The God That Paul Marketed Over Time.

We can know that Paul's words were not meant for a much later audience because he addresses his writings telling us who it was meant for.But the authors (the early ones) did know when Jesus would return since Jesus told them he would return while the audience he was addressing were still alive. Now that is not just word salad and nonsense, it is word salad and nonsense that is self-contradictory.

It's not what I market, it is what the Bible Stories assert Jesus said.

quote:

---

Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled. - Matthew 24:34

---

I know that people can make up all kinds of ways to explain away the contradictions, inconsistencies, horrific behaviors and factual errors found in the Bible stories and that that is the function and job description of the Apologist but that does not change what is actually written.Note that in your first example what is actually presented is just more evidence that the Bible really is inconsistent and contradictory and then that inconsistency and those contradictions are used to explain why the original statement is NOT a false assertions.That makes no sense and holds no water. It is laughable.The second example is also simply moving goal posts and irrelevant to the question of when Jesus said he would return. It has nothing to do with when Jesus said he would return. And the Jews rejected Jesus as the Messiah while he was still alive anyway. As usual the Dispensationalists are just making shit up.But wait, there is more.If you look at the writings the earliest "Christian" works (those written by people identifying themselves as followers of Christ) they all speak of Jesus return as imminent; about to happen. It is only the later writings, the Johannine literature and 2 Peter; material first written late in the early formation period most likely even after 70CE when most if not all of the original Apostles and Disciples were dead or very old that we see the transition to an unknown and unknowable future return.It's pretty clear that those that were there when Jesus said:

quote:

---

Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled. - Matthew 24:34

---

... that the understanding was that Generation meant the lifetime of those people in attendance.Another claim often made that you did not mention is the absurd claim that the events of 70CE are the actual fulfillment; an even more absurd claim than those above.The events of 70CE are another area simply ignored or misrepresented by most Christian teachings. It was a complex political and economic disturbance that had almost nothing to do with beliefs and was ultimately the result of the rise of the Jewish Zealots and an internal Jewish Civil war.

Again, that is just more nonsense. The Jews rejected Jesus as their Messiah while he was still alive. They had rejected Jesus as their messiah before those words were even supposed to have been spoken. And there you go making the same error you continually make by misrepresented what I believe and making irrelevant assertions.Of course Jews rejected Jesus, and still reject Jesus AS Marketed by Christians. They do not reject Jesus as a prophet or as someone who spoke based on what God imparted.They are Jews not Christians. Again, that depends on which of Paul's teachings you reference. I agree with much that Paul taught but also believe that most of Christianity, all of Fundamental and Evangelical Christianity, misrepresent what Paul taught by taking pieces parts out of context and failing to understand both the nature of Paul the man, the era in which he lived, the audience he addressed and what he actually taught.Paul actually emphasizes doing as opposed to professing throughout his interoffice memos and it is only by taking pieces out of context that anyone can say otherwise.What I reject is not Paul's teachings but rather the modern Apologists bumper sticker versions of what Paul taught.

It's your thread, start wherever you want but understand that quote mining will be met with references to the context and counter examples showing how the marketing changed both with audience and time.

You seem to be replying to me but not responding to anything I have ever said.I don't think anyone thinks Paul was marketing anything he believed was made up but the fact is that Paul never met Jesus or had any connection to Jesus and that the tale of his conversion as told in the Bible stories changed over time and depending on the audience. The initial earliest account of the story does not even mention Jesus and it is only in the later embellished versions that Jesus appears. Yet even in the embellished versions there is no indication Paul ever met or knew anything about Jesus other than what he was taught by earlier Christians. Yes, of course. As has been pointed out Paul addressed Romans and said who it was meant for. Well, actually he did. Paul marketed the God he saw as a product and again that changed depending on the audience. The character of God he marketed (and he never marketed Jesus as God) also changed over time.AbE: I really need to address this.You are making an assertion that frankly you simply cannot support. You may be able to claim that Paul thinks is writing about God as He knew Him or about Jesus as he thinks he knows him but there is absolutely no evidence Paul ever met Jesus or knew anything about Jesus other than second and third hand information.You can make claims about what you think you know or about what you think Paul might have been thinking but there is no way you can support any assertion like the above.Edited by jar, : see AbE:

We've been over this many times Phat.The story of Paul's conversion varies over time and what you are quoting is one of the later embellished accounts and definitely NOT a quote from Paul or even in any of his epistles. The claim that it is Jesus speaking is a later addition to the story and not found in the earlier versions.That actually is evidence Phat; evidence that the authors changed the story to reflect their marketing.Paul changed sides but did not really change. His basic nature and behavior was the same after the conversion as it was before.And not believing without evidence is not called suppressing the truth except by the ignorant.

Phat, it's not a matter of which version of the Bible is involved it is a matter of the many retellings of the story in different parts of the Bible. In Acts alone there are three or more different versions of the story. 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. Again, you are asserting belief as though it was fact. You believe the Jews rejected the truth while they believe that you rejected the truth.Paul would likely agree with them on that. Paul did not speak of Jesus and God as one individual. Which of the many contradictory characters called God in scripture are you talking about? So far no one has ever been able to show that there is "The God" of scripture.The God Paul marketed is certainly not Jesus.

Then reread Acts.In Acts 9:7 the KJV says:

quote:

---

And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man.

---

In Acts 22:9 the KJV says:

quote:

---

And they that were with me saw indeed the light, and were afraid; but they heard not the voice of him that spake to me.

---

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:

---

15 Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand;

​

2 By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain.

​

3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;

​

4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:

​

5 And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve:

​

6 After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep.

​

7 After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles.

​

8 And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time.

---

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. From the Jewish perspective you reject the truth that there is only one God and that Jesus is not a god. 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.

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.

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.

LOLI'm not even sure that James was James. Let's be honest. We really have almost no clue who wrote any of the material included in either the Old or New Testament.

Yet that is exactly what Jesus said to do and did; feed the hungry, heal the sick, shelter the homeless, clothe the naked, comfort the sorrowful, protect the helpless ... Okay, but what does that even mean? How is Jesus the way to anything and why should anyone even care? How can helping people hurt people? How can bringing in the neighbors trash can hurt anyone. How can returning the shopping carts hurt anyone? How can holding a door open hurt anyone? How can getting a package down off the high shelf hurt someone? How can kneeling down to be at eye level when talking with kids hurt anyone?

Yes, it is not just hard to grasp it is meaningless. And no one said they must be bad but what good do they do?What the hell does "ask Jesus into your heart" even mean? How can any of those things help? I have no idea what it even means "to accept the Spirit of truth".Note that the author of John does not provide an answer or meaning either.

Or the communion or even explain how such communion could be possible or how you could determine who you were "communing" with.