Paul's Christianity

[tdrehfal]

Yes, merely "mind candy".

I made it up the other day.....

There is nothing factual about it.....

Good job detective.....

Well there isn't anything factual about it; you're simply not the one who made it up, but you've certainly bought into it.

People have already posted that Paul does mention Christ's death/ressurection. We've already established that the

purpose of Paul's epistles was for the edifictation and instruction of people who already believed. There's no reason

for Paul to be giving an account of something everyone already would've known about. If I go to a Bible Study today

where only believers are present, we don't sit around telling each other about the fact that Jesus was really on earth

and did many miracles, because everyone there already knows about it. You seem to demand a 'Gospel According

to Paul' in the same way that Mat, Mark, Luke, or John wrote. Paul preached the gospel orally and did not write it

down. The things he wrote he wrote to believers. It's silly to say he should've been trying to convince people of things

that they already believed and knew about. Where he does mention things he does so to correct doctrinal errors.

I think I'll start writing a letter to my local church about the miracles of Jesus and who he is and what he did...

To which they would respond, "Yes. Thank you for informing us of all the things we already knew about."

Edited January 28, 2007 by tdrehfal

[Guest Timbo]

Umm, actually, I have heard no refutations about Hebrews, but 1 and 2 Timothy and Titus? Yes. It is generally accepted that the Timothys and Titus were written sometime in the mid to late 2nd century. This was decided, mainly because of the writing style, and because the letters deal with 2nd century issues, rather than 1st century issues. But, it is also agreed that these letters were written by disciples of Paul.

Hi systemstrike 7,

The Bible book of Titus was written about 61-64 C.E. by the apostle Paul, possibly from Macedonia. This book begins, saying: "Paul, a slave of God and an apostle of Jesus Christ . . . to Titus, a genuine child according to a faith shared in common.

[systemstrike_7]

Before you jump all over me about my last statement about you going to great lengths to deny Christ or the Bible, let me explain further what I've witnessed just over the last couple of discussions. I know how these kinds of discussions go so I might as well provide some proof of what I'm saying before I ask.

Here's the thoughts you've put forth in the last couple of posts where it seems you're talking out of both sides of your mouth.

Paul wrote the books that actually popularized Christianity. Most scholars don't beleive he wrote all of those books.

Jesus should have had more followers. Jesus fed 5000 followers on just one occassion.

Jesus should have been captured by the Romans so that he could raise them from the dead, however the Romans should have killed him sooner.

Paul's teaching are based on the religion of Mithras. But wait, Paul's teachings are copies of Old Testament stories.

Do you see what I mean?

I will take each of your responses in order:

First of all, we can attribute most of the Pauline epistles as authentic Pauline authorship. But there are certain books where this is questioned. I don't quite understand what you are saying here. I never said that Paul didn't write any of those epistles, but I question a few of them. And so does alot of biblical scholars.

I'm saying that the 5000 fed story is a miracle attributed to Jesus, but nothing he really did. It looks too much like the myth in the OT account. I would argue that these first evangelicals mythologized Jesus to an enormous extant, and basing alot of this off of a bad misreading of the Hebrew Bible.

If Jesus actually raised Lazeras from the dead, the romans would have known and captured him. I included the part about the Romans killing Christ quicker to add more evidence of the mythology of his story. I'm saying they should have done on or the other. Not both...

I'm sorry. I got carried away with my terminology about Paul basing his teaching off of Mithras. I meant this: Paul didn't base his god off of Mithra or any other pagan savior god. He only attributed some of these characteristics to his own theology. He never once puts Jesus into an historical setting. I see that alot of people are saying that he wouldn't have to. But throughout all his letters, there are very good spots where he could have used an example from Jesus' life to further illustrate a lesson. When he gives alot of his teachings on how Christians should live, why not give some of Jesus' own words on the Sermon on the mount? Wouldn't this prove to be necessary since this is the very person they are following? Why does he never say, "As Christ told us..." or "Jesus said this during his ministry..."? Does he know about these things? He is arrogant enough to tell people to listen to him while never giving an example of words Jesus himself spoke.

[systemstrike_7]

And Timbo,

I would like to know where you got this information from.

It looks like a paste job, but I may be wrong.

