|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,767 Year: 4,024/9,624 Month: 895/974 Week: 222/286 Day: 29/109 Hour: 2/3 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The Marketing Of Christianity | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18335 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0 |
Very interesting! Im already learning some new things in this thread. But lets get back to marketing.
IF this whole idea and belief that Jesus Death,Burial, and Resurrection opens a door for dramatic conversion experiences, we should be able to find some evidence. Also, the original Apostles themselves should show signs of a dramatic conversion--empowerment, if you will-from the Holy Spirit Himself.
I also wish to reintroduce a post from your other thread:
Phat writes:
What, if anything, was Jesus marketing? Is there any evidence that Jesus would have approved and/or disapproved of Pauls new religion"?jar writes: Jesus was clearly marketing a collection of behavior patterns, a way that people should relate to one another and to their God. Please your God by taking care of each other and the world you live in; feed the hungry, heal the sick, shelter the homeless, comfort the sorrowful, teach the children to do the same. I think Jesus would approve of some of Paul's product, disapprove of parts and just laugh at much of it. Jesus would likely have approved of the inclusionary parts, getting rid of outdated "God's Commandments" like circumcision, dietary restrictions, identification as a people apart and even going so far as adopting and co-opting pagan practices and worship. I doubt Jesus would have approved of Paul's effort to make his death of greater significance and would have laughed at the very idea of Christianity as a separate religion. I imagine Jesus would have disagreed with Paul's misogyny or his early concentration on End of Times and would have been appalled with the idea that the goal was some afterlife and not a concentration on this life. It seems to me that if what you say is true, Paul would have actually had to lie (or at least grossly exaggerate the truth) when it was reported what occurred on the Damascus Road.
quote: It seems we are left to either brand Paul has a storyteller claiming extraordinary properties for the belief that he then marketed, or that the actual event happened and explains Pauls dramatic transformation. Edited by Phat, : No reason given.Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. —RC Sproul "A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." —Mark Twain
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 420 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Phat writes: Why did Paul want to change the whole emphasis off of the individual onto Jesus Christ? (or did he?) It has always been my understanding that Jesus--or rather the holy Spirit--changed Paul and because of this dramatic conversion a new emphasis...a progressive revelation if you will...began largely under Pauls teaching. IF this whole idea and belief that Jesus Death,Burial, and Resurrection opens a door for dramatic conversion experiences, we should be able to find some evidence. Also, the original Apostles themselves should show signs of a dramatic conversion--empowerment, if you will-from the Holy Spirit Himself. What was the motive and change in emphasis from Jesus as Rabbi,Teacher,Judge while alive to Savior,Redeemer,God in human form that has largely shaped and influenced contemporary Christianity since then? Stop and think. Stop just believing what you have been told because it is comforting. See what the actual evidence shows. First, there was no sudden or dramatic changes. Paul never experienced Jesus Death,Burial, and Resurrection except from being told the stories AFTER whatever actually happened on his way to Damascus. And very little changed about Paul after the incident; he was still the fanatic, set in his ways, not open to compromise unless it is in his advantage, opinionated person that he was before the incident. Plus, all that is still five to ten years after Jesus death. There was very little change in the Disciples either; remember Peter had been willing to draw sword when Jesus was arrested. John's Gospel is thought to have gone through several iterations and been written at least a full half century after Jesus death. And Paul's teachings were only accepted after considerable discord and mainly because Paul outlived most of the other Apostles and built up a relatively effective organization. Plus, while Paul was initially just another apocalyptic preacher he was forced to evolve his theology to fit the reality that many of the initial tenets were just plain wrong.
Phat writes: I also wish to reintroduce a post from your other thread:
Phat writes:
What, if anything, was Jesus marketing? Is there any evidence that Jesus would have approved and/or disapproved of Pauls new religion"?jar writes: Jesus was clearly marketing a collection of behavior patterns, a way that people should relate to one another and to their God. Please your God by taking care of each other and the world you live in; feed the hungry, heal the sick, shelter the homeless, comfort the sorrowful, teach the children to do the same. I think Jesus would approve of some of Paul's product, disapprove of parts and just laugh at much of it. Jesus would likely have approved of the inclusionary parts, getting rid of outdated "God's Commandments" like circumcision, dietary restrictions, identification as a people apart and even going so far as adopting and co-opting pagan practices and worship. I doubt Jesus would have approved of Paul's effort to make his death of greater significance and would have laughed at the very idea of Christianity as a separate religion. I imagine Jesus would have disagreed with Paul's misogyny or his early concentration on End of Times and would have been appalled with the idea that the goal was some afterlife and not a concentration on this life. It seems to me that if what you say is true, Paul would have actually had to lie (or at least grossly exaggerate the truth) when it was reported what occurred on the Damascus Road.
