Paul's words are not confusing. They are wrong.

[elman]

Foon Opines:

There is no proof that the man you refer to as Jesus ever lived.

Yet you make bold statements that you know what Jesus "knew?"

Like you've been inside the mind of a man that may have lived 2000 years ago.

How could you know what Jesus "knew?"

Just trying to understand what you are claiming here.

The writings of the New Testament proport to be accounts of Jesus' teachings from people who lived at or near the time and were in the area to hear or see Him or to talk to people who did. That is proof that He lived. Perhaps you should read these accounts before trying to prove how inconsistent they are. Then you might have some idea of what Jesus was teaching.

 

[Foon Nerfdahl]

Mick said:

"I am the Way, the Truth and the Life. No-one comes to the Father except through me"
"For so loved the world that He gave his one and only Son, so that whoever believes in Him will not die but will have eternal life"
Seems to me Jesus is saying quite clearly that He, and not "clean living" or whatever is the only way to Heaven.

Foon Opines:

Since you can't prove that Jesus said the first, it's meaningless.

Since some 2nd Century Priest wrote the second, it's meaningless.

Have you actually read the gospels? Or are you just repeating things you've heard from preachers? Have you read the refs I gave you from the Gospels where Jesus said we get to heaven by doing works of love toward neighbors?

And Mick said:

Roman and Jewish records show evidence of Jesus crucifixion, and of His body disappearing from the tomb.

Foon Opines:

Please cite these records. Can't? Right. They don't exist.

And Mick said:

And the gospels and epistles were not heavily editted to fit the dogma of the early church. They were written far apart in time and in place, yet the earliest copies of all of them, made across europe and the middle east still match up. The Bible as a whole is rightly considered by historians, Christian and otherwise as one of the most reliable historical texts in existence.....

Foon Opines:

Sorry. You simply can't prove the existence of this Jesus except through the Bible. You have no secular backup.

Disprove it? Why? You can't disprove something that hasn't been proven in the first place.

Nobody has disproved Hercules and Zeus and the wizard Merlin either.

There's no way to DISprove a myth.

Nobody has proved them either. And nobody has proved that Jesus every existed either.

You certainly have the right to believe in your "Jesus," but you can't provide proof that he ever lived except your collection of Bible stories.

Your belief is based on blind faith. And, as I said before, that's nice, and even somewhat admirable if you imitate the Jesus of the stories.

But I haven't met any Christians lately who are anything like that Jesus.

So, please........for the last time:

Cite your proof from all these mythical "Roman and Jewish records."

And please, you have claimed to know what Jesus knew. Please explain how you could know what Jesus knew.

Thanks.

 

[Im_A]

Both Paul and Jesus would tell a sinner to go and sin no more after repentance. Neither of them would have expected the person to be completely sinless for the rest of his life. Both recognized humans are frail and unable to be as God would have them be and need the forgiveness of their failures. Go and sin no more is a goal to achieve just as love your neighbor is a goal that cannot be flawlessly executed, and in each case Jesus knew no one would be without sin. That is why He knew that He could say that the one without sin should throw the first rock. He knew there was no one to throw a rock.

i don't see how this makes sense. (please don't think i'm trying to be mean/sarcastic/critical here elman.)

why would one tell someone go and sin no more, without the expectation of them actually not sinning anymore?

and the instance of the throwing of rocks, even if a person stopped sinning, as the call is upon us, they would still have no right to throw the stone. cause the past sins would show their hypocritical nature no matter what change they go through. so being sinless, doesn't mean one can throw rocks. it's not our job to even judge, and if we have made past mistakes, no matter our change and become sinless, we still have no right to throw rocks. so how does that example fit in?

and at that, what is even the use of temporary repentance, that can just be scapegoated with the idea of radical grace? why not repent once and for all and not rely on grace to cover up redundant sins? Paul mentions about choosing to commit sins and how bad that is, i know that. but how can we even judge such a thing? according to Paul, it's in our nature, and we still struggle with it even after "re-birth". so in essence he seems to contradict himself(that part is not really aimed at your response specifically, but i'm throwing it in there cause it does touch the issue and i hope i'm not getting off topic )

