Paul vs. Jesus

[Caledvwlch]

Says who?

That's what I'm asking you. I've learned that just because it is written, doesn't make it so. Things need to be corroborated.

 

[Agape4Robin]

That's what I'm asking you. I've learned that just because it is written, doesn't make it so. Things need to be corroborated.

Really?
So, where is the lack of evidence?

 

[Chileice]

That's what I'm asking you. I've learned that just because it is written, doesn't make it so. Things need to be corroborated.

The early Christians would have rejected the writings of Luke if it were just a crock. Too many people were around Paul who could have said it was baloney. The meetings with Festus and Felix and Agrippa are pretty convincing. Why would he say that crap if it weren't true. I mean in Acts 26.24 Festus called Paul crazy... literally, but Paul had a pretty nice comeback. Why would Luke invent THAT. He was there. Why would he want his "mentor" to be called crazy by the authorities? If he was just going to make up stuff, Why didn't Agrippa just fall on his knees and pray to receive Christ?

You guys are digging pretty deep just to make yourselves feel better. The fact is people have conversion experiences and remain completely sane. Are you saying every Christian is clinically ill? I think that kind of thinking might lead a good psychiatrist to question your mental state. If we can't accept a writing which tells the conversion story 3 different times, it's hard to imagine you accepting the writing of anyone even your wife. "Sorry Honey, unless I have three notarized statements from ocular witnesses, I refuse to believe you had pepperoni pizza for lunch." :bang:

 

[Lighthouse]

The early Christians would have rejected the writings of Luke if it were just a crock. Too many people were around Paul who could have said it was baloney. The meetings with Festus and Felix and Agrippa are pretty convincing. Why would he say that crap if it weren't true. I mean in Acts 26.24 Festus called Paul crazy... literally, but Paul had a pretty nice comeback. Why would Luke invent THAT. He was there. Why would he want his "mentor" to be called crazy by the authorities? If he was just going to make up stuff, Why didn't Agrippa just fall on his knees and pray to receive Christ?

You guys are digging pretty deep just to make yourselves feel better. The fact is people have conversion experiences and remain completely sane. Are you saying every Christian is clinically ill? I think that kind of thinking might lead a good psychiatrist to question your mental state. If we can't accept a writing which tells the conversion story 3 different times, it's hard to imagine you accepting the writing of anyone even your wife. "Sorry Honey, unless I have three notarized statements from ocular witnesses, I refuse to believe you had pepperoni pizza for lunch." :bang:

:thumb:

 

[Caledvwlch]

Really?
So, where is the lack of evidence?

Or more appropriately, where is the evidence?

 

[Gnostic]

lighthouse: "That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved."

So where did I ever say Jesus was not raised from the dead? Of course his spirit was raised, but not his fleshy body. And where does Paul say Jesus' fleshy body was raised? Nowhere. I guess he thought it was more important to write about a cloak he left behind. Dead men rising from their graves are myths. Paul, even though it seems he was a schizophrenic (a trademark of genius), and probably also had a near death experience when they stoned him, wasn't delusional enough to believe such mythology.

*

 

[Granite]

lighthouse: "That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved."

So where did I ever say Jesus was not raised from the dead? Of course his spirit was raised, but not his fleshy body. And where does Paul say Jesus' fleshy body was raised? Nowhere. I guess he thought it was more important to write about a cloak he left behind. Dead men rising from their graves are myths. Paul, even though it seems he was a schizophrenic (a trademark of genius), and probably also had a near death experience when they stoned him, wasn't delusional enough to believe such mythology.

*

Paul spoke VERY little of anything literal and historical in the life of Jesus of Nazareth. He wasn't INTERESTED in the human Jesus; he was, in a very real well, creating an entirely new Jesus as he went along.

 

[Aimiel]

"That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved."

So where did I ever say Jesus was not raised from the dead?

For one, your very next sentence:

Of course his spirit was raised, but not his fleshy body.

Denying the eywitness reports and the fact that Jesus prayed for those who would believe upon Him due to the (honest) testimony of those apostles, you're calling The Word of God a lie, and His appointed apostles worthless.

And where does Paul say Jesus' fleshy body was raised? Nowhere. I guess he thought it was more important to write about a cloak he left behind.

He wasn't opposed to The Gospel, which the apostles preached, which is the good news that Jesus is raised from the dead, physically, and ascended to The Right Hand of The Father, and that salvation is available through faith in His Name.

Dead men rising from their graves are myths.

You oppose The Truth of The Gospel because you believe your fables, which are far more obvious myths than the truth that many have been physically raised from the dead.

Paul, even though it seems he was a schizophrenic (a trademark of genius), and probably also had a near death experience when they stoned him, wasn't delusional enough to believe such mythology.*

If he wasn't, he certainly would have made it a point to let us know about it, since he did let the apostles and his readers know about anything which he disagreed with the others about, regarding doctrine, to enable The Gospel to become more clear. You don't seem to grasp the fact that Paul was a Christian, and not a 'magician' like you want people to believe.

