after his supposed resurrection?

And now for the kicker, which you try to dismiss as an interpolation when you provide no evidence:


Attempting to dismiss the quote of Paul above as an interpolation is not obtainable, Mark. There is simply not one shred of evidence to support that view.


I have provided textual evidence, reasoning, and a cohesive argument. You have provided no textual evidence, no reasoning, and your argument falls apart because you have provided no textual evidence, and no sound reasoning.

You need to improve your arguments before you dance the dance, Mark. Otherwise, there will be blood out on the dance floor, and it's going to be yours. When discussing history, it's all about the best argument to explain the evidence, and is never about what anyone merely "thinks," nor is anything ever conclusive.

The best argument wins every time, and it becomes the cream that rises to the top.

Wink
[/quote]



"Who called Peter to be an apostle, Mark?" JAMES

"Was that not Jesus?" NO, IT WAS JAMES

Here is the quote from the King James bible...
"8 For God, who was at work in Peter as an apostle to the circumcised, was also at work in me as an apostle to the Gentiles. 9 James,Cephas and John, those esteemed as pillars,gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship when they recognized the grace given to me.They agreed that we should go to the Gentiles,and they to the circumcised. 10 All they asked was that we should continue to remember the poor, the very thing I had been eager to do all along."


Paul is claiming that James, who was the undisputed leader of the Nazarenes, sent Peter off to evangelize Jews, and him off to the gentiles. (Paul was lying, but that's another story). Jeebus doesn't rate a mention. You just incorrectly assumed he was talking about Jeebus.
[/quote]
This is utterly disputed by the Gospel record, Mark.

James did not call Peter to be an apostle of Jesus.

[quote=]Luk 6:13 And when it was day, he called unto him his disciples: and of them he chose twelve, whom also he named apostles;
Luk 6:14 Simon, (whom he also named Peter,) and Andrew his brother, James and John, Philip and Bartholomew,
Luk 6:15 Matthew and Thomas, James the son of Alphaeus, and Simon called Zelotes,
Luk 6:16 And Judas the brother of James, and Judas Iscariot, which also was the traitor.


[quote=]Mat 10:1 And when he had called unto him his twelve disciples, he gave them power against unclean spirits, to cast them out, and to heal all manner of sickness and all manner of disease.
Mat 10:2 Now the names of the twelve apostles are these; The first, Simon, who is called Peter, and Andrew his brother; James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother;
Mat 10:3 Philip, and Bartholomew; Thomas, and Matthew the publican; James the son of Alphaeus, and Lebbaeus, whose surname was Thaddaeus;
Mat 10:4 Simon the Canaanite, and Judas Iscariot, who also betrayed him.



Jesus called Peter to be an apostle, and according to Paul's deluded mind, Jesus also called Paul to be an apostle.

Your argument fails, Mark. You seem to be confusing "who was called to be an apostle" with "who was sent out to evangelize."

Regardless, the originator of both was Yeshua.

The word "God" is not actually there in the Greek manuscript. It is "assumed" by the version you are reading. The actual Greek word is a simple "o" and it reflects "he."

By the way, I will give you guys a link to a very useful website that I have been using for the past 10 years which displays both the English and the Greek (with hyperlinks to the Greek definitions) of the King James version.

http://www.htmlbible.com/sacrednamebible.../index.htm

Some of you may find that website very useful.

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
28-11-2012, 10:34 AM
RE: Who was Saint Paul?

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
28-11-2012, 04:02 PM
RE: Who was Saint Paul?
Re

"This is utterly disputed by the Gospel record, Mark.



James did not call Peter to be an apostle of Jesus."

The gospel record is irrelevant to this discussion. Paul, who wrote the letter, knew nothing of the gospels....they hadn't been written yet. It is universally acknowledged Paul is referring to James' decision. Please google it.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-11-2012, 06:57 PM
RE: Who was Saint Paul?
(28-11-2012 04:02 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  Re

"This is utterly disputed by the Gospel record, Mark.



James did not call Peter to be an apostle of Jesus."

The gospel record is irrelevant to this discussion. Paul, who wrote the letter, knew nothing of the gospels....they hadn't been written yet. It is universally acknowledged Paul is referring to James' decision. Please google it.