 

[elman]

i don't see how this makes sense. (please don't think i'm trying to be mean/sarcastic/critical here elman.)

why would one tell someone go and sin no more, without the expectation of them actually not sinning anymore?

and the instance of the throwing of rocks, even if a person stopped sinning, as the call is upon us, they would still have no right to throw the stone. cause the past sins would show their hypocritical nature no matter what change they go through. so being sinless, doesn't mean one can throw rocks. it's not our job to even judge, and if we have made past mistakes, no matter our change and become sinless, we still have no right to throw rocks. so how does that example fit in?

and at that, what is even the use of temporary repentance, that can just be scapegoated with the idea of radical grace? why not repent once and for all and not rely on grace to cover up redundant sins? Paul mentions about choosing to commit sins and how bad that is, i know that. but how can we even judge such a thing? according to Paul, it's in our nature, and we still struggle with it even after "re-birth". so in essence he seems to contradict himself(that part is not really aimed at your response specifically, but i'm throwing it in there cause it does touch the issue and i hope i'm not getting off topic )

It is not possible for us to love our neighbor perfectly and without exception. We do not have the ability to do that. But Jesus said love your neighbor. Obviously we are talking about a goal to try to achieve and grace is the love of God that keeps us spiritually alive even as we imperfectly love our neighbor.

 

[elman]

Mick said:



Foon Opines:

Since you can't prove that Jesus said the first, it's meaningless.

Since some 2nd Century Priest wrote the second, it's meaningless.

Have you actually read the gospels? Or are you just repeating things you've heard from preachers? Have you read the refs I gave you from the Gospels where Jesus said we get to heaven by doing works of love toward neighbors?

And Mick said:



Foon Opines:

Please cite these records. Can't? Right. They don't exist.

And Mick said:



Foon Opines:

Sorry. You simply can't prove the existence of this Jesus except through the Bible. You have no secular backup.

Disprove it? Why? You can't disprove something that hasn't been proven in the first place.

Nobody has disproved Hercules and Zeus and the wizard Merlin either.

There's no way to DISprove a myth.

Nobody has proved them either. And nobody has proved that Jesus every existed either.

You certainly have the right to believe in your "Jesus," but you can't provide proof that he ever lived except your collection of Bible stories.

Your belief is based on blind faith. And, as I said before, that's nice, and even somewhat admirable if you imitate the Jesus of the stories.

But I haven't met any Christians lately who are anything like that Jesus.

So, please........for the last time:

Cite your proof from all these mythical "Roman and Jewish records."

And please, you have claimed to know what Jesus knew. Please explain how you could know what Jesus knew.

Thanks.

And why would the Bible not be historical evidence of the existence of Jesus?

 

[Im_A]

It is not possible for us to love our neighbor perfectly and without exception. We do not have the ability to do that. But Jesus said love your neighbor. Obviously we are talking about a goal to try to achieve and grace is the love of God that keeps us spiritually alive even as we imperfectly love our neighbor.

i don't know how i missed that it's your b-day on the post, but happy 66th

if i can, here's a rather personal question. just know this isn't an attack on you or anything.

what does the Gospel do for you...or your hopes with believeing in the Gospel? (i hope you don't mind this personal question.)

i'm asking cause what you described here, no offense, just seems like something that is given to us, that we can never reach the mark/calling/goal, but yet we are suppossed to still try. after all that Jesus went through before His death (meaning all the good, amazing things), after all the things He went to do to defeat sin, death, hell, then after He rose from the dead, wouldn't you think the Gospel is more than something that just helps us reach a goal that is impossible and that we will never reach in the end?

 

[elman]

i don't know how i missed that it's your b-day on the post, but happy 66th

if i can, here's a rather personal question. just know this isn't an attack on you or anything.

what does the Gospel do for you...or your hopes with believeing in the Gospel? (i hope you don't mind this personal question.)

i'm asking cause what you described here, no offense, just seems like something that is given to us, that we can never reach the mark/calling/goal, but yet we are suppossed to still try. after all that Jesus went through before His death (meaning all the good, amazing things), after all the things He went to do to defeat sin, death, hell, then after He rose from the dead, wouldn't you think the Gospel is more than something that just helps us reach a goal that is impossible and that we will never reach in the end?

