|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The God That Paul Marketed Over Time. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 414 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Phat writes: I see essentially one version. Then reread Acts. In Acts 9:7 the KJV says:
quote: In Acts 22:9 the KJV says:
quote: While in the earliest version found in 1 Cor 15 there is no mention of light or voice or time or place or any details other than that Jesus appeared to him as "one born out of due time".
quote: The story does change over time a gets embellished just like the Great Commandment changes overtime and gets embellished. That is a classic trait of folktales and legends.
Phat writes: What supposed truth did I reject? From the Jewish perspective you reject the truth that there is only one God and that Jesus is not a god.
Phat writes: Paul may have had the same basic character traits he had before---but I could make a case that his daily behavior and motive had done a 180 turn. So you agree that Paul's change was not in his character but only in where it was applied. He changed sides. He did not kill non-believers because as a Christian he no longer had the power or authority to do that however once Christianity did acquire that power it did start doing just that, kill all those who did not join. He still framed Christianity as HE saw it, not as James or the other Apostles saw it. He did condemn the approach that others took. Sorry but I still see little if any change.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 432 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
Phat writes:
I don't think there was much difference between Saul's belief and Paul's. What changed on the road to Damascus was the way he externalized that belief.
Would you say that Saul believed in God? If so, what changed on the road to Damascus? Phat writes:
Why did Winston Churchill change from a Liberal to a Conservative (or vice versa, whichever it was)? Was it because he changed? Or was it because he thought one party could forward his aims better than the other?
And yet Saul did far different things than Paul the convert did. What changed? Phat writes:
Both Saul and Paul did what (they thought) God wanted them to do. Saul took the Jewish hierarchy at their word and Paul took Jesus at His word. Who's to say which of them, if either, was right?
Evidently Saul of Tarsus did not have God "in" him. Phat writes:
It shows that his idea of what God wanted him to do changed.
The evidence only shows us that Saul changed. Phat writes:
He would, wouldn't he? That was the message he was selling. It's like Henry Ford telling you that God wants you to buy his cars. The author suggests that it was the voice of Jesus that caused Saul/Paul to change. Edited by ringo, : "Whose" --> "Who's"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 432 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Phat writes:
That's nonsense. Our own problems are ongoing. We can't sit and watch the world burn until our own petty problems are solved. We HAVE to solve the world's problems alongside our own.
We need to get it through our heads that we wont change the world or explore the universe until we solve our own problems. Phat writes:
On the contrary, we need to have our own internal source of wisdom and love. How it gets internalized is optional. If you want to believe it came from God or Long John Silver that's fine, as long as it's internalized and not just an outward profession.
We need to realize that we are not our own source of wisdom and love.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member
|
Saul was dogmatic and a zealot, Paul was dogmatic and a zealot; Saul was a misogynist, Paul was a misogynist; Saul was convinced his position was the only right position, Paul was convinced his postition was the only right position. I see no change in character. Saul was not just a zealot for his position. He actually served folks he opposed up for execution to the point that after his conversion, the disciples crossed the street when they saw him coming. There was no sign of this level of excess after his conversion. This is one of the marked changes in Paul over Saul. And surely we could make something out of the fact that his conversion occurred essentially overnight. Paul of course was the same person as Saul. That's not different from any other converted folk. But to say that there were no changes in his character does not seem to match what we believe we know about him. Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. Thomas Jefferson Seems to me if its clear that certain things that require ancient dates couldn't possibly be true, we are on our way to throwing out all those ancient dates on the basis of the actual evidence. -- Faith
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18298 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.1 |
Both Saul and Paul did what (they thought) God wanted them to do. It is my belief that Saul (as well as many Jews today) believed in an unknown God. You may make a case that the God in us is only our own internalized belief, but I will argue that only when God becomes known---through Jesus Christ---do we actually have Gods Spirit within us. I will agree that folks always do what they think God wants them to do, and that even believers can mistakenly substitute their own bias,prejudice, and will and attribute it to God in them.
