The God That Paul Marketed Over Time.

I can demonstrate the power. You would have to spend a week with me and get to know the people I meet. Even then, you would likely try and test the belief by finding if the power and communion involves anything other than people and if my attribution is unfounded.There is no way I can prove to you that God or Jesus is involved in the power (of changed lives) or the communion (prayer with others, fellowship, etc)You likely are biased towards simple human interaction and have no interest in the God I market.I really dont have any interest in the God you market either since He has no more interest in me than He does a roach in the corner of the room.

Thats quite an oversimplification. The book is about works of the flesh(Laws and Customs) versus works of the Spirit. Law versus Grace. Freedom from mandatory rules
versus making one a slave to rules...such as circumcision.The circumcision group is essentially the Law group.

Thats the basic belief of most of Christianity. Your science mind and its insistence on evidence notwithstanding.The whole point of the belief of Paul hinged on the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Of the freedom we have to no longer be shackled to a bunch of laws and customs and that such trappings are not indicative to our standing before God.Neither is feeding the homeless or giving out spare change to drunks with no desire to change their habits or have them set free in Christ.And before you state your case yet again, I fully agree with your admonition to do good works as commanded.Your standing before God---as Paul markets it---is based on your trust in Jesus Christ.And he would market that because it is what changed him from a killing zealot to a preaching zealot.The guy had no say when he switched sides. It was done to him and for him.

It sometimes gets frustrating in the Faith & Belief forums arguing with those of you who do not buy what I am selling. I notice that the resistance upsets me---and perhaps it shouldn't.Browsing old posts at other topics, I came across what you said to Faith in a Science Forum:

quote:

---

All that data really exists and will continue to exist regardless of any argument you could make and the DNA sequences can be physically compared to modern samples to show similarities.

​

The evidence may not impress you and that's fine. No one really much cares to impress you; yet the evidence and facts are out there and they still need to be explained. And that is what you need to do before you can convince anyone that the current theory is wrong.

​

Denial of the evidence will not work.

​

Fantasy will not work.

---

In regards to the modern Bible and the writings attributed to Paul, I thank God that I am not in a science forum---I would not want to be in Faiths shoes. (She is on hiatus, but may return refreshed shortly. I hope she has been praying and allowing God to refresh her mind)In short-- I feel that Paul's writings are best examined with a faith lens rather than a science lens. Does anyone disagree?Edited by Phat, : fixed quote

thats not what i mean. With most people whom I associate with, there is little concern whether the words came from God or whether they are simply inspirational.Here at EvC, everything gets dissected too extremely, which would kill the faith of a weaker believer. As an example, take the redactor argument. I dont care so much whether John wrote John or whether Fred wrote John. My question is more about the intentions and the source of inspiration for the author.Once we get the wagon unstuck from that mud, we then go off on all of these rabbit trails concerning human sources and intentions...which is an argument that is far from settled. (I have heard good arguments from different sources)It all gets back to belief. I believe in God...and you don't. We seem to agree on human responsibility and thats about as far as we get.

Right. I dont care who the human author is as long as the message is inspired of and by the Holy Spirit.I still believe the messenger (source) is in fact the message.Jesus is the messenger through the Holy Spirit.
His death, burial, and resurrection is in fact the message.Edited by Phat, : No reason given.Edited by Phat, : No reason given.

in the case of Acts 14, Sounds like he was knocked out.As for the son of Zaraphaths widow, Jesus...unlike her son, was not simply another dead kid whose mother raised by her expertise at shaming the prophet into performing a miracle to preserve his reputation.We all know how Jewish Mothers can influence their sons faith...but in Jesus case, He followed the directions of His Father. (Some mothers claim that Christianity is all about what one does and not what one believes, but a wise son would see that it is both. )Another point that needs to be addressed is Pauls teaching regarding the power of sin over those who merely observe the law. (Romans 6)First of all, are we on the same page regarding the definition of sin the way we define the term and the way Paul defined it?Edited by Phat, : No reason given.

How narrow and inconsistent is this so-called cult? What specific cult do you have in mind?Paul certainly must be involved.

I can even find a scripture that supports your belief.

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.

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.

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

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.

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)

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.