I think the Gospel is the good news that I can still be a child of God and spiritually alive even thought I am not perfect in my love for others. Grace is the forgiveness of that imperfection. I will reach the goal but not on my own strenghth, I will reach it on the grace of God. Yes we are supposed to try to reach the goal and if we don't we have no hope for the grace. First John is very clear we cannot be a child of God if we do not love. This idea is also clear in Matt 25:31 and following and in 1 Cor 13. Thank you for the birthday wishes.

 

[Im_A]

I think the Gospel is the good news that I can still be a child of God and spiritually alive even thought I am not perfect in my love for others. Grace is the forgiveness of that imperfection. I will reach the goal but not on my own strenghth, I will reach it on the grace of God. Yes we are supposed to try to reach the goal and if we don't we have no hope for the grace. First John is very clear we cannot be a child of God if we do not love. This idea is also clear in Matt 25:31 and following and in 1 Cor 13. Thank you for the birthday wishes.

and this i agree with

my only concern is that i'll never reach the mark and that to me, is the one fact that comprimises Paul's words, and dare i even say Jesus's words if that is the case. so i guess i expect too much from God to some people (not saying that your one of them.) and on only a personal level, when i relied solely on grace, i really acted un-Christ like. especially when i thought that relying on grace would lead me in the path of Christ, but it didn't (unless one wants to turn it in the sense that the conclusion now is so much better than before in my own life.) to rely on grace to cover my sins because i'm born dead to the world, even after re-birth is a sickening thought to me.

i would hope that after re-birth we are able to meet the mark as you described here. of course it wouldn't on my own accord. of course it wouldn't be because i'm such a good person, or such a bad person that i need some outside grace to push me along. but i'm hoping that as life goes on, and relying on God and becoming more and more responsibility every action that i do and stand by the responsibilities, obligations, that there will be a time that i don't have to worry about sin. to some it may be a pointless hope, and if i rely on Paul's writings...that very well may be true. of course i could be wrong about that, but right now that is my main concern.

your welcome for the b-day wishes hope it is a good one.

 

[yesterdog]

Agreed, but many preachers treat his letters as scripture.

I am in the midst of reading this thread, and haven't found the question yet, so....

How do you answer Peter then?

2 Peter 3:

14So then, dear friends, since you are looking forward to this, make every effort to be found spotless, blameless and at peace with him. 15Bear in mind that our Lord's patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. 16He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.

So Peter shows Paul's letters on par with the other Scriptues.

 

[TScott]

He's weak. He's strong. He's a sinner. He's a winner. He's a loser. He's a conquerer.

He's a joker,
he's a smoker,
he's a midnite toker...
some think he's a space cowboy and some think he's the gangster of love...

oh yeah..

 

[yesterdog]

Blacklamb,

But......who is "Peter himself?"

Who wrote those words?

Scholarly consensus has it that those words were written by a church leader who came along WELL AFTER the Peter that I think you're talking about.

A church leader or "Father" who had a vested interest in preserving the "Christian" faith that had evolved over the 1st and 2nd centuries and placed him in a position of relative wealth and power.

Most of what we call the NT has been tweaked and edited mercilessly to make it fit tradition that developed along the way.

If something Jesus had reportedly said caused a problem.....it was gently fixed......because the things Jesus said conflicted with the Pauline tradition that was so useful and popular with leaders.

Most of this tweaking was done by people who meant well......like, for our own good, by those who saw themselves as "fathers" who had to take care of us, the common herd, and keep us under control.

I see a lot of that attitude among church leaders today (and even on this very forum) when people seem to be learning too much and questioning traditional dogma.

Actually, there are many things which should have been tweaked that weren't then! Many Hebrew idioms come through the text if we are to believe that Early Church Fathers changed things, or that some priest in a position of power changed anything in the text itself. Most of these individuals were relatively anti-Semitic and they would have likely dropped much of this if they were to feel any compulsion to edit anything.

