Paul's Christianity

[Guest Timbo]

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.

Hi systemstrike 7,

The information that you received came from an in-depth library that as one of Jehovah's Witnesses I have access to, which contains a vast collection of our publications. Just any individual has access to the local library and can collect differing types of information, I too have use of this library, being able to collect and arrange information so as to hopefully benefit those seriously interested in learning about the God of the Bible, Jehovah. It provides in-depth knowledge and information that is not readily available elsewhere and only accessible by Jehovah's Witnesses. I do not respond with information necessarily off the top of my head, but rather do research to insure that it is accurate. Just as with today's newer cars, a car mechanic must be able to access detailed information to work at solving the car's problem, and hence, sometimes incorporate the help of other skilled technicians. Likewise, doctors often confer when a serious medical issue arises, so as to give quality medical care.

The dates suggested as to the time that the apostle Paul wrote the letters to Titus, Timothy, and Hebrews are based upon the available evidence, whether internal or external. If you were writing a letter to someone who believes that we evolved, would you not have a different ' writing style ' than for someone who readily accepts that we were created. Likewise, with the apostle Paul, for he tailored each letter to the particular congregation needs that he wrote to. Is this not also true of a skilled doctor, for he considers each patient's needs a they arrive at his office.

From what I have discerned, you seem to be trying to discount the Bible as indeed God's word. This is nothing new, for the Bible has been the center of much discussion as to it's integrity and accuracy. On the other hand, the apostle Paul wrote to the Boreans, at Acts 17:11, that these "were more noble-minded than those in Thes

[Floatingaxe]

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.

Rubbish. I wouldn't even entertain the thought. He performed it alright.

[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.

Rubbish. I wouldn't even entertain the thought. He performed it alright.

Timbo, that was very insightful and thank you.

I was wondering why you were labeled as a nonbeliever, but I see now.

Well, I bet the Christians are feeling pretty embarrased because you are showing them up pretty bad. The best Floatingaxe can give me is "Rubbish".

I want to look further into the Pastoral Epistles and see what I can find. Can you point me towards a reasonably scholarly source?

[systemstrike_7]

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

They had 20 loaves for 100 men. Elisha got a call from God and God said, "Hey feed these guys the bread" and Elisha said, "But God, there isn't enough food." Then God said, "Feed it to them and there will be some left over." Then Elisha said, "Ok." Elisha then proceeded to feed the 100 men the 20 loaves. After everyone got nice and stuffed, they had some left over. TA DA! MIRACLE!

[Floatingaxe]

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

They had 20 loaves for 100 men. Elisha got a call from God and God said, "Hey feed these guys the bread" and Elisha said, "But God, there isn't enough food." Then God said, "Feed it to them and there will be some left over." Then Elisha said, "Ok." Elisha then proceeded to feed the 100 men the 20 loaves. After everyone got nice and stuffed, they had some left over. TA DA! MIRACLE!

Loaves back then were the size of our rolls, the size of a large hand. 20 wouldn't feed 100 men! Give us all a break with your disbelief. It borders on ridiculous. Either you are a seeker or you're not. Why are you here?

[systemstrike_7]

Yes, I know it was a miracle. I was trying to prove that it was miraculous. Artsy Lady was the one that questioned whether or not it was a miracle. I'm convinced that it was portrayed as a miracle. Which strengthens my case that midrash could have very much been evident in the gospel accounts.

Thank you, though, for helping me point this out.

[Masked Chris]

After reading much of Paul's insertions into the New Testament, I can't seem to find any mention of Jesus' earthly ministry.

No virgin birth

No visit of magi

No slaughter of innocents

No flight into Egypt

No Jesus in the Temple at age twelve

No Baptism of Jesus

No Wedding Feast

No Christ walking on water

No Raising of Lazerus

No Transfiguration

No entering into Jerusalem

No Last Supper

No Jewish Court hearing

No Pilate court hearing

No flogging

No Jesus carrying the cross

All Paul knows about is Jesus' death on a cross, resurrection from tomb, and his ascension into heaven.

These three attribute accredited to Christ by Paul, the earliest Christian writer, were also accredited to many other pagan savior gods before Jesus. Paul never quotes anything from any gospel, mainly because Paul wrote before the gospels were written, and apparently hadn't been told about Jesus' earthly ministry. When he speaks of the death, resurrection, and ascension, he talks on a MYTHICAL realm. Just like the pagan saviors.

Hebrews 8:4

"If Jesus had been on earth, he would not even have been a priest."

Jesus lived in the years of 0 A.D. to 33 A.D.(roughly) and Mark was written sometime after 70 A.D. Paul wrote in between these dates. He is the link. And from what I can see, he was unaware of the fact that Jesus was actually on earth.

It is not surprising that Christians rarely speak of early Christianity. When you assemble the facts it comes out as so:

Jesus lived - EVERYONE FORGOT - they finally remembered.

Post your thoughts...

system

Paul's Epistles were written as letters to diffrent churches in order to address certain issues. The Gospels [Matthew Mark Luke and John] were written in order to give people an idea of Jesus's life on earth. Both the Epistles and the Gospels were circulated during the same time so Paul really didn't need to state Jesus minstry in his letters because it wasn't the point of his letters and also the Gospels did that already.

[systemstrike_7]

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

They had 20 loaves for 100 men. Elisha got a call from God and God said, "Hey feed these guys the bread" and Elisha said, "But God, there isn't enough food." Then God said, "Feed it to them and there will be some left over." Then Elisha said, "Ok." Elisha then proceeded to feed the 100 men the 20 loaves. After everyone got nice and stuffed, they had some left over. TA DA! MIRACLE!