quote: It seems we are left to either brand Paul has a storyteller claiming extraordinary properties for the belief that he then marketed, or that the actual event happened and explains Pauls dramatic transformation. But there was NOT much of a dramatic transformation. As you have been shown, the story of Paul's experience did undergo dramatic transformation as it got revised and retold, but the only real change was one of allegiance; Paul switched sides. Nor was Paul only concerned with life after death. If you actually read what we have that is attributed to Paul the vast majority concerns how to get along with life day to day, how to get along with others, how to get along with those who do not believe as you do, how to manage the business of a "Church". Stop listening to them what try to sell the proof texts and mined little quotes taken out of context. If they give you the passage you quoted above make them also provide all the other versions of the story and determine who actually wrote them (if possible) and when they got written (usually easier). I don't think anyone doubts that Paul experienced something dramatic, but that is not evidence that anything really happened, only that Paul believed something happened.Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18335 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0 |
jar writes: Who were these people on each side? Lets examine the conflict and the reasons for the conflict. As you have been shown, the story of Paul's experience did undergo dramatic transformation as it got revised and retold, but the only real change was one of allegiance; Paul switched sides.9 Then Saul, still breathing threats and murder against the disciples of the Lord, went to the high priest 2 and asked letters from him to the synagogues of Damascus, so that if he found any who were of the Way, whether men or women, he might bring them bound to Jerusalem. What did Saul despise against these people and what persuaded him to switch sides so dramatically?
jar writes: Interesting. It is true that the death,burial, and resurrection is BIG among the people whom I associate with at church. It is what they have been taught. But let me tell you about my Pastor. I doubt Jesus would have approved of Paul's effort to make his death of greater significance and would have laughed at the very idea of Christianity as a separate religion.Pastor Joe works for the city as a GRID coordinator. Our church is under the umbrella of the Free Methodists who are a bit tamer than the Pentecostals and who focus a lot on community involvement and much less on building big fancy church buildings. Pastor Joe is a man whom I trust,though one of his main scriptures that he suggests we all know well is 1st Corinthians 15:1-4 Joe is not religious...he works with secular organizations all day--but he really loves Jesus. It seems that so did all of the Apostles, including Paul. It could make someone ask why all of these people love someone who has died? Why do they continually ahare the story with people and why do they talk as if Jesus is alive today? I know that money and fame are not the motive. jar writes: I am trying to put aside what I have been taught and what is comforting to me in order to critically examine these issues in this topic. I will confess, however, that while it is easy for me to question, it is much harder for me to doubt. I had a Damascus Road experience--pun intended--back in 1993 before I even came to EvC. Stop and think. Stop just believing what you have been told because it is comforting. See what the actual evidence shows. You have had many conversations with me--many times calling me out on "word salad" explanations, christian cliches, and regurgitation's of what other Christians had obviously taught me.I too have studied what you have written here at EvC...sometimes agreeably,often strongly disagreeably, yet examining the evidence and quite honestly trying to disprove you. So far in this topic I find myself learning from your replies and setting aside what I believe to an extent that I can understand what you believe. I mentioned my Pastor Joe only because I know him better than I know most of you and to me his character and behavior count as evidence. Anyway, lets go on. There was very little change in the Disciples either; remember Peter had been willing to draw sword when Jesus was arrested. Yes, but this was before the death, burial and resurrection. We can legitimately ask whether the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ had any transforming power on humanity-at-large. What does the evidence show?
Paul never experienced Jesus Death,Burial, and Resurrection except from being told the stories AFTER whatever actually happened on his way to Damascus. And very little changed about Paul after the incident; he was still the fanatic, set in his ways, not open to compromise unless it is in his advantage, opinionated person that he was before the incident. Speaking only for myself, what you say is quite true and usual for Christians--after their conversions, transformations, and "born again" experiences. The initial transformation was very real and dramatic for me--but requires a daily commitment. I will agree that Christianity is mostly about what we DO...on a daily basis, but I won't let go of the belief that it is also possible because of WHO He is. At least for now.