I don't doubt that Peter may have not written the epistles by his own hand...just as we see Paul admitting this in Philemon by his specification that he was writing with his own hand in verse 19. However, I don't think that the possibility of the epistles being written by another person means that Peter himself had no part whatsoever in the writing. I can see that some liberal theologians might think this small space of "removal" is a place to squeeze their foot into. That's all I see.

Incidentally...

If you believe that Jesus is a myth...and that there is nothing but Scripture to prove His existence...why do you believe in the "concensus" of "scholars"?

I reckon you believe that Josephus is a myth, too?

Was Tacitus a myth?

You have a lot of faith to believe that Jesus was totally made up, and people believed in this at that time and continued the myth.

 

[micknick]

Mick said:



Foon Opines:

Since you can't prove that Jesus said the first, it's meaningless.

Since some 2nd Century Priest wrote the second, it's meaningless.

Have you actually read the gospels? Or are you just repeating things you've heard from preachers? Have you read the refs I gave you from the Gospels where Jesus said we get to heaven by doing works of love toward neighbors?

And Mick said:



Foon Opines:

Please cite these records. Can't? Right. They don't exist.

And Mick said:



Foon Opines:

Sorry. You simply can't prove the existence of this Jesus except through the Bible. You have no secular backup.

Disprove it? Why? You can't disprove something that hasn't been proven in the first place.

Nobody has disproved Hercules and Zeus and the wizard Merlin either.

There's no way to DISprove a myth.

Nobody has proved them either. And nobody has proved that Jesus every existed either.

You certainly have the right to believe in your "Jesus," but you can't provide proof that he ever lived except your collection of Bible stories.

Your belief is based on blind faith. And, as I said before, that's nice, and even somewhat admirable if you imitate the Jesus of the stories.

But I haven't met any Christians lately who are anything like that Jesus.

So, please........for the last time:

Cite your proof from all these mythical "Roman and Jewish records."

And please, you have claimed to know what Jesus knew. Please explain how you could know what Jesus knew.

Thanks.

well actually theres writings of general tacticus, a roman general, on the burning of rome in 64 AD. a mere 30 years after the crucifixion. in his writings he acknowledges a person called "Christus" (the latin for Christ) was executed by order of pontius pilate, and that it was his followers who were accused by Nero of setting Rome alight.

As for whether John's Gospel was in fact written by John and not a 2nd century priest:
Manuscripts that testify to the accuracy of the Gospels

The John Rylands papyrus is the oldest extant fragment of the Gospel of John. Found in Egypt, it dates from the first half of the second century, thus confirming the composition of the Gospel of John by the end of the first century A.D.

Most of the Gospel of John also appears in the Bodmer Papyrus 11 from the same period. The Chester Beatty papyri, also found in Egypt, are a collection of codices, three of which contain major portions of the New Testament.

And since you are so fond of proof- where is your proof that the Gospel of John was not in fact written by John?

The New Testament was written by several different authors in different times and places, and yet the accounts agree. Even without non-Biblical backup that should be enough for any historian to accept. No historical event can ever be truly proven. However the evidence pointing to the existence of Jesus is overwhelming, and very few even among the adamant atheist community would even try to suggest that there was no man called Jesus. For someone asking for so much proof to back up my standpoint you are providing very little of your own- you just say things as though they are fact and accuse me of not supplying evidence.

If your looking for absolute proof you'll never find it, but then again you can't prove that George Washington was ever president can you? all you have to go on are records. Its exactly the same thing.

 

[Foon Nerfdahl]

Mick said:

well actually theres writings of general tacticus, a roman general, on the burning of rome in 64 AD. a mere 30 years after the crucifixion. in his writings he acknowledges a person called "Christus" (the latin for Christ) was executed by order of pontius pilate, and that it was his followers who were accused by Nero of setting Rome alight.

Foon Opines:

You found ONE GUY who acknowledges that a man called "Christus" was executed? ONE GUY?

Don't you realize that if your Bible stories were historical fact there would be HUNDREDS of references in secular history books?

And you found one. You should really think on that. Where do you think all the historical references to Jesus went? Was there some massive anti-Jesus conspiracy shredding the history books?