There seems to be alot of speculation present in this post. You say that there is no internal or external evidence that would point away from Paul. Well I beg to differ. The writing styles are different, even though the doctines stay the same. They were written by his disciples, therefore, would have undoubtedly kept the same doctrines intact. You gave alot of history, that is given to us by the epistles themselves.

But aside from all this, please give me the site or book you gained this information form. I would be delighted to look into it myself.

[Joshua-777]

And Timbo,

I would like to know where you got this information from.

It looks like a paste job, but I may be wrong.

There seems to be alot of speculation present in this post. You say that there is no internal or external evidence that would point away from Paul. Well I beg to differ. The writing styles are different, even though the doctines stay the same. They were written by his disciples, therefore, would have undoubtedly kept the same doctrines intact. You gave alot of history, that is given to us by the epistles themselves.

But aside from all this, please give me the site or book you gained this information form. I would be delighted to look into it myself.

One thing I do know about paul, is that he didn't write, he had someone else write his letters. He had problems with his eyes, many believe thats why in corinthians, he said he had a thorn in his side.

[artsylady]

YOu're obviously pressed for time here so I'll start with just one question. In the story of the feeding of the 5000, which OT story did Paul 'copy' from the OT? I did a search and couldn't find it.

[systemstrike_7]

YOu're obviously pressed for time here so I'll start with just one question. In the story of the feeding of the 5000, which OT story did Paul 'copy' from the OT? I did a search and couldn't find it.

2 Kings 4: 42-44

[Floatingaxe]

Before you jump all over me about my last statement about you going to great lengths to deny Christ or the Bible, let me explain further what I've witnessed just over the last couple of discussions. I know how these kinds of discussions go so I might as well provide some proof of what I'm saying before I ask.

Here's the thoughts you've put forth in the last couple of posts where it seems you're talking out of both sides of your mouth.

Paul wrote the books that actually popularized Christianity. Most scholars don't beleive he wrote all of those books.

Jesus should have had more followers. Jesus fed 5000 followers on just one occassion.

Jesus should have been captured by the Romans so that he could raise them from the dead, however the Romans should have killed him sooner.

Paul's teaching are based on the religion of Mithras. But wait, Paul's teachings are copies of Old Testament stories.

Do you see what I mean?

I will take each of your responses in order:

First of all, we can attribute most of the Pauline epistles as authentic Pauline authorship. But there are certain books where this is questioned. I don't quite understand what you are saying here. I never said that Paul didn't write any of those epistles, but I question a few of them. And so does alot of biblical scholars.

I'm saying that the 5000 fed story is a miracle attributed to Jesus, but nothing he really did. It looks too much like the myth in the OT account. I would argue that these first evangelicals mythologized Jesus to an enormous extant, and basing alot of this off of a bad misreading of the Hebrew Bible.

If Jesus actually raised Lazeras from the dead, the romans would have known and captured him. I included the part about the Romans killing Christ quicker to add more evidence of the mythology of his story. I'm saying they should have done on or the other. Not both...

I'm sorry. I got carried away with my terminology about Paul basing his teaching off of Mithras. I meant this: Paul didn't base his god off of Mithra or any other pagan savior god. He only attributed some of these characteristics to his own theology. He never once puts Jesus into an historical setting. I see that alot of people are saying that he wouldn't have to. But throughout all his letters, there are very good spots where he could have used an example from Jesus' life to further illustrate a lesson. When he gives alot of his teachings on how Christians should live, why not give some of Jesus' own words on the Sermon on the mount? Wouldn't this prove to be necessary since this is the very person they are following? Why does he never say, "As Christ told us..." or "Jesus said this during his ministry..."? Does he know about these things? He is arrogant enough to tell people to listen to him while never giving an example of words Jesus himself spoke.

Utterly ridiculous. If Jesus could do that in the Old Testament, what makes you think He cannot in Galilee later on? Not only to 5,000, but also for 4,000, and not only that, but maybe even double that, as the count excluded women and children!

[systemstrike_7]

The point I'm trying to make is that he might not have ever done it. Could this not be a form of midrash? Your post doesn't really help your case.

[artsylady]

The story in 2 Kings doesn't sound like a miracle at all. It sounds like they had some food.