> General Discussions
Questioning Paul
daywalker:
Paul's writings are part of the Scriptures. The Scriptures are the Word of GOD. Whenever you quote "Paul's writings" your not quoting "Paul"....
YOU'RE QUOTING GOD.
Best believe it!
- Daywalker. 8)
kenny:
--- Quote from: Astrapho on May 11, 2009, 09:03:56 AM ---Hey guys!
Anyway I was having a discussion with someone over the internet, and he brought up something quite interesting...
--- Quote ---A difference that I have, that I have noticed among people who follow Jesus is that they seem to be less adamant on quoting his actual words and favor quoting other peoples more, I only quote Jesus because I KNOW his word is no argument, more valid than anyone else. Reading the other words of people is very relevant, as it is part of the whole search, yet when you start to really pick at scripture you discover some startling truths.
I feel safe enough to raise anything as I have already stated that I have a thinking character and I will continue this way otherwise truth will never come about. I appreciate the letters to the Romans you quote yet, at the end of the day these were written by Paul. Obviously Paul never met Jesus so to me he automatically loses credibility. I cannot even be sure that he was not the first version of Joseph Smith (founder of mormonism). He had a vision of Jesus just like Paul claims. I start to question the reliability of Paul when he even has differing viewpoints of James and the original disciples of Jesus, who were actually with him. Straight away I must ask, "Who is more reliable? the one who says he had a vision, the ones who lived and walked with him, or even better, Jesus himself?"
It is basically a question of Jesus came and taught truth, he fulfilled his calling, died and resurrected, he himself admitting that his death and resurrection is the ONLY sign that would be given to the people of who he is(Matt 16;4), not to mention on the cross Jesus final words were..."It is finished" before finally saying "Father,into your hands I commend my spirit."
"It is finished" he is saying "Mission complete." His disciples were who had to carry on the message as he revealed all to them,after doing all he did in his life and choosing the twelve and revealing everything to them, Pauls whole story seems out of place, maybe even not required. It might sound blasphemous to doubt Paul, but I will not let man stop my inquiring mind, I cannot honestly rule out that he was the first opportunist for starting a religion, Scurrying about sending his opinion to all surrounding provinces, Jesus warned of false teachers coming after him, I understand that he glorified Jesus but so do many Charlatans today but we know it does not mean they are true, in fact a lot of his warnings about a lot of things happened very soon after, it doesn't mean it all has to take place 2000 years later., after all Jesus founded the rock of his church on Peter, not Paul (Matt 16:18)
--- End quote ---
I've been thinking about this, but quite frankly I'm going nowhere other than, "Hey, this kinda makes sense." .
What do you guys think? :)
--- End quote ---
Frankly "what kinda sense does this make and where"?
Do you realise what you just said?
Do really think this kinda makes sense?
Astrapho:
--- Quote ---Do really think this kinda makes sense?
--- End quote ---
No, frankly no. Only reason why I said that was because I let him lead me into his train of thinking, but after I thought about it just seems impossible that Paul's writings were not really "part of Scripture". :P
meee:
--- Quote from: Astrapho on May 13, 2009, 02:46:38 AM ---
--- Quote ---Do really think this kinda makes sense?
--- End quote ---
No, frankly no. Only reason why I said that was because I let him lead me into his train of thinking, but after I thought about it just seems impossible that Paul's writings were not really "part of Scripture". :P
--- End quote ---
Gald you've recovered Astrapho. I know we can be deceived very easily if we let our guard down. God has brought you back to right thinking ,as He has done me, many~many times. It's all of Him!
luv & hugs,meee
Astrapho:
Ok, guess what, he replied...
--- Quote ---When I speak of early Church History, there are too many to cite. I say just simply grab any History book on the topic, carefully choosing that it is a historian with facts, preferably not aligned with any religion, just to make sure it is told how it is.
Although speaking of Paul again, I can refer a book by a very credible historian/scholar Elaine Pagels, it is called The Gnostic Paul, she really demonstrates that half the books that are supposedly written by Paul were not even, I also watched a documentary called: Who wrote the new testament? and again various experts did a process of elimination to show this, right down to comparing writing styles and some historical claims.
I still stand to say, that forgery was rampant back then, which is disappointing, if you take a look at Acts 21:15-21, is another clear example of Paul and the law and actually demonstrates what I was speaking of yesterday regarding him and James differences.
When i say a theory that Paul wanted his teachings to be more appealing, I mean that by eliminating certain things from the law, that people found either hard to live by or plain annoying circumcision etc, he seemed to "do away" with, where it still seems that, even in the verses I mentioned above, this is not to be.
All I can say at this point(as i am currently studying more Paul myself) that even all the verses you mentioned about Paul being persecuted or argued with, it was by the very people who were trying to keep the original law in place as they could see he was making "changes", again this is in the verses above, they speak about James and the elders questioning why, and that they have heard about him making the changes, and having people turn their backs on Moses.
--- End quote ---
-headdesk-. I don't know what to make of this... In Acts 21:15-21 sure they were pointing out that Paul was encouraging people not to do the Mosaic law stuff, but I don't see them rebuking him anywhere for it. I mean, they praised God!
Anyway I've searched on Elaine and I've found an equally great number of critics and praisers. But... Gnosticism! :-\ I heard that they believe that all spiritual things are good or something. And there's the Gospel of Thomas thing. And she says to "search within yourself" for God? I mean... Oh gosh. =_= -headdesk-
Were the Apostles the ones who originally compiled the scriptures, btw? I remember reading in "How the bible came about" that it was them.
Forgery? Rampant? :o I don't know, I've always only heard about how reliable the scribes were.
"By the people who were trying to keep the law in place"? I don't know... Doesn't sound like a very plausible theory. Why would they want to fabricate it? How would they? If I believe that even the people who wrote the scriptures can't be trusted, then I wouldn't know which part of the scriptures to trust. :P
I got a lot of stuff to type to this guy... But apparently he did way more research than me. :-/ Zooiiinks.
(I hope he doesn't mind me asking others about what he typed... D: )
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version