we need to have our own internal source of wisdom and love. Why cant we ask God in and let Him be our source? It does not absolve us of responsibility...rather it enhances it. 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 " ~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith Whoever trusts in his own mind is a fool, but he who walks in wisdom will be delivered.~Proverbs 28:26
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 414 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
As I pointed out above one reason might be that Paul the Christian lacked the power base of Saul the Jew. Saul could denounce people and have then executed but Paul simply could not. He could rail against other Apostles and their teachings but that was about all he could do.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 432 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Phat writes:
And I will continue to point out that the only sign that "we actually have Gods Spirit within us" is when we bear fruit:
... I will argue that only when God becomes known---through Jesus Christ---do we actually have Gods Spirit within us.quote: Phat writes:
How on earth would that enhance responsibility?
Why cant we ask God in and let Him be our source? It does not absolve us of responsibility...rather it enhances it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18298 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.1 |
How on earth would that enhance responsibility? The same way that people usually do better on tests with a full stomach. if I am depressed, in debt, unhealthy, or just plain tired I will be much less able to leave my house and be anywhere near as effective at helping others. How am I going to help you with your depression if I am depressed myself?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 " ~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith Whoever trusts in his own mind is a fool, but he who walks in wisdom will be delivered.~Proverbs 28:26
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 432 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
Phat writes:
What does any of that have to do with responsibility? if I am depressed, in debt, unhealthy, or just plain tired I will be much less able to leave my house and be anywhere near as effective at helping others. How am I going to help you with your depression if I am depressed myself? You're suggesting that you're more comfortable "with God in you" and thus you're more capable of helping others? But the reality is that people who profess to "have God in them" often make excuses for not helping others - the old "feed the soul before the stomach" nonsense, for example. I would say that seeing other people in need makes me uncomfortable, which enhances my sense of responsibility.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18298 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.1 |
I see your point also. Thanks for sharing...
Now lets get back to Paul.
Rom 4:2-6 writes: Paul bought up faith credited as righteousness and that works appear to be an obligation rather than a justification.
2 If, in fact, Abraham was justified by works, he had something to boast about-but not before God. 3 What does the Scripture say? "Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness." 4 Now when a man works, his wages are not credited to him as a gift, but as an obligation. 5 However, to the man who does not work but trusts God who justifies the wicked, his faith is credited as righteousness. So if Faith is credited as righteousness, does faith in and of itself enhance responsibility? James says no. Faith without works is dead. One question might be what context is James different from Romans? 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 " ~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith Whoever trusts in his own mind is a fool, but he who walks in wisdom will be delivered.~Proverbs 28:26
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member
|
One question might be what context is James different from Romans? Paul was writing to new Roman churches and explaining to them how salvation came through the gospel of Jesus, so the belief side was more important at that point in their faith. James was writing to Jewish Christians who already believed and was explaining how their faith in Christ should play out in their lives. Paul seems to be more for new Christians while James seems to be for more mature Christians. The faith part is important at first, but once you're a believer it is more important for you to actually do something.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 414 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Also James was still trying to reform Judaism and not create a new separate religion. Like Jesus James was a Jew and still involved directly in the Jewish theology.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
LamarkNewAge Member Posts: 2313 Joined:
|
I feel like I better add actual scripture quotations to this (heavy in commentary) discussion, so people can see some of the more relevant words of Paul, as opposed to a bunch of claims that are taken at full face value as reflecting Paul's views on salvation and judgment day issues specifically as it relates to non Christians.