I don't think anyone doubts that Paul experienced something dramatic, but that is not evidence that anything really happened, only that Paul believed something happened. Lots of people believe that something happened once and forever and that because of it, something can happen to us also.
If you actually read what we have that is attributed to Paul the vast majority concerns how to get along with life day to day, how to get along with others, how to get along with those who do not believe as you do, how to manage the business of a "Church". In your opinion based on what you have studied, would Paul have been content to market a new and improved Judaism versus a new product known as Christianity? Why or why not?Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. —RC Sproul "A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." —Mark Twain
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 420 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
As you may know by now I find all of 1 Cor 15 pretty much useless and in fact some of the very worst of Christianity. Fortunately it is just one part of a fairly long letter written pretty early in Paul's ministry before reality set in. It was written while he was still the apocalyptic the end is nigh Snake Oil Salesman. As you read on through 1 Cor he returns to the topic of how to behave while still living.
Phat writes: It could make someone ask why all of these people love someone who has died? Why do they continually ahare the story with people and why do they talk as if Jesus is alive today? I know that money and fame are not the motive. Do people today still follow Mohammad? Do people today still follow the teachings of the Buddha? Do people today still follow the teachings of Mencius and Confucius? Perhaps it might be a matter of belief?
Phat writes: I will agree that Christianity is mostly about what we DO...on a daily basis, but I won't let go of the belief that it is also possible because of WHO He is. At least for now. Belief can be a powerful motivator for both good and ill. But conversions happen all the time and in every area of life yet seldom does the individuals basic traits change. Their awareness of those traits might change and their goals might change but the basics, their training in critical thinking, in evidence based decision making, their nature usually remain the same. If you read on the 1 Cor 15 you will see Paul the many facing enemies rise again to the surface. The enemies changed but Paul did not.
Phat writes: In your opinion based on what you have studied, would Paul have been content to market a new and improved Judaism versus a new product known as Christianity? Why or why not? Paul would only be happy marketing a new Pauline Christianity. Paul was not happy marketing James' Christianity or Peter's Christianity, Paul insisted on marketing Paul's Christianity. Pauline Christianity is based on Paul amplifying and explaining what Jesus really meant. What you see in Paul's Epistles is Jesus through the filter of Paul. And even that evolved over time from the apocalyptic the end is nigh initial position to his later position that the end is not likely any time soon and so we need to concentrate on how we live this life. The error so many seem to make is picking one little section, 1 Cor 15:1-4 instead of 1 Cor 1 through 1 Cor 16 and understanding that 1 Cor is just ONE interoffice memo from a man that loved writing interoffice memos. Remember that Jesus ministry only lasted 2-3 years. Paul converted when he was about 25-30 year old and his ministry lasted for over 30 years, ten times as long as Jesus ministry. We should not base an understanding of a thirty year ministry on one paragraph from one interoffice memo. AbE2: the sequel As I think I have mentioned I went to an Episcopal Church school (St Paul's) where Paul's writings were a big part of the Sacred Studies curriculum. Two in particular were emphasized, the second actually being the school motto. The school had been around for awhile since it was first organized back in 1849. Here is the first example, also from 1 Cor, all of Chapter 13.
quote: Same interoffice memo but a different emphasis. The second is from the end of Paul's ministry.
