Calm Posted July 4, 2012 Posted July 4, 2012 If JS had accepted the scriptures literally we would have the LDS church."we would not have"?
Ron Beron Posted July 4, 2012 Author Posted July 4, 2012 You specifically put out the teachings of Paul as being non-first Century Christian. Paul was a Christian, but not a follower of the Jerusalem Church and of James.
Ron Beron Posted July 4, 2012 Author Posted July 4, 2012 "we would not have"?Ack...right would not have. My fingers hurt.
Ron Beron Posted July 4, 2012 Author Posted July 4, 2012 All that we know about Paul (that matters) is in the New Testament. I don't know where you get the above information from, and I am not sure that agree; but in either case, how does that demonstrate that Paul was a false Apostles?Let me correct the term "false". I don't believe he was a true apostle of the church ala the other apostles. He was a apostle of a Jesus he saw differently than the other apostles and disciples. Being that he didn't know the earthly Jesus, only the cosmic one than his mission was different.
Ron Beron Posted July 4, 2012 Author Posted July 4, 2012 I don't see it as off topic actually. Here is your clarification of the intent of this thread:You specifically put out the teachings of Paul as being non-first Century Christian. Which is silly. Unless by "Teachings of Paul" you mean "teachings of Marcion possibly ascribed to Paul".What not explore the teachings of Marcion on the other thread for Paul? I would love to learn more.
Ron Beron Posted July 4, 2012 Author Posted July 4, 2012 'CASteinman'I was responding directly to your question which was stated as a negative. Negated the negative. This may be obfuscation to you, but to me it is a specific direct response to your question. In particular, I found it easier to write correctly than a positive statement which would have to be couched in qualitative terms and with doubt as to the true condition of things. But I could speak emphatically and clearly on the negation.Hope that helps.Ahhhh....a little....I think.
Kerry A. Shirts Posted July 4, 2012 Posted July 4, 2012 You have been fooled. Marcion is your trickster joined by modern scholars, also fooled.So what? Joseph Smith himself was fooled then too. Now what? In the JST was Smith immune from Marcion's influence? Didn't he have the Holy Ghost helping him? How on possible green earth could Joseph Smith himself with God's revelatory help be fooled? Yet he was...... obviously.
Kerry A. Shirts Posted July 4, 2012 Posted July 4, 2012 You are welcome to your views, obviously; but don't expect any sympathy for them from me.Sympathy is irrelevant to the information. If one posts to simply gain others sympathy and states what is considered truth in order to cull sympathy from others, of what value is said truth that is being expounded upon? Very few were sympathetic to Jesus, but was that the determining factor for his truth or falseness? Just asking you to think it through logically. As it is this is completely irrelevant and illogical to historical fact as scholars have discovered it. I'm not trying to pick a fight, I'm trying to get us to think. 2
zerinus Posted July 4, 2012 Posted July 4, 2012 Let me correct the term "false". I don't believe he was a true apostle of the church ala the other apostles. He was a apostle of a Jesus he saw differently than the other apostles and disciples. Being that he didn't know the earthly Jesus, only the cosmic one than his mission was different.You appear to see a difference between the earthly Jesus and the cosmic one. I don't. I think they are both the same. It was the same Jesus who appeared to him on the road to Damascus, who also appeared to him in at Jerusalem in the temple, commanding him to preach the gospel to the Gentiles (Acts 22:17-21); and who appeared to him again when he was taken into protective custody by the Romans following his persecution at Jerusalem, in which the Lord commended him for the witness he had born at Jerusalem, and told him that he should bear the same witness at Rome:Acts 23:11 And the night following the Lord stood by him, and said, Be of good cheer, Paul: for as thou hast testified of me in Jerusalem, so must thou bear witness also at Rome.How is this Jesus different from the Jesus of the other Apostles? And how is his mission and ministry different from theirs? And if not having been a disciple of Jesus during His early ministry is an issue for Paul, how is that not an issue for the modern day Apostles of the Church?