 

[Granite]

How often did Paul actually refer to the gospels themselves?

Cite them?

Use them as evidence?

Quote them?

 

[Aimiel]

Maybe you could count the times he said the word, "gospel," and get back to us. He referred to them many times, and even spoke of believers being a 'living epistle' of The Word of God. He had respect for the apostles, and was one Himself, though not one of the twelve.

 

[Caledvwlch]

Maybe you could count the times he said the word, "gospel," and get back to us. He referred to them many times, and even spoke of believers being a 'living epistle' of The Word of God. He had respect for the apostles, and was one Himself, though not one of the twelve.

That's hardly significant. We all know that the word gospel is used to describe Jesus' story, not necessarily Matthew's spin, Mark's spin, Luke's third hand guesswork, or John's spin. How many of these gospels were written when Paul wrote his letters, by the way?

 

[Caledvwlch]

By the way. You've not experienced Paul's letters until you've read them in the original Klingon.

 

[Granite]

Maybe you could count the times he said the word, "gospel," and get back to us. He referred to them many times, and even spoke of believers being a 'living epistle' of The Word of God. He had respect for the apostles, and was one Himself, though not one of the twelve.

When did he refer to them? Example please.

 

[Aimiel]

That's hardly significant. We all know that the word gospel is used to describe Jesus' story, not necessarily Matthew's spin, Mark's spin, Luke's third hand guesswork, or John's spin. How many of these gospels were written when Paul wrote his letters, by the way?

I wasn't referring to 'written' words. He certainly knew what was being preached, having consorted with the apostles, and listening to their sermons, as well as reports from others. The agreement with the whole of The New Testament is simply amazing to me. Here's a new twist (believe upon The Lord Jesus, The Ressurrected Messiah, prophecied for centuries) which throws a monkey wrench into Judaism and causes adherents to come into a dynamic, personal and verifiable relationship with The One Whose very presence used to cause death to anyone who even entered the holy of holies, much less touched the ark of the covenant, and the apostles agree in their theology to the point that they are able to describe what God wants men to do to carry on the tradition until His Son returns to earth, and they don't argue over it until they destroy it, but they seek God and work out the truth behind what their differences are. That's amazing to me. The vast differences between the apostles' backgrounds and their agreement with one another, eventually, is just amazing.

 

[Granite]

What would be amazing is if Christians had that same spirit of agreement today.

 

[Caledvwlch]

I wasn't referring to 'written' words. He certainly knew what was being preached, having consorted with the apostles, and listening to their sermons, as well as reports from others. The agreement with the whole of The New Testament is simply amazing to me. Here's a new twist (believe upon The Lord Jesus, The Ressurrected Messiah, prophecied for centuries) which throws a monkey wrench into Judaism and causes adherents to come into a dynamic, personal and verifiable relationship with The One Whose very presence used to cause death to anyone who even entered the holy of holies, much less touched the ark of the covenant, and the apostles agree in their theology to the point that they are able to describe what God wants men to do to carry on the tradition until His Son returns to earth, and they don't argue over it until they destroy it, but they seek God and work out the truth behind what their differences are. That's amazing to me. The vast differences between the apostles' backgrounds and their agreement with one another, eventually, is just amazing.

The reason they "agree" so well is that they were compiled in the same church council.

 

[Granite]

That might have helped...

 

[Aimiel]

When did he refer to them? Example please.

So, as much as in me is, I am ready to preach the gospel to you that are at Rome also.

That's just one example. The following is more of what I'm thinking, which is that Paul preached the same Jesus, baptized with The Same Spirit and spread the same Gospel that the other apostles did.

For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him.

That shows that he's in agreement with the twelve, because they all preached Jesus crucified.

 

[Aimiel]

The reason they "agree" so well is that they were compiled in the same church council.

I'm not talking about the agreement of The Gospels, which is a large piece of evidence for the validity of The Scriptures, but of the agreement of the apostles.

 

[Granite]

So, as much as in me is, I am ready to preach the gospel to you that are at Rome also.

That's just one example. The following is more of what I'm thinking, which is that Paul preached the same Jesus, baptized with The Same Spirit and spread the same Gospel that the other apostles did.

For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him.

That shows that he's in agreement with the twelve, because they all preached Jesus crucified.

Aimiel, I was asking for examples of Paul actually using the words of Jesus himself, or the gospels as we have them today.

Here's your problem: Paul rarely if ever appeals to the words of Jesus personally. He never says something to the effect of, "Women shouldn't speak in church because the Lord said so." (As an example.) The epistles are Paul doing his own thing. He does not ever refer to Jesus as a historical, literal, very human being. The Christ of Paul is cosmic and untouchable.

There is a disconnect between the epistles and gospels. They present very, very different pictures of Jesus.