Paul, Not Jesus Spead Chrisitianity

[Neosteve]

Yes. All of mankind.



We already know religious beliefs are expressions of individual, group or mass declarations of superiority against foreign or perceived hostile groups, or non-believers.

Refusal to acknowledge the self-centered nature of religion is a sign of ignorance.

Where do you get your facts? There are literally billions of people in the world who will disagree with your premise that "we all know". Take a critical look at your own words, your words, if in fact they are your words, they tout the same biased thought that you claim religious people portray. To me, when you preface a something with "we all know" it just reeks of Orwellian group speak.

 

[RGacky3]

Frankly, neither you, nor I, know for certain what happened. Since much of the NT was written well after the years Jesus is believed to have lived, and we don't even know if Paul knew Jesus personally. That being said, change comes from within. Regardless of what is "understood for the past two thousand years", it still doesn't mean that it's true verbatim, and as stated, and there's little doubt that it has undergone change via the early Catholic church.

Paul didn't know Jesus personally, and he never claimed to, infact he said he didn't.

Also most historical documents are writted after the years of the event.

 

[RGacky3]

There are no "indigenous" people to the Americas. All of them came from somewhere else.

That you have very, VERY little regard for those who did it first becomes more and more apparent with your every post on the matter. Apparently you think any schmoes with boats could have come over and conquered them.

Then there are no indigenous people anywhere ....

 

[RGacky3]

We already know religious beliefs are expressions of individual, group or mass declarations of superiority against foreign or perceived hostile groups, or non-believers.

Refusal to acknowledge the self-centered nature of religion is a sign of ignorance.

No we don't allready know that.

I could easily say that religious beliefs are expressions of spiritual awareness and refusal to acknowlege that is a sign of ignorance.

What is stupid is you give statements not defended by anything and the claim everyone that disagrees with you is ignorant.

 

[Harshaw]

Then there are no indigenous people anywhere ....

Pretty much my point.

 

[RGacky3]

Pretty much my point.

My point is definitional arguments are not arguments at all, nor does it justify displacing or murdering people who live in a place because you want that place exclusively for yourself, i.e. it doesn't justify imperialism, it doesn't matter of the indigenous people were there 10 years before the europeans came or 1000 years, its still genocide and imperialism.

 

[Harshaw]

My point is definitional arguments are not arguments at all, nor does it justify displacing or murdering people who live in a place because you want that place exclusively for yourself, i.e. it doesn't justify imperialism, it doesn't matter of the indigenous people were there 10 years before the europeans came or 1000 years, its still genocide and imperialism.

You again have posted a wonderful response to something I didn't say.

 

[RGacky3]

You again have posted a wonderful response to something I didn't say.

Then what is you're point here.

 

[Harshaw]

Then what is you're point here.

The point was made several times; go back and read the thread. Again, it's about context, which you seem to be having quite a bit of problem with today.

 

[Knowledge=power]

The point was made several times; go back and read the thread. Again, it's about context, which you seem to be having quite a bit of problem with today.

What is about context, genocide and imperialism? How Christianity came to North America?

 

[Harshaw]

What is about context, genocide and imperialism? How Christianity came to North America?

The context in this instance is your continued inability to understand what I already said 4-5 times. I do not know what causes this particular cognitive deficit, but I also do not care.

 

[Knowledge=power]

The context in this instance is your continued inability to understand what I already said 4-5 times. I do not know what causes this particular cognitive deficit, but I also do not care.

...........

 

[German guy]

He never intended to start a new religion, His thing was to reform Judaism. He was, after all, a devout Jew.

Frankly, I'm surprised that somebody had never heard of St. Paul...the man wrote half of the New Testament.

Yes, and most of the basic cornerstones of Christian theology are rather based on Paul than on Jesus (like the whole "dying in Adam, living in Christ" and "He died for our sins" thing).

 

[ecofarm]

Yes, and most of the basic cornerstones of Christian theology are rather based on Paul than on Jesus (like the whole "dying in Adam, living in Christ" and "He died for our sins" thing).

I disagree. Paul is more in concordance with the teachings of Jesus than the early church was (especially with the influence of the Judaizers). I think one must work had and slippery to present Paul's teaching as different. Of course, there's a whole cult of people who spend their time trying to divide the two and books have been written about it... but I've studied it myself, in great detail, and find the position lacking at best.

 

[German guy]

I disagree. Paul is more in concordance with the teachings of Jesus than the early church was (especially with the influence of the Judaizers). I think one must work had and slippery to present Paul's teaching as different. Of course, there's a whole cult of people who spend their time trying to divide the two and books have been written about it... but I've studied it myself, in great detail, and find the position lacking at best.

Maybe you are right. I recently read the Book of Romans again and found the coherent and complete theological standpoint I mentioned above in it. It's been a while since I read the Gospels, but my impression was that this idea was never mentioned that explicitly and cohesively there.

 

[ecofarm]

Maybe you are right. I recently read the Book of Romans again and found the coherent and complete theological standpoint I mentioned above in it. It's been a while since I read the Gospels, but my impression was that this idea was never mentioned that explicitly and cohesively there.

