The God That Paul Marketed Over Time.

This would be a good study. Do you have any examples in the books that Paul has allegedly written? Can we speculate what Paul may have studied and read? Would your example be in those teachings?I highly doubt that Paul saw His God as One who learns on the job. Edited by Phat, : No reason given.

I am not aware of any books that Paul might have written. I would imagine that Saul had at least studied Genesis and there are many examples in Genesis of the God character learning on the job beginning with Genesis 2 & 3.

Thats your interpretation of what is written. What makes you think that others who have studied the same verses arrive at the same conclusion regarding their Creator that you have?Can you provide evidence of other Jewish scholars (or any scholars) who have concluded that the God whom they worship and of whom they read about is learning on the job? I allege that this is your own conclusion on this matter and not a conclusion or belief held by many.

LOLOf course it is my own conclusion based not on what others assert but rather the evidence itself. That is a primary difference between critical thinking and accepting what OTHERS say you should think. It does not matter whether I am the only one that sees it or if everyone sees it.The issue is that the God people worship is always a creation of themselves, it is a human creation.Most folk it seems do not seem to think or understand that. They talk about the God of the Bible or the God of Scripture when in reality there is no such critter, rather there are multiple Gods of the Bible and Gods of Scripture.It's a point I have tried to emphasize in discussions with you for decades. The God of Genesis 1 is not a God learning on the Job but rather supremely competent. However that God is also separate, has no connection or interaction with the created; there is no communion between that God and any of creation.That's what the author and all the subsequent editors and redactors wrote. It is reasonable to assume that is what they thought.The God of Genesis 2&3 is entirely different. That God does not know what a suitable help meet for Adam might be and so tries different critters.That is an example of learning on the Job.Later a God is depicted going on Walk About to learn what is actually going on instead of what he has been told.That is an example of learning on the job.How else can those examples be described other than learning on the job.BUT, that God does have interaction with the created, is personable, the kind of God you could have communion with. That God is physical and present and seen by all and accessible.I try to never suggest that you or anyone else should agree with what I think, rather I try to ask "what does the evidence show?"I try to never suggest that you or anyone else should look to see what others think, rather I try to ask "what does the evidence show?"The evidence found in scripture shows that different cultures in different eras (sometimes even in the same era but in separate theological branches; consider Judah and Israel) create very different Gods.Edited by jar, : appalin spallin on ----> of

So then why do you hide behind the label of Christian?

I do not hide period.That is simply absurd.I am a Christian.That is simply a fact.Just as there are many Gods of the Bible and Gods of Scripture, there are many different Christians. Each flavor creates the Christianity they desire.

We have talked about what makes a Christian. You successfully defended widespread use of the label in your courtroom of logic, reason, and reality.Perhaps you can defend the idea that God is a God of individual imagination in there as well, but you will not have won my belief over to that dark side of evidence based thinking in regards to belief, nor would many of the people I associate with even consider it.You are marketing...pushing a brand of Christianity to a community of educated people, many of whom are agnostic or atheist. I commend you for your view that Christianity can be defined by what we do and that we are charged to do. I adhere to that belief---we assembled food baskets for over a thousand people on saturday...and I regret not one minute of the fellowship with other people that day. God is God regardless of what we create or imagine God to be.None of us can imagine Him, so He sent a man to teach us.

But I really have no desire to change anyone's belief. I just don't care what people believe, only what people do.I do not try to win anyone over to my position, I simply report what the evidence shows and the evidence shows that the different people created different Gods. That is fact and not a matter of belief.It is a fact the the God described in Genesis 1 is different than the God described in Genesis 2&3.It is a fact that Ganesha is different than Saraswati who is different than Brahma Vishnu who is different than Shiva.It is a fact that Coyote is different than Raven and Laozi or Yu-Huang.It is a fact the you consider Jesus God while the Jews and Muslims do not. Yes, he sent us the Buddha and Mohamed and Techumseh and Chief Seattle.But did anyone learn?Edited by jar, : appalin spallin that ---> than

Did Paul create and/or market a different God than was taught prior to his conversion? If so lets discuss that God.In Romans, Paul speaks of the Son of God and says that How does Pauls God differ from the God of the Jews?(Specifically in Jesus time)

Again, there is no one answer possible.Also the very term God has so many different meaning that I'm not at all sure any reasonable answer is possible. Did Paul think Jesus was God? I'm not at all sure. Would Paul have subscribed to the concept of the Trinity as marketed today? I'm not at all sure and actually think Paul would find the whole idea blasphemy. I'm not sure Paul's God differed much from the contemporary Jewish God but rather the difference was in the idea that Jesus was the Messiah and literal Son of God, not God.The Jewish position then and now is that there is only one God and to claim the Jesus is not just God but co-equal in blasphemy.So here is direct support for the fact that the Gods being marketed are the direct product of the marketers.Remember, the Trinity concept was created hundreds of years AFTER Paul.

The thing that makes these conversations difficult is the idea of God as a concept of the human mind and refusing to factor in personal belief.Being an impartial observer works ok with our own mind, but when probing the mind of the universe, it detaches us from our Creator.

Personal belief IS a concept of the human mind. The difference between belief and reality is that belief is ONLY a concept of the mind. The idea that there is a creator is only in our own mind.

Huh?Sorry but that makes no sense that I can fathom.

Phat seems to be inside his own skull inceasingly lately. I have no idea what he's trying to say either - it seems to be mostly pulpit gibberish.

quote:

---

Objective evidence is the ultimate authority. Recorders may lie, but Nature is incapable of it.

---

From Fait Lux section of A Canticle for Leibowitz.Edited by jar, : "A" not "The"