Calm Posted July 4, 2012 Posted July 4, 2012 Ack...right would not have. My fingers hurt.That's okay. My head does. 1
zerinus Posted July 4, 2012 Posted July 4, 2012 Sympathy is irrelevant to the information. If one posts to simply gain others sympathy and states what is considered truth in order to cull sympathy from others, of what value is said truth that is being expounded upon? Very few were sympathetic to Jesus, but was that the determining factor for his truth or falseness? Just asking you to think it through logically. As it is this is completely irrelevant and illogical to historical fact as scholars have discovered it. I'm not trying to pick a fight, I'm trying to get us to think.I have given careful and considered replies to several of your posts, to neither of which you have replied; and now you pick on something I said to someone else, and put an entirely different spin on it from what I intended, and making out as if you are replying to my posts? Not a very impressive performance. I hope you can do a bit better than that.
Calm Posted July 4, 2012 Posted July 4, 2012 Being that he didn't know the earthly Jesus, only the cosmic one than his mission was different.Was he called by God for this mission, do you believe? And if so, did he fulfill it as he should have more or less.
Ron Beron Posted July 5, 2012 Author Posted July 5, 2012 How is this Jesus different from the Jesus of the other Apostles? And how is his mission and ministry different from theirs? And if not having been a disciple of Jesus during His early ministry is an issue for Paul, how is that not an issue for the modern day Apostles of the Church?The earthly Jesus was quoted time and time again by his apostles. His works, deed, miracles, and teachings were never mentioned by Paul. Why? He never knew this Jesus. Modern apostles do. Paul didn't. In fact, he often shunned those who were closest to the savior. In Galatians 2 he calls Peter, James and John, men who "seemed to be leaders" or "seemed to be important", or "reputed to be pillars". All this in contradiction to the rosy portrait told in Luke's Book of Acts which also gives a contradictory account of Paul's conversion.The cosmic Jesus of Paul was one of almost unreachable understanding. One former pastor stated that Paul...For Paul , Christ was a cosmic experience, not a real person. Perhaps he was dragging a lot of his Hellenistic upbringing into the story. Paul would have grown up in Tarsus with the mythology of Mithras the dying savior god who was also crucified on a Friday, and descended into "hell" and rose three days later. The Gospel story of Jesus, written AFTER Paul had lived, written and died is not a new story... It is , it seems a retelling of the Osiris-Dionysis myth so well known in the cultures of those times. If you are not easily shaken theologically, read The Jesus Mysteries. The pagan origins of literalist Christianity is a more amazing story than we may have once thought! And the duplicity and complicity of the Literalist Church in bringing this mindset into the lives of millions with its threats and fear inducing control, is appalling. "To dare to question a received history is not easy. It is difficult to believe that something that you have been told is true from childhood could actually be a product of falsification and fantasy." (Jesus Mysteries p. 12)Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/98517 1
Ron Beron Posted July 5, 2012 Author Posted July 5, 2012 Was he called by God for this mission, do you believe? And if so, did he fulfill it as he should have more or less.I don't know. I feel it was akin to a con job by those who knew and respected Paul (yes, Marcion) to promote his philosophy/theology over that of the Jewish beliefs of the Jesus Movement. As I stated before, the "center cannot hold", meaning that if there weren't a Paul then Jewish Christianity would have been altered and changed to the point of almost non-existence. 1
Kerry A. Shirts Posted July 5, 2012 Posted July 5, 2012 I have given careful and considered replies to several of your posts, to neither of which you have replied; and now you pick on something I said to someone else, and put an entirely different spin on it from what I intended, and making out as if you are replying to my posts? Not a very impressive performance. I hope you can do a bit better than that.In other words you really don't want to think through the logic of your position......I understand, I have been having to do so, and its quite a new if not uncomfortable light to see things in now.