You mention proving that George Washington really existed? Well, there are thousands of historical references to George Washington, including documents he wrote. You have anything Jesus wrote?

And Mick said:

The John Rylands papyrus is the oldest extant fragment of the Gospel of John. Found in Egypt, it dates from the first half of the second century, thus confirming the composition of the Gospel of John by the end of the first century A.D.

Foon Opines:

Seems to me that you just proved nothing. I said it was written by a Second Century priest. You say it was written in the Second Century. Right. I agree. That's what I said. Hello? You are helping me, thanks.

Most of this stuff was cobbled together from old notes (and fragments such as you mention) and it was done in the Second and Third Centuries by Church leaders. This is common knowledge.

If you had a genuine fragment that could be accurately dated to 90 CE......what would it prove? Not a thing. There are lots of fragments flying around out there that don't match anything.

Mick says:

And since you are so fond of proof- where is your proof that the Gospel of John was not in fact written by John?

Foon Opines:

Why would I have to DISprove something that hasn't been proven?

Mick said:

The New Testament was written by several different authors in different times and places, and yet the accounts agree.

Foon Opines:

Why wouldn't they agree? The whole NT was comprehensively edited by the church fathers just so it WOULD agree. Not that they really did it well.....there are loads of mistakes and contradictions and the Gospel of Luke and the following book of "Acts" read like cheap and far-fetched adventure stories.

And Mick said:

If your looking for absolute proof you'll never find it, but then again you can't prove that George Washington was ever president can you? all you have to go on are records. Its exactly the same thing.

Foon Opines:

I already told you that there are thousands of historical records of George Washington and you have found ONE that says a man who was called Christus was executed.

You know what? It's a sure bet that lots of people named Jesus were executed, too. And Johns. And Toms and Dicks and Harrys. Does this prove anything? No.

Don't misunderstand me. I'm not saying that Jesus never existed. I'm saying you can't prove it and your belief is based on blind faith. I actually think there was a Jesus.......and probably several. But the stories of them got totally out of control when the religionists took over and tried to sell their new religion.

But I am still wondering......you claimed to know what Jesus knew.

How can you make such a claim? Have you peeked inside the mind of a man that you can't prove ever existed?

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

post # 89 yesterdog
I am in the midst of reading this thread, and haven't found the question yet, so....

How do you answer Peter then?
2 Peter 3:

14So then, dear friends, since you are looking forward to this, make every effort to be found spotless, blameless and at peace with him. 15Bear in mind that our Lord's patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. 16He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.

Umm So? There are plenty of mess-iancs that also debunct Paul and to tell the truth, they put up some pretty good arguements [though they do an excellent job of trying to prove to jews that Christ was the Messiah but at the expense of Paul].

Many christ-ians have left Paul to join messianic Judaism because of this site. With "friends" like these, who needs "enemies"

http://www.judaismvschristianity.com/paulthe.htm

We have seen that Paul's picture of God's sovereignty doesn't exist in the Scriptures. We might call this the DNA evidence against him (Doctrine Not Accurate). It is an important part of the case against him. But it is by no means all the evidence there is against his supposed authority. There is more than enough evidence to suggest that he was not even a true apostle of Yahshua let alone the greatest apostle who ever lived as he is so often eulogized.
There are a number of historical facts, quotations from Paul, and quotations from Yahshua recorded in the New Testament that leave us with some quite compelling evidence against his apostleship being recognized in heaven.
There are several interesting facts surrounding this case that should be noted and kept in mind. They are:

 

[TScott]

Foon Opines...

Sure, but what is really irritating is that this isn't a thread about whether or not Jesus existed. This is a thread about the writings of the apostle Paul and their influence on Christianity. For that discussion, the actual existence of Jesus is irrelevent, in fact that is kind of the point. You could say that Jesus probably didn't have to exist for Christianity since all of his teachings, as chronicled in the Gospels, take a back seat to the dogma espoused by the Apostle Paul.

Having said that I don't believe it was Paul's intention to hijack or derail the followers of Jesus. I think that Paul was convinced that the return of Jesus was imminent. I think if you read his epistles with that frame of reference you see him in a much different light.