quote: Note he does not say he won the fight. Note he does not say he fought a fight. It is that he fought the GOOD fight. This was our motto, that we would try to do right; that we would fight the good fight; no idea if we would win or loose but the important point was the trying. Edited by jar, : ten times as long not three Edited by jar, : see AbE2: Edited by jar, : appalin grammer there ---> their Edited by jar, : and again in same sentence.Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18335 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0 |
jar writes: But isn't this true of all of us? Don't we as Christians explain or attempt to explain what Jesus meant through our own filter? You often chide me for making up God as I want Him to be...and i will admit that this is a usual human trait even among seasoned churchgoers. However, I personally disagree with you when you say things like Pauline Christianity is based on Paul amplifying and explaining what Jesus really meant. What you see in Paul's Epistles is Jesus through the filter of Paul.jar writes: It has always been my understanding that God encourages us to worship,pray,and basically have a relationship. After a day in which I fall short (which is everyday) I can sit in a quiet spot and begin to talk. The evidence would show that i was only talking to myself, but I believe that God...powerful and busy as He is, hears me and helps me. Of course I am aware of the human trait mentioned earlier to create a God in MY imagination that favors me...and I of course have no right as an ant in a universe to expect such a thing...but I believe that the Creator of all seen and unseen is powerful enough and has the time to listen to all of us...even if we talked all at once. A GOD that wants to be worshiped is just too silly a thought. Maybe some picayune God might worry about what folk thought of Her, like the little girl who worries that her corsage might not be right, too big, or too small, or the guy that worries about his tie not being in style or that people think he looks funny, but GOD cannot be so insecure. Much of my Christianity has been shaped by the 30 year collection of inter-office memos penned by Paul and perhaps others. Note what Jesus says to the religious leaders of His day in John 8:44 writes: You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies. Do you personally believe it is even possible to be a respected religious/spiritual leader and not have a daily relationship with G-d? Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. —RC Sproul "A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." —Mark Twain
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 438 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Phat writes:
So the marketing works.
Much of my Christianity has been shaped by the 30 year collection of inter-office memos penned by Paul and perhaps others.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18335 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0 |
Ringo writes: The question remains: What is the product? Does it really cure warts? So the marketing works.Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. —RC Sproul "A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." —Mark Twain
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18335 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0 |
jar, I wanted to re-emphasize a question I had earlier.
My understanding is that Jesus saw God as His Father...and even according to Philippians 2:6...Jesus.. who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped. What puzzles me though is that if Judaism teaches that God has no form, why would the author of Philippians state that Jesus was in the form of God? If we as humans go about doing good and doing the daily simple things...giving a guy spare change, feeding the homeless, carrying in the neighbors groceries, etc etc...are we imitating Christ? I suppose we could thus say---as you have said...that doing for others is loving God. Comments?Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. —RC Sproul "A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." —Mark Twain
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 438 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
Phat writes:
As you said, your Christianity. You might as well have said, "Much of my shopping habits has been shaped by TV commercials."
The question remains: What is the product? Phat writes:
It doesn't matter whether it works or not as long as you keep buying it.
Does it really cure warts?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 420 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Phat writes: jar writes: But isn't this true of all of us? Don't we as Christians explain or attempt to explain what Jesus meant through our own filter? You often chide me for making up God as I want Him to be...and i will admit that this is a usual human trait even among seasoned churchgoers. However, I personally disagree with you when you say things like Pauline Christianity is based on Paul amplifying and explaining what Jesus really meant. What you see in Paul's Epistles is Jesus through the filter of Paul.jar writes: It has always been my understanding that God encourages us to worship,pray,and basically have a relationship. After a day in which I fall short (which is everyday) I can sit in a quiet spot and begin to talk. The evidence would show that i was only talking to myself, but I believe that God...powerful and busy as He is, hears me and helps me. Of course I am aware of the human trait mentioned earlier to create a God in MY imagination that favors me...and I of course have no right as an ant in a universe to expect such a thing...but I believe that the Creator of all seen and unseen is powerful enough and has the time to listen to all of us...even if we talked all at once. A GOD that wants to be worshiped is just too silly a thought. Maybe some picayune God might worry about what folk thought of Her, like the little girl who worries that her corsage might not be right, too big, or too small, or the guy that worries about his tie not being in style or that people think he looks funny, but GOD cannot be so insecure. Okay, if that is what you want to believe that's fine. But when it comes to Paul things are slightly different. You asked "In your opinion based on what you have studied, would Paul have been content to market a new and improved Judaism versus a new product known as Christianity? Why or why not?" and the answer to that question was "No. Paul was not content to market a new and improved Judaism versus a new product known as Christianity or even a version of Christianity that was not Pauline Christianity."
Phat writes: Note what Jesus says to the religious leaders of His day in John 8:44 writes: You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies. Again, what does that even have to do with anything in this topic? Have you read all of John 8? You do understand that we don't know who wrote John but that it is a later revisionist view? John is NOT Paul and the Gospel of John was likely not even written until near, if not after, Paul's death. It has nothing to do with Pauline Christianity but is yet another version to be marketed.
