You know...Big Screen TV's are horrible, whY?
You don't need them to be that big, but once you got them, you can't go back to smaller.
(There is a penis joke in there somewhere I think, LOL !)
Paul, leading authority on Christianity, does NOT quote Jesus!
by Terry 204 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
-
Pistoff
Band on the Run said:
I concur with his emphasis on the Risen Christ. The folly of the gospel --fools for Christ. Great humans have done good works and transformed thought in their cultures. I've heard that Christians are the only ones who believe their myth actually happened. Paul writes about what makes Jesus unique and special. I love his teachings, minus the way those with power interpreted them.
So are the gospels foolish, or is Paul? I can't tell from the way you write it.
Jesus was likely a great human; at least, we can attribute to him some astounding sayings that went against the grain of 1st century religious thought, and that was not popular. That inspired a group of people to change the way they lived IN THIS LIFE, not the next.
Paul does NOT talk about what made Jesus special, that is the whole point I am making. He preaches Jesus alive, dead and in HIS OPINION, risen.
But there is no evidence he is risen, of course, and the apologists for Paul's failed expectation of the return stretch over 2000 years.
My whole point is that if Paul knew of or believed in Jesus' miracles, he undoubtedly would have discussed them.
-
Awen
Pistoff said:
What Jesus is said to have said was not determined until AFTER Paul wrote his authentic letters.
That is the more likely scenario.
The really disturbing fact for most christians:
Paul NEVER mentions Jesus' miracles; never.
WHY not?
It certainly must be that he had never heard of them. Think about what that means; the miracles of Jesus were not 'known' until after Paul wrote his letters.
Why?
Peace be with you:
I checked the Bible that I have (The New Living Translation) and at the beginning of each book it gives the author, dates written and a brief summary of the book.
For the most part Paul's letter were written BEFORE the synoptic Gospels. So what you stated about Paul not knowing what Jesus did holds true. I have read several secular books on the topic of Christianity and they point out that there were many different groups that identified themselves as "Christians" but their teachings had a wide variance in themes. So it's likely the remaning Apostles wrote down the Gospels so that others could be sure once and for all who the historical Jesus was and what he taught, did and said could be clear. Most of Paul's letters were written before 65 AD (which is the dates given for the four Gospels) and a few being written afterwards. It's the ones written afterwards where we see a change in the writings. If the Apostles had recorded the life of Jesus when it occurred or immediately afterwards there would be a lot less confusion in the world today, however for some reason they didn't feel impelled to do so.
So it seems to me that Paul was simply working with what he had, namely the direction of the Holy Spirit and the oral teachings of Christ that had been passed along to him. He could do little else.
Peace Be With You,
Awen
-
Awen
Pistoff wrote:
"But there is no evidence he is risen, of course, and the apologists for Paul's failed expectation of the return stretch over 2000 years."
May You Have Peace:
There is also no evidence (outside of Christian writings) that he is not not risen. That is to say, if you believe the Bible and what is taught therein, then the commentaries of Jesus being tried, executed and resurrected are all moot. Faith fills in the gaps. Personally I'm a man more of reason than faith (much like Paul) but I do have faith that Jesus was a real person.
Why? It comes down to several things. First Paul and the other Apostles endured a lot of hardship in the name of someone whom in their opinion had been tried, executed and resurrected. Would they be willing to do this if any of them had thought for the merest second that Jesus had not been raised from the dead? Some might say they did it for the glory and money they could make. The thing is, all the Apostles (except for Paul) were for the most part "unlettered and ordinary" having no experience in the Rabbinical schools and having received no training therein. They also had their own secular jobs (which they left off from to follow and preach about Christ). This seems to me to be a very big thing to give up in the name of someone who's identity is suspect. There had to be overwhelming evidence given by Jesus to prove his identity (the information just isn't supplied in the Gospels). I find many times that what the Bible doesn't say regarding a matter sometimes says more about a subject than what it does say. The evidence is in the details, or sometimes the lack thereof. A Zen saying would be "All the evidence is here except the parts that are missing." So an examination of what is missing usually yields the answer. As I have said Before, the Bible is for THINKING Christians. If you want to take it at face value, then it can be done. But there is so much more information to be had if you dwell upon what has been said and ask the Holy Spirit for insight.
Many of the Apostles/disciples and followers of Christ endured great hardships in his name. How many of us have endured the same hardships because of our beliefs? The first century Christians were very different than ourselves. Their churches were scattered all over the place and they rarely had others coming around to instruct them. The Holy Spirit however remedied this problem. If we are to believe that people spoke in foreign tongues without having first learned them, healed the sick, resurrected the dead, or uttered prophecys often then those acts themselves back up the event of Jesus' resurrection. Without the resurrection, there would have been no outpouring of Holy Spirit at Pentecost or at any time thereafter.
So the problem here is that the works of Jesus, the apostles and all those spoken about in the New Testament either have to be taken as real events or there was a great conspiracy afoot to mislead future generations. For what purpose? What would these ones have to gain considering they would all be dead by the time the writings passed to us? If none of these events ocurred then everything that was endured by first century Christians and all Christians afterwards was a complete waste of time and has no meaning for us today.