Loaves back then were the size of our rolls, the size of a large hand. 20 wouldn't feed 100 men! Give us all a break with your disbelief. It borders on ridiculous. Either you are a seeker or you're not. Why are you here?

And you are being awfully rude. Tone it down a bit. Let's try to keep this civil, shall we?

[systemstrike_7]

After reading much of Paul's insertions into the New Testament, I can't seem to find any mention of Jesus' earthly ministry.

No virgin birth

No visit of magi

No slaughter of innocents

No flight into Egypt

No Jesus in the Temple at age twelve

No Baptism of Jesus

No Wedding Feast

No Christ walking on water

No Raising of Lazerus

No Transfiguration

No entering into Jerusalem

No Last Supper

No Jewish Court hearing

No Pilate court hearing

No flogging

No Jesus carrying the cross

All Paul knows about is Jesus' death on a cross, resurrection from tomb, and his ascension into heaven.

These three attribute accredited to Christ by Paul, the earliest Christian writer, were also accredited to many other pagan savior gods before Jesus. Paul never quotes anything from any gospel, mainly because Paul wrote before the gospels were written, and apparently hadn't been told about Jesus' earthly ministry. When he speaks of the death, resurrection, and ascension, he talks on a MYTHICAL realm. Just like the pagan saviors.

Hebrews 8:4

"If Jesus had been on earth, he would not even have been a priest."

Jesus lived in the years of 0 A.D. to 33 A.D.(roughly) and Mark was written sometime after 70 A.D. Paul wrote in between these dates. He is the link. And from what I can see, he was unaware of the fact that Jesus was actually on earth.

It is not surprising that Christians rarely speak of early Christianity. When you assemble the facts it comes out as so:

Jesus lived - EVERYONE FORGOT - they finally remembered.

Post your thoughts...

system

Paul's Epistles were written as letters to diffrent churches in order to address certain issues. The Gospels [Matthew Mark Luke and John] were written in order to give people an idea of Jesus's life on earth. Both the Epistles and the Gospels were circulated during the same time so Paul really didn't need to state Jesus minstry in his letters because it wasn't the point of his letters and also the Gospels did that already.

If the Gospels were circulated during this time, show me the evidence. None of the external evidence supports this. We don't see a church father speak about the gospels until the 2nd century. And again, why would Paul not mention any of the miracles? There are certain parts in the epistles where this would help his case so much more to mention at least a single miracle. Why does he never use any of Jesus' own sermons to strengthen his own teaching? If he had access to the gospels then why not use some of Jesus' words from the Sermon on the Mount? It doesn't add up...

[Masked Chris]

After reading much of Paul's insertions into the New Testament, I can't seem to find any mention of Jesus' earthly ministry.

No virgin birth

No visit of magi

No slaughter of innocents

No flight into Egypt

No Jesus in the Temple at age twelve

No Baptism of Jesus

No Wedding Feast

No Christ walking on water

No Raising of Lazerus

No Transfiguration

No entering into Jerusalem

No Last Supper

No Jewish Court hearing

No Pilate court hearing

No flogging

No Jesus carrying the cross

All Paul knows about is Jesus' death on a cross, resurrection from tomb, and his ascension into heaven.

These three attribute accredited to Christ by Paul, the earliest Christian writer, were also accredited to many other pagan savior gods before Jesus. Paul never quotes anything from any gospel, mainly because Paul wrote before the gospels were written, and apparently hadn't been told about Jesus' earthly ministry. When he speaks of the death, resurrection, and ascension, he talks on a MYTHICAL realm. Just like the pagan saviors.

Hebrews 8:4

"If Jesus had been on earth, he would not even have been a priest."

Jesus lived in the years of 0 A.D. to 33 A.D.(roughly) and Mark was written sometime after 70 A.D. Paul wrote in between these dates. He is the link. And from what I can see, he was unaware of the fact that Jesus was actually on earth.

It is not surprising that Christians rarely speak of early Christianity. When you assemble the facts it comes out as so:

Jesus lived - EVERYONE FORGOT - they finally remembered.

Post your thoughts...

system

Paul's Epistles were written as letters to diffrent churches in order to address certain issues. The Gospels [Matthew Mark Luke and John] were written in order to give people an idea of Jesus's life on earth. Both the Epistles and the Gospels were circulated during the same time so Paul really didn't need to state Jesus minstry in his letters because it wasn't the point of his letters and also the Gospels did that already.

If the Gospels were circulated during this time, show me the evidence. None of the external evidence supports this. We don't see a church father speak about the gospels until the 2nd century. And again, why would Paul not mention any of the miracles? There are certain parts in the epistles where this would help his case so much more to mention at least a single miracle. Why does he never use any of Jesus' own sermons to strengthen his own teaching? If he had access to the gospels then why not use some of Jesus' words from the Sermon on the Mount? It doesn't add up...

your talking like the early church's agenda was to prove a point. Remember this culture is pre-modern.. they know nothing of proof textes. I think Paul didn't address this stuff because his letters were written not to prove his stance but to address issues within the churches. Paul wasn't seeking to prove anything... he was just writing letters

but yeah evedence. Ok. The cut off point for the New Testement has been marked at 70 AD sence that was when the temple was destoried by the romans and this event is not mentioned even once in the New Testment. How do we know the Gospels were circulated though? Because it was simply custom to pass around the letters and stuff. Paul's letters were passed on to diffrent churches also. The early church knew nothing of internet and telephone... so this is how they passed on information. They simply passed the writings back and forth non-stop.