Phat writes: Do you personally believe it is even possible to be a respected religious/spiritual leader and not have a daily relationship with G-d? What does that even mean? How does someone know they have a relationship of any kind or duration or interval with God? Edited by jar, : left out a closing "Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 420 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined:
|
Phat writes: If we as humans go about doing good and doing the daily simple things...giving a guy spare change, feeding the homeless, carrying in the neighbors groceries, etc etc...are we imitating Christ? I suppose we could thus say---as you have said...that doing for others is loving God. Comments? What did Jesus say? As reported in Matthew:
quote: As reported in Mark:
quote: As reported in Luke:
quote: And as found in Matthew 25:
quote: Next, understand language. The people of the period were not really concerned with consistency and also constantly used forms of speech as a way of promoting understanding. Take your example of Judaism teaching that God has no form as an example. Even if that was true (and for the most part it is) that did not stop them from writing stories where God did have form (see Genesis 2&3) and where God not only had form but appeared to folk, wrestled with folk, stopped for water with folk, talked to folk, took advice from folk. Stop expecting accuracy and remember that much of the Bible stories (almost all the important parts) are just Mythology.Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18335 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0 |
jar writes: I strongly disagree with this, but first perhaps i had better understand the word Mythology.
The people of the period were not really concerned with consistency and also constantly used forms of speech as a way of promoting understanding. Take your example of Judaism teaching that God has no form as an example. Even if that was true (and for the most part it is) that did not stop them from writing stories where God did have form (see Genesis 2&3) and where God not only had form but appeared to folk, wrestled with folk, stopped for water with folk, talked to folk, took advice from folk. Stop expecting accuracy and remember that much of the Bible stories (almost all the important parts) are just Mythology. quote: So...are you stating that the bible is largely a collection of myths? I object!ABE: I recall you once saying this about jesus: jar writes: ... I do see much that was unique and wonderful about his life and teachings. Even if, as I have said before, the story of his life and death were only tales told around a campfire, I still see much good. Of course due to your Jewish influences in life, I can see where you differentiate between jesus and G-d. But what if G-d were simply a cultural myth? (And of course I DON'T believe that He is) Edited by Phat, : No reason given.Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. —RC Sproul "A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." —Mark Twain
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 420 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Phat writes: jar writes: I strongly disagree with this, but first perhaps i had better understand the word Mythology.
The people of the period were not really concerned with consistency and also constantly used forms of speech as a way of promoting understanding. Take your example of Judaism teaching that God has no form as an example. Even if that was true (and for the most part it is) that did not stop them from writing stories where God did have form (see Genesis 2&3) and where God not only had form but appeared to folk, wrestled with folk, stopped for water with folk, talked to folk, took advice from folk. Stop expecting accuracy and remember that much of the Bible stories (almost all the important parts) are just Mythology. quote: So...are you stating that the bible is largely a collection of myths? I object! And you are free to object, but of course you would be wrong. Genesis 1 is a myth meant to explain the Sacred Week and concept of the Sabbath. Genesis 2&3 is a myth meant to explain why we fear snakes, why childbirth seems more painful for women than for other animals, why we farm instead of being hunter gatherers, why we wear clothes, why women are subject to men... Exodus is a myth to explain the origin of the Nation Israel. Numbers is a manufactured genealogy. With the exception of just a very few instances (laws, proverbs) all of the Old Testament is mythology. The same is true of the New Testament. There are the tales that explain why Savuot became the Christian Pentecost, why the Jewish Passover became Easter, why the Pagan Winter festival became the Christian Christmas. There are the three Synotptic Gospels each recounting a different view of Jesus life and ministry and then the revisionist Gospel of John. These all create a myth, the myth of Jesus life. Even if Jesus lived, what we see based on the Bible stories are fictionalized accounts, mythology. Stop trivializing mythology. It is essential.