Kerry A. Shirts Posted July 5, 2012 Posted July 5, 2012 Zerinus, the mere mention of Jesus Christ is not the same as quoting him or showing that Paul knew anything about his earthly life. You are making the same mistake as Boyd K. Packer did who come up with the obvious fact that since we mention Jesus Christ so much, that must prove our church is His church! Or something to that effect. Number of times quoted does nothing to prove that Paul knew Jesus' EARTHLY life and doings and sayings.
zerinus Posted July 5, 2012 Posted July 5, 2012 (edited) Zerinus, the mere mention of Jesus Christ is not the same as quoting him or showing that Paul knew anything about his earthly life. You are making the same mistake as Boyd K. Packer did who come up with the obvious fact that since we mention Jesus Christ so much, that must prove our church is His church! Or something to that effect. Number of times quoted does nothing to prove that Paul knew Jesus' EARTHLY life and doings and sayings.The author of that ridiculous article says that "Paul NEVER quotes Jesus, tells a story about his life, his miracles, his teachings or his example". That is simply not true. I am referencing here from my memory: Paul mentions the incident of the Lord's supper, and how it was instituted. Is not that "telling a story about His life, ... His example"? He repeatedly mentions His resurrection. Does not that count as mentioning His "miracles"? He specifically mentions the doctrines of the Lord that he teaches; is not that mentioning His "teachings or examples"? How frequently do the other Apostles mention such matters in their epistles? Is it more often than Paul? I haven't counted; but it doesn't seem to be so. Edited July 5, 2012 by zerinus
zerinus Posted July 5, 2012 Posted July 5, 2012 (edited) In other words you really don't want to think through the logic of your position......I understand, I have been having to do so, and its quite a new if not uncomfortable light to see things in now.When you have decided to reply to my previous posts addressed to you, let us know, and I will start taking you seriously. Edited July 5, 2012 by zerinus
Ron Beron Posted July 6, 2012 Author Posted July 6, 2012 (edited) 'zerinus'According to what study? Not true! Paul makes as much mention of Jesus, His doctrine, His teachings, His resurrection (which was His greatest miracle), as any of the other Apostles do (in their epistles). If you are comparing it with the four Gospels, then you shouldn't. The epistles served a different purpose form the four Gospels.You obviously misunderstood me. I never said that Paul failed to mention Jesus, only His earthly mission, hence; cosmic Jesus as in the resurrected Jesus. And why shouldn't I compare his epistles to the synoptic gospels?That is absolute rubbish. Paul knew Jesus as well as any Apostles ever needed to do. I gave you the references in another post of the number of instances that Jesus appeared personally to Paul after His resurrection.Paul never knew Jesus as an living entity and we only have Paul's testimony as to the resurrected Jesus. I don't doubt his sincerity, but I think the original apostles and Paul were working from a different script.Another nonsense for which there is not a shred of evidence--with plenty of contrary evidence.Why do you think he was so reticent about returning to Jerusalem meeting with the Presidency. James Dunn made the comment about the animosity between Paul, Peter and James..."The Canon Debate," McDonald & Sanders editors, 2002, chapter 32, page 577, by James D. G. Dunn: "For Peter was probably in fact and effect the bridge-man (pontifex maximus!) who did more than any other to hold together the diversity of first-century Christianity. James the brother of Jesus and Paul, the two other most prominent leading figures in first-century Christianity, were too much identified with their respective "brands" of Christianity, at least in the eyes of Christians at the opposite ends of this particular spectrum. But Peter, as shown particularly by the Antioch episode in Gal 2, had both a care to hold firm to his Jewish heritage, which Paul lacked, and an openness to the demands of developing Christianity, which James lacked. John might have served as such a figure of the center holding together the extremes, but if the writings linked with his name are at all indicative of his own stance he was too much of an individualist to provide such a rallying point. Others could link the developing new religion more firmly to its founding events and to Jesus himself. But none of them, including the rest of the twelve, seem to have played any role of continuing significance for the whole sweep of Christianity—though James the brother of John might have proved an exception had he been spared." [italics original]They couldn't have been too close since, according to Paul's own words in Galatians he never met with or explained his particular brand of Christianity until 3 years after his vision and then only met with James. It wasn't until 14 years later he returned to Jerusalem