However if they did in fact occur then those things have great meaning to all of humankind.
It seems very unlikely that the Bible writers would have gone through so much hardships, the writing down of dates of secular ocurrences, the observation and recording of what was happening around them for the sake of a person of fiction.
No my friends, the truth is they went through all these things because they wanted to make sure that the truth as they knew it was recorded for future generations so that we too might have faith in the works of our Lord Jesus Christ and through understanding what is required of us, we might be saved.
Peace be With You,
Awen
-
designs
Awen,
You look past and through several common aspects to human nature such as the need to fantasize and have fanciful and idealistic dreams. You do know in Judaism there is acknowledgement that Jesus existed, there is just no compulsion to see him as the Messiah.
Falling back on the old saw the the Holy Spirit is like the cream cheese that smooths over all of the holes in the New Testament gets tried a lot but really facts are facts and errors exist in the Bible that can't be swept under the rug.
As for 'Paul's' argument that if Christ didn't rise from the dead its all a crock, well maybe, some people get a lot of good out of the sayings in the Bible that tell them to Love One Another. If that is needed for them to be a good neighbor and contribute to their community then so be it.
Its difficult for people to get their heads around being dupped and being shown love all within the same framework, but that is a reality that needs considering.
-
AGuest
The trinity is about the NATURE of God, not the identity of God.
Even so, "trinity" denotes three, dear PSacto (the greatest of love and peace to you!); yet, there is only two: the Father... and the Son (who is the Holy Spirit - at least, that is what he's told me, and Paul and John seemed to agree - 2 Cor. 3:17; 1 John 2:1, 2 ). And while it is true that our Lord is the Spirit of God... the "holy spirit" of the Most Holy One is not a person: it is His blood, semen (Matthew 1:20; Revelation 12:2), and breath (John 20:22; Acts 2:2)... His life force (Genesis 1:2)... "living water" (John 4:14; Revelation 22:17)... even life "flame" (Exodus 40:38; Daniel 7:10; John 1:33; Matthew 3:11; Acts 2:3).
I realize that, based on the mistransliteration of Matthew 28:19, many wish to believe that we are to be... indeed, CAN be... baptized "in the name... of the Holy Spirit." But there is no other "name", dear one, by which we can saved except that of the One who came... in the name of JAH. Since HIS name contains the name of JAH (i.e., JAHESHUA)... both names are covered. However, the admonition was NOT to "go... baptizing them in the name of the Father... and the name of the Son... and the name of the Holy Spirit." It was to baptize them.... in the name of the Father... INTO the Son (into his Body)... WITH holy spirit which spirit... or lifeforce (not a person!)... would come UPON them and into them (John 1:33; Acts 19:6).
And both the Most Holy AND Holy One(s) of Israel possess this spirit... (as a son possesses the same from HIS father)... as does those who are anointed by it. When our Lord said "Receive holy spirit..." (John 20:22) he didn't cough up a person or personage upon them. He simply breathed on them; gave them HIS breath, which breath he received from the Father.
Trust me, dear one: I hate having to be the one to say it, but the WTBTS does have this one right. It is one of less than 5 things - yet, all religion have SOME truth, even minute amounts. That is how they are ABLE to mislead, where possible, even the chosen ones.
I got it for my wife for Christmas.
Uh... yeah. Um-hmmm, sure. You got it for her. Of course, you did - LOLOLOLOLOL!
Peace to you, dear one!
Your servant, sister, and fellow slave of Christ,
SA
-
tec
Yeah..... sort of like how my husband got me tickets and took me to see Motorhead on my birthday ;)
Tammy
-
Pistoff
Look, Awen and Aguest, you are both Christians. You accept and believe, no problem. I used to be there, and while it is one thing to believe, it is another to say that the gospels were written by 65, they weren't, etc.
There is no evidence that Jesus didn't rise? No evidence that the pot of gold does NOT exist either, but plenty of reasons to think it doesn't.
The sad thing is that a whole community rose up after Jesus' death who lived a close knit reality, and along comes Paul and builds, not on the idea of community, but on the tired old model of the murdered and risen god/son, a COMMON theme in religions of the day.
By the end of no less than 300 years, a religious structure was built that made the excesses of other religions pale by comparison.
Jesus impaled religious structure and in place hierarchy; Paul and those writing in Paul's name over many decades went to work erecting their own structure and hierarchy.
I believe Jesus was real, and that many of his sayings were genuinely original and inspiring; the rest is a construction by those who could not accept his death and those who took comfort, not in challenging and seeing through hierarchy but in building their own.
-
designs
At Passover an empty chair is set aside for the Prophet Elijah to come and annouce the Messiah, Jesus is welcome to show up anytime he wishes....
2000+ years and waiting
-
Satanus
'Jesus is welcome to show up anytime he wishes....'
This is what i have said to a few christians, as i was leaving their fold. I also have said it about the biblegod, when theists threatened me w a visitation by their biblegod.
S