Phat writes: Of course due to your Jewish influences in life, I can see where you differentiate between jesus and G-d. But what if G-d were simply a cultural myth? (And of course I DON'T believe that He is) But Phat, as long as we are alive all we can know is the myth, the God(s) and god(s) we create. Cultural myths are essential. The bumbling god of Genesis 2&3 that is learning on the job, learning by trial and error, fearful but intimate was a cultural myth. The god of Exodus who changes Pharaohs mind simply so that she can show how big her dick is with yet another plague was a cultural myth. The supremely competent overarching god of Genesis 1 who is also aloof and does not interact with the creation is a cultural myth. The evolution of the Great Commission over time or of Paul's conversion over time are examples of the development of cultural myth.Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18335 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0 |
jar writes: Critics would assert that you operate out of your flesh(soul, intelligence) and have nary a clue what spirit even is. We can discuss that later. Phat, as long as we are alive all we can know is the myth, the God(s) and god(s) we create. Cultural myths are essential. The bumbling god of Genesis 2&3 that is learning on the job, learning by trial and error, fearful but intimate was a cultural myth. The god of Exodus who changes Pharaohs mind simply so that she can show how big her dick is with yet another plague was a cultural myth. The supremely competent overarching god of Genesis 1 who is also aloof and does not interact with the creation is a cultural myth. But first some more questions. Lest I go in a thousand directions at once, lets get back to Stephen and Acts. You mention Phat, as long as we are alive all we can know is the myth, the God(s) and god(s) we create. Read the story of Stephens speech to the Sanhedrin. The God whom Stephen spoke of was in my opinion the GOD you mention, Creator of all seen and unseen..spoken of in your beloved Nicene Creed. Stephen quite obviously was not speaking of a God he created. Stephen had an intimate relationship with the Creator of all seen and unseen. And the Sanhedrin hated him for it. Care to explain what happened according to your mythos worldview? And why were the people of "The Way" mentioned in Acts as the ones Saul wished to kill? You claim that John was written nearly after Pauls death, yet John mentions Jesus as being The Way, The Truth, and The Life. Not some mere Rabbi who taught us all to love God only by doing for others and who made beer runs and kept the spirits flowing at neighborhood parties! Also what changed Sauls mind and heart? Surely more than simply seeing an opportunity to hawk a new belief system and earn a better living than making tents!Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. —RC Sproul "A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." —Mark Twain
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 420 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Phat writes: The God whom Stephen spoke of was in my opinion the GOD you mention, Creator of all seen and unseen..spoken of in your beloved Nicene Creed. Stephen quite obviously was not speaking of a God he created. Stephen had an intimate relationship with the Creator of all seen and unseen. And the Sanhedrin hated him for it. Care to explain what happened according to your mythos worldview? And why were the people of "The Way" mentioned in Acts as the ones Saul wished to kill? You claim that John was written nearly after Pauls death, yet John mentions Jesus as being The Way, The Truth, and The Life. Not some mere Rabbi who taught us all to love God only by doing for others and who made beer runs and kept the spirits flowing at neighborhood parties! Also what changed Sauls mind and heart? Surely more than simply seeing an opportunity to hawk a new belief system and earn a better living than making tents! Lots of people claimed to actually have direct face to face meetings with God, Phat. What makes you think Stephen is not speaking of a God he created? What is the evidence of an intimate relationship with the Creator of all seen and unseen? Evidence Phat. Is it possible Stephen, like you, believed they had an intimate relationship with God? Certainly, but that is only evidence that they held such a belief. I don't claim John was written near if not after Paul's death, that is the dates assigned to John. And John as I have said repeatedly was a revisionist. His Gospel is different from all the others because the author of John was marketing a different Jesus myth than found in the other three Gospels. John is hawking a different Jesus than the one found in the Synoptic Gospels. That is why it is not included as one of them. And who knows if Paul ever changed; the only real difference was he switched allegiances. What else changed?
Phat writes: Critics would assert that you operate out of your flesh(soul, intelligence) and have nary a clue what spirit even is. We can discuss that later. Yet when challenged not one of those critics has ever presented evidence of what soul/spirit even is, how it can be detected and how it can be tested or even the identity of the source verified? AbE: A couple other points to remember. Like the Gospel of John, Acts was written long after the incidents it recounts would have happened. Most scholars date Acts to around 80-90 AD and so about a half century after Jesus death. Stephens death was likely around 36AD and so what you read in Acts is a tale about what happened at least a half century earlier. Edited by jar, : see AbE: Edited by jar, : soul/spiritAnyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024