I find Galatians to be the most concise and concordant evocation of the Gospel, myself.

What really kills the "Paul made up the part about Jesus being God or dying for our sins" is the Old Testament and the many many references Jesus made to passages that make this clear, not merely the divine aspects but also the sacrifice and thus removal of sins.

Anyway, I think it is obvious why Paul would be averse to some aspects of the Gospel when writing to Romans. He was not the only one to play for an audience. Matthew is written for Jews, Mark for Romans, Luke for Greeks and John to establish the Divine nature of Jesus (and address other doctrine).

It seems that the "Oh, yea, and he is God" part was left for last (John being the last Gospel written, ~100ad) for a good reason... it's the most difficult part to accept and, according to Christians, the key to salvation. The idea is to show someone the door, then give 'em the Key to go through.

 

[RGacky3]

I find Galatians to be the most concise and concordant evocation of the Gospel, myself.

What really kills the "Paul made up the part about Jesus being God or dying for our sins" is the Old Testament and the many many references Jesus made to passages that make this clear, not merely the divine aspects but also the sacrifice and thus removal of sins.

Anyway, I think it is obvious why Paul would be averse to some aspects of the Gospel when writing to Romans. He was not the only one to play for an audience. Matthew is written for Jews, Mark for Romans, Luke for Greeks and John to establish the Divine nature of Jesus (and address other doctrine).

It seems that the "Oh, yea, and he is God" part was left for last (John being the last Gospel written, ~100ad) for a good reason... it's the most difficult part to accept and, according to Christians, the key to salvation. The idea is to show someone the door, then give 'em the Key to go through.

Most scholars put the Pauline letters, (at least many of them) before the gospels, The earliest being Mark (according to most scholars) between 60-70, also the sources for the Pauline letters were extremely early (as they were for Mark and Q)

As far as the "Oh, yea, and he is God," that isn't actually part of John, at least it's not pushing that he is the same as YHWH, and the entire NT pushes strongly against the idea that Jesus is YHWH.

 

[ecofarm]

Most scholars put the Pauline letters, (at least many of them) before the gospels, The earliest being Mark (according to most scholars) between 60-70, also the sources for the Pauline letters were extremely early (as they were for Mark and Q)

I knew this.

As far as the "Oh, yea, and he is God," that isn't actually part of John, at least it's not pushing that he is the same as YHWH, and the entire NT pushes strongly against the idea that Jesus is YHWH.

I find evidence of divinity the core thus differenciating aspect of that Gospel, as do many scholars. It was certainly the last Gospel written and of the last Books, ~100ad.

 

[RGacky3]

I knew this.

I was agreeing with your point there.

I find evidence of divinity the core and differenciating aspect of that Gospel, as do many scholars.

Those Scholars also say that Jesus divinity was never a part of early christianity, however in other threads I deal with the divinity of Christ and how John needs to be understood in light of the rest of that gospel and the NT.
http://www.debatepolitics.com/religious-discussions/152880-jesus-9.html
http://www.debatepolitics.com/relig...6-discussion-blackdog-divinity-christ-12.html

 

[ecofarm]

I was agreeing with your point there.



Those Scholars also say that Jesus divinity was never a part of early christianity, however in other threads I deal with the divinity of Christ and how John needs to be understood in light of the rest of that gospel and the NT.
http://www.debatepolitics.com/religious-discussions/152880-jesus-9.html
http://www.debatepolitics.com/relig...6-discussion-blackdog-divinity-christ-12.html

I'm not claiming that Jesus's divinity was not part of the earliest Church and even His ministry. I'm saying that the Gospel of John focuses on the divinity of Jesus, while the other Gospels are focused on presenting the Gospel to specific audiences (Jews, Romans and Greeks).

 

[RGacky3]

I'm not claiming that Jesus's divinity was not part of the earliest Church and even His ministry. I'm saying that the Gospel of John focuses on the divinity of Jesus, while the other Gospels are focused on presenting the Gospel to specific audiences (Jews, Romans and Greeks).

I know your not caliming that, but I am claiming that, it wasn't part of the earliest church or his ministry. Also the Gospel of John talks about Jesus being somewhat divine, but not in the Orthodox sense of him being God, or equal to YHWH.

 

[ecofarm]

I know your not caliming that, but I am claiming that, it wasn't part of the earliest church or his ministry.

Ah, I didn't know this was your position. I disagree.

Also the Gospel of John talks about Jesus being somewhat divine, but not in the Orthodox sense of him being God, or equal to YHWH.

In the beginning was the Word...

 

[RGacky3]

In the beginning was the Word...

http://www.debatepolitics.com/religious-discussions/152880-jesus-9.html

See the rest of the bible for clarification

 

[Guy Incognito]

In the beginning was the Word...

http://www.debatepolitics.com/religious-discussions/152880-jesus-9.html

See the rest of the bible for clarification

This was all settled in the third century.

 

[RGacky3]

This was all settled in the third century.

Great argument ... Some other dudes said it, so no matter what arguments I post, it doesn't matter, because the council of nicea said it. You got nothing.