People like to quote from Galatians 5:4 and the (perhaps unreliable with regard to quotes of Paul) Acts of the Apostles when it comes to this "salvation" and "eternal life" judgment issue.
quote: People love to take that word "grace" and say that means that only Christians will be judged positively. Paul really wrote many of his letters on the fly (quickly) and perhaps didn't mean for every last word to be legalistically studied. Here is what he said in Roman 2 about non Christian gentiles. (Ill quote verse 12 to the very end of the chapter)
quote: Read the very end of Galatians 5 now.
quote: "Grace" (which he says that Jesus offers and Christian followers enjoy)might mean a free and easy ride to righteousness and judgment, but is it the only way according to Paul's letters? btw, does all this talk of "freedom" in Paul's writings meant he opposed actual human-chattel slavery? (nope!) Read verse 1 of chapter 5
quote: All scholars regard the epistle to Philemon as from the pen of Paul. Ephesians and Colossians are generally doubted to be his own writings, but see Ephesians 6:5 and Colossians 3:22. Perhaps one shouldn't read to much into a single word. "Grace" might just mean a free and easy ride. "Just $9.99 for $500 worth of goods. Call now. The first 100 callers even get $200 more in goods." Paul beat that commercial by about 1900 or more years. It doesn't exclude other options, does it? Here is what Paul said in the Acts of the Apostles. Be warned that quotes of Paul in Acts might not be reliable. (I'm not calling the author of Luke-Acts a liar because he did a good job of not embellishing words of Jesus (to have stuff like the c. 100 A.D. John 3:16 kind of crap dishonestly put into Jesus' mouth) in his Gospel. It really does seem to be based on sources that could be considered credible, of that the author ("Luke") though were credible. Luke 1:1-4 is impressive in that the author admits that his gospel is late and that he used many sources. The gospel of Luke can respectably be placed alongside Mark and Matthew, and it is a credit to the author considering his Acts book has lots of later "you must believe in the specific name Jesus" (or along those lines) theology in it. His gospels are about works (see Luke 2:8-14 for "Luke's" quote of John the Baptist answering how people achieve their "repentance" Luke 3 NRSVUE - The Proclamation of John the Baptist - Bible Gateway) not exclusivity with regards to a name or banner tribalism.) Acts 17 and Paul in Athens:
quote: I find it interesting that Paul never attacked actual established revelatory religions like Zoroastrianism, Hinduism, Buddhism, etc. He seemed to be responding to the endless (thousands and thousands) worshipping of every little stick and stone idol type of Gods and perhaps the endless sacrifices that were always offered. The Greco-Roman world had lots of dime a dozen type of Gods that people didn't believe. Remember the Spartacus movie and how that Senator responded, when asked about which of the endless god's he believes in (when purchasing animals to sacrifice)? He answered, "publically all of them, privately, none of them".
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member
|
Also James was still trying to reform Judaism and not create a new separate religion. Like Jesus James was a Jew and still involved directly in the Jewish theology. The problem that True ChristiansTM have is that they always try to turn the multiple different writings in the Bible into one single cohesive and comprehensive writing. "Paul said this but James said that... what kind of context do we have to invent in order to keep them saying the same thing?" Well, they were writing different things to different people for different purposes. It's okay if they deviate from each other. ... Out of curiosity, do you think that James was Jesus' brother?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18298 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.1 |
I find it interesting that Paul never attacked actual established revelatory religions like Zoroastrianism, Hinduism, Buddhism, etc. He seemed to be responding to the endless (thousands and thousands) worshipping of every little stick and stone idol type of Gods and perhaps the endless sacrifices that were always offered. Thats because Christianity superceded the other religions through the monotheistic affirmation of Jesus Christ. Zoroastrianism claims to be monotheistic but is more of a dualistic expression of good/evil. There are no new revelations from those old religions. Paul actually did address the point of an unknown god, establishing once and for all time that Jesus represents the fullness of God--revealed through human character. Look at your scriptural quotes:
5 For through the Spirit, by faith, we eagerly wait for the hope of righteousness. 6 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision counts for anything; the only thing that counts is faith working through love. In other words, the law was fulfilled in Christ. While we can argue on the idea that doing is always better than simply believing, I contend that Paul explains that doing will never get you closer to Heaven. 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 " ~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith Whoever trusts in his own mind is a fool, but he who walks in wisdom will be delivered.~Proverbs 28:26
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024