I Googled it. No such consensus exists. It has absolutely nothing to do with James.

In the context, Paul is speaking about the physical Yeshua in regards to Peter, and the spirit that was supposedly in Yeshua, known as the Spirit of Christ, which is in reference to Paul.

Where you get James out of this is a total mystery.

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
28-11-2012, 09:32 PM (This post was last modified: 28-11-2012 09:48 PM by Mark Fulton.)
RE: Who was Saint Paul?
(28-11-2012 06:57 PM)Free Wrote:  
(28-11-2012 04:02 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  Re

"This is utterly disputed by the Gospel record, Mark.



James did not call Peter to be an apostle of Jesus."

The gospel record is irrelevant to this discussion. Paul, who wrote the letter, knew nothing of the gospels....they hadn't been written yet. It is universally acknowledged Paul is referring to James' decision. Please google it.


I Googled it. No such consensus exists. It has absolutely nothing to do with James.

In the context, Paul is speaking about the physical Yeshua in regards to Peter, and the spirit that was supposedly in Yeshua, known as the Spirit of Christ, which is in reference to Paul.

Where you get James out of this is a total mystery.




You are reading with blinkers on. Please take them off. Please read the following as I analyse this very important part of the bible...


At the so-called “Jerusalem council,” in or about 49 CE, James, the Nazarene leader, convened a meeting to discuss tactics for promoting the group’s beliefs. 2 Galatians, written by Paul, describes this meeting. It’s a truly enlightening page of the Bible:“It was not until fourteen years had passed that I went up to Jerusalem again. I went with Barnabas and took Titus with me. I went there as a result of a revelation, and privately I laid before the leading men the Good News as I proclaim it among the pagans; I did so for fear the course I was adopting or had already adopted would not be allowed. And what happened? Even though Titus who had come with me is a Greek, he was not obliged to be circumcised. The question came up only because some who do not really belong to the brotherhood have furtively crept in to spy on the liberty we enjoy in Jesus Christ, and want to reduce us all to slavery. I was so determined to safeguard for you the true meaning of the Good News, that I refused even out of deference to yield to such people for one moment. As a result, these people who are acknowledged leaders—not that their importance matters much to me, since God has no favorites—these leaders, as I say, had nothing to add to the Good News as I preach it. On the contrary, they recognized I had been commissioned to preach the Good News to the uncircumcised just as Peter had been commissioned to preach it to the circumcised. The same person whose action had made Peter the apostle of the circumcised had given me a similar mission to the pagans. So James, Cephas and John, these leaders, these pillars, shook hands with Barnabas and me as a sign of partnership: we were to go to the pagans and they to the circumcised. The only thing they insisted on was that we should remember to help the poor, as indeed I was anxious to do. When Cephas came to Antioch, however, I opposed him to his face, since he was manifestly in the wrong. His custom had been to eat with the pagans, but after certain friends of James arrived he stopped doing this and kept away from them altogether for fear of the group that insisted on circumcision. The other Jews joined him in this pretence, and even Barnabas felt himself obliged to copy their behavior. When I saw they were not respecting the true meaning of the Good News, I said to Cephas in front of everyone, ‘In spite of being a Jew, you live like the pagans and not like the Jews, so you have no right to make the pagans copy Jewish ways.’” (Gal. 2:1–15 JB).

Each sentence reveals a facet of a very strained relationship. Paul was clearly intimidated by James’, John’s and Peter’s authority. He referred to them as “Pillars,” and “leading men,” and was well aware they mightn’t accept his proclamation of “Good News” as preached to gentiles:“I laid before the leading men the Good News as I proclaim it among the pagans; I did so for fear the course I was adopting or had already adopted would not be allowed.” What’s more, he barely concealed the fact he begrudged their authority: “Not that their importance matters much to me.” Imagine saying that about the half brother of the son of God! He quite clearly regarded them as competition: “I was so determined to safeguard for you the true meaning of the Good News, that I refused even out of deference to yield to such people for one moment.” Paul mistrusted them. They didn’t “belong to the brotherhood.” He accused them of spying on “the liberty we enjoy in Christ Jesus.” He said they had “nothing to add to the Good News I preach.” He believed they “want to reduce us all to slavery.” He thought that the “good news” he, and only he, preached, entitled people to be part of his brotherhood. He thought he was freeing people from the “slavery” of the Judaic Law.Then, he and Peter, allegedly stalwarts of the fledgling Christian movement (who the Vatican claim founded a Christian church in Rome together), bickered with each other. Paul claimed (probably quite correctly) that Peter didn’t respect his “good news.” He publically challenged Peter directly by accusing him of hypocrisy.