 

[Foon Nerfdahl]

You could say that Jesus probably didn't have to exist for Christianity since all of his teachings, as chronicled in the Gospels, take a back seat to the dogma espoused by the Apostle Paul.

Foon (Opining again) says:

Yes, which is why some of us call this false religion "Paulianity" rather than "Christianity."

Whatever you call it.......it's so confused and dysfunctional now that......who cares?

It's become a rather pathetic study in how good movements (the Jesus teaching) go bad (Paul and his deranged disciples).

 

[micknick]

i gave you one reference. proving you wrong, as you said none existed. i could find more, i found that one within 30 seconds of reading your post.

you claim to be more than a mere christian. you claim to follow christ not paul. yet you refuse to accept anything written anywhere in the gospels because we can't "prove" that it was said or done by jesus. so what doctrine do you follow?

 

[Foon Nerfdahl]

Mick, you're not answering my question.

How can you claim to know what Jesus knew? I'm really curious. Did you write before thinking or do you really think you know what was going on inside the mind of Jesus? And most important, why?

You say that I claim to follow Christ.

Wrong again. I follow the Jesus of Scripture who told us in the Parable of the Good Samaritan that we get to heaven by doing works of love toward our neighbor.

I suggest you read it. You will find that the question that initiates the parable is--"Teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?"

The response by Jesus makes it crystal clear that we get to heaven by doing good works......not by some mysterious process of "Unmerited Favor" that sprang from the fevered mind of Paul 20 years later.

If Christians followed Jesus as I do......America would be a nation that cared for the poor and America would not murder the children of tiny and defenseless oil-rich nations out of sheer greed.

Why? Because people are concerned with eternal life......and would walk in love if they thought their actions were what gave them eternal life.

But now? Due to Paul.....Christians think they, as a nation, can not only neglect to help the poor......but even murder them--and still get to that eternal life.

So who is lying? Jesus or Paul? Whose Gospel does harm to a neighbor?

The answer is obvious.

No, I can't prove Jesus existed either. But I believe based on faith in the truth of the power of love that Jesus preached and the resounding message of love that echoes through the Bible and absolutely condemns the actions of Paul and his cold-hearted and self-serving Christian followers.

A nation of murderers will not inherit eternal life.......but those who follow the words of Jesus, "Go and do like the Good Samaritan," THEY will inherit eternal life.

 

[micknick]

I don't recall ever claiming to know what Jesus knew. If I did I would be claiming to know everything. Paul does not teach anyone to do as they please AT ANY POINT.
Not once does he say that we should do whatever we please because we're covered by grace. He teaches that we should make every effort to avoid sin. That we should hate it passionately. If you read Pauls writing he has no small measure of self-loathing for the sins he has commited.

Just because some passages have been taken out of context and interpreted in isolation to mean something they do not does not mean that Pauls teachings are wrong. People have taken lots of scripture out of context to serve their own ends, not just Pauls.
Paul teaches salvation by grace through faith. He also teaches that works of love are the outworking of that faith. So no man who goes around doing as he sees fit, truly has faith in the Jesus Paul believed in.
"It is no longer I who live, but Christ in me"
If anyone has really come to Christ, as Paul did, you would see the acts of love you want to see across America and the world. Just because you see people who claim to be Christian doing wrong, does not mean they were given licence by Paul to do so.

 

[Foon Nerfdahl]

I don't recall ever claiming to know what Jesus knew.

Foon says:

You're correct, and I'm sorry. It was Elman who said:

Go and sin no more is a goal to achieve just as love your neighbor is a goal that cannot be flawlessly executed, and in each case Jesus knew no one would be without sin.

And, you are correct, nobody knows what Jesus knew or didn't know.

We should, however, take Jesus at his word if he says, "Go and sin no more."

For Elman to say that he "knows" that Jesus didn't mean what he said is ludicrous. Jesus did indeed mean exactly what he said when he said, "Go and sin no more."

That's the command and mandate that sinful people rejected.

The Gospel of Paul gave them an easy way to keep on sinning, just as they do today.