and then met with the other apostles. Prior to that he was trying to kill the Christians, including Robert Eisenman, James himself. No wonder they didn't trust him.Then you are just not reading it right. Paul had the highest esteem for the other Apostles, and was humble enough to consider himself unworthy to be called an Apostle in comparison to them, because he once persecuted the Church: "For I am the least of the apostles, that am not meet to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God" (1 Corinthians 15:9).Codswallop! He came out and directly referred to other apostles in Galatians 2 as "reputed leaders" who denigrated his teachings, "But from those who were influential (whatever they were makes no difference to me; God shows no favoritism between people) – those influential leadersadded nothing to my message. Yes, I had a look at that insanely uninspired article, which you appear to have been influenced by--for which I am truly astonished. In the first paragraph of his Article he says the following:Ask one of your Christian friends why the Apostle Paul NEVER quotes Jesus, tells a story about his life, his miracles, his teachings or his example and you generally will be met with a look that says...."that's not true." But alas it is.That is absolute b*****t. I did a search, and found 200 references to "Jesus Christ" (alone) in the writings of Paul (or with reference to him), in which he talks about Jesus, testifies of Him, mentions His resurrection (which is a miracle), discusses the Sacrament, and discusses and/or teaches his Doctrines. Here is the list of the verses I found:Number one, knock off the profanity. Using it only weakens your response and makes you look foolish. Two, I nor the article ever said that Paul didn't refer to Jesus only that he didn't refer to his earthly mission. He never mentions his miracles, his birth, his life nor his teachings while alive.“But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they” (Acts 15:11).These of course are just the result of a search for "Jesus Christ". It is not a systematic search for the instances where Jesus life, teachings, doctrines etc. are mentioned, not indeed the other instances in which Jesus is mentioned by name, but in other forms. But it is sufficient to give the reader the idea.And ad infinitium...And not mention by Paul of the earthly ministry of Jesus. BTW, Acts was written by Luke. Edited July 6, 2012 by Ron Beron 1
Ron Beron Posted July 6, 2012 Author Posted July 6, 2012 The author of that ridiculous article says that "Paul NEVER quotes Jesus, tells a story about his life, his miracles, his teachings or his example". That is simply not true. I am referencing here from my memory: Paul mentions the incident of the Lord's supper, and how it was instituted. Is not that "telling a story about His life, ... His example"? He repeatedly mentions His resurrection. Does not that count as mentioning His "miracles"? He specifically mentions the doctrines of the Lord that he teaches; is not that mentioning His "teachings or examples"? How frequently do the other Apostles mention such matters in their epistles? Is it more often than Paul? I haven't counted; but it doesn't seem to be so.No, he doesn't and you are grasping at straws. Paul's reference to the "last supper" I Cor. 11:23-26 written before the synoptic gospels speaks not of specifics regarding the event or the context emphasizing only the theology of its meaning. Such a discourse is related to second hand exposure not direct understanding.Certainly the resurrection is a miracle, but even that obviously required first hand observation from which Paul could have learned from others. Everything in Paul's life, with the exception of his personal relationship to a risen "cosmic" Jesus was second hand. While Paul referred to himself as an apostle it was a title granted only by himself. The others did not refer to him as such, since he was never ordained to that position. He was appointed as a missionary to the gentiles. 1
zerinus Posted July 6, 2012 Posted July 6, 2012 Number one, knock off the profanity.That is the right word to describe it. For the rest, see my reply in the other thread.
Ron Beron Posted July 6, 2012 Author Posted July 6, 2012 Hey mods, maybe it is time to close this thread. It has outlived its usefulness and has become acrimonious. :::sigh:::
Calm Posted July 6, 2012 Posted July 6, 2012 (edited) Hey mods, maybe it is time to close this thread. It has outlived its usefulness and has become acrimonious. :::sigh:::You should be able to do it yourself. Look at the right hand lower side next to the "back to....." and "next unread topic" (IIRC). There should be a button for "Topic Moderation" if you are the opening poster. That allows you to do one thing and that is close the thread....and then reopen it if you want to, I think but am not sure.You tried and for some of us, it was of value.I think I gave you a lot of points (meant to, but sometimes I ran out) so at least you accomplished that. Edited July 6, 2012 by calmoriah
Recommended Posts