What an intriguing snippet of scripture! Paul, the first founder of Christianity, was personally and philosophically at odds with Yeshua’s brother and disciples! He was angry and frustrated that they’d been undermining him, and he didn’t hold back his vindictive retort. Why the churlish, hostile attitude? Weren’t they all preaching the same message? No!

It is very clear Paul is claiming James sent him out to evangelize the pagans, and sent Peter out to the Jews.

Perhaps your memory made need some refreshing about what's written in Acts about the same scenario...


There are two separate accounts of a meeting between Paul and the Nazarenes at the famous Council of Jerusalem, in 49 CE. The one in Acts claimed that the meeting was held to discuss what was required of gentiles who wished to become Nazarenes. The author wrote, “Certain members of the Pharisees’ party who had become believers objected, insisting that the pagans should be circumcised and instructed to keep the Law of Moses” (Acts 15:5, NJB). The issue was whether gentiles wishing to join the Nazarene sect must be circumcised. Peter gave a speech and then James said, “I rule, then, that instead of making things more difficult for pagans who turn to God, we send them a letter telling them merely to abstain from anything polluted by idols, from fornication, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood” (Acts 15:19–21, NJB). The author thereby indirectly admitted James was in charge, because James made the definitive ruling. The little brother of Yeshua, who the author had previously implied had been getting under everyone’s feet, was now in charge and clearly superior in status to Peter! I don’t believe James ever said anything of the sort. He wouldn’t have been interested in the spiritual welfare of gentiles. He didn’t want anyone allied to Rome infiltrating his faction. Elsewhere in the Bible, Paul referred to James as insisting on circumcision! The author was trying to make James sound less Jewish.


It’s worth recalling Paul’s eyewitness account of this meeting, written perhaps a hundred years earlier, which gave a different version of events. In his letter to the Galatians he described a meeting where he claims he justified his own “good news” story to Peter, James, and John. He quite clearly had little respect for them: “Not that their importance matters to me” (Gal. 2:6, NJB). He sarcastically referred to them as the “so-called pillars of the church.” Paul says they all shook hands and agreed that he was to preach to the gentiles and they to the circumcised. He was concocting his own account. He didn’t shake hands with the apostles. They didn’t accept his heretical ideas. Paul would have received a thorough dressing-down, or worse. He was telling the tale to make him sound like one of the team.



Free, you are assuming Paul was preaching Jesus' message. He wasn't. He was preaching "my gospel." His message was about his Christ, his mythical spirit, not from Yeshua, a once walking/talking human being.



If Paul thought he was teaching Jesus stuff, he would have been in awe of Jesus' brother James and Jesus' disciples (Peter and John), not heaped shit on them.


Yeshua was a Jew (just like James, Peter and John), never a Christian. He was a Nazarene (remember my article about them you thought was excellent?) Paul was a proto-Christian, a heretic, a spy, and the Jews hated his guts. They pelted him with rocks and fought him tooth and nail. Do you really believe Yeshua's ghost tapped Paul on the back on the road to Damascus and made him his main man? Come on! Get a grip on reality!
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
29-11-2012, 02:02 AM (This post was last modified: 29-11-2012 02:06 AM by Mark Fulton.)
RE: Who was Saint Paul?
Hey Free,

you and anyone else who imagines Paul was pushing Jesus juice should read this brief article. The author is a Christian, has a very superficial understanding of the real history, yet has nevertheless used some common sense.

http://www.sonofman.org/paul1.htm
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-11-2012, 02:27 AM
RE: Who was Saint Paul?
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: