Striking Out Paul

[Fat]

Correct, Fat.

Acts was not written by Paul--it was written by Paul's disciple, Luke.

Anything said about Paul in Acts has to be taken with a huge grain of salt.

Foon Nerfdahl,

Love It,
Ok that gets rid of Acts and Luke
So we're down to Matthew, Mark, John, 1 John, 2 John, 3 John, James, 1 Peter, 2 Peter, Jude, Revelation, and possibly Hebrew.

Are you satisfied with those Books or do you want use the power God invested in you to de-canonize any other Books of the Bible?

I have a question for you Nerfdahl. Do you believe that we are put on this earth by God? If your answer is yes do you believe that the purpose of a Christian is to glorify God? Or is there another purpose for our being?

Fat

 

[Foon Nerfdahl]

You don't appear interested in learning, Fat.......so I'll just leave you to sizzle.

 

[Fat]

You don't appear interested in learning, Fat.......so I'll just leave you to sizzle.

Foon Nerfdahl,

Oh I see up there in the corner the little donkey, you're a Democrat, that explains it. The government must take the place of God, and to do that we rewrite history even the Bible. Oh holly government please be our "safety net" let all men turn to you for all things.

Works through taxes Now that’s a biblical concept. Make the other guy help the poor.

OK I'll go sizzle some where.
Fat

 

[PastorFreud]

Foon Nerfdahl,

Oh I see up there in the corner the little donkey, you're a Democrat, that explains it. The government must take the place of God, and to do that we rewrite history even the Bible. Oh holly government please be our "safety net" let all men turn to you for all things.

Works through taxes Now that’s a biblical concept. Make the other guy help the poor.

OK I'll go sizzle some where.
Fat

As a Democrat, I think you have unfairly characterized us. Maybe you were just angry with Foon, but you don't have to display your arrogance and lack of understanding in such a way as to offend all of us. Or maybe you do? I don't know. I'm equally confused about whether you are interested in legitimate discussion. When Foon refused to attempt your questions, he looked like the irrational one. But then you responded in kind, so it's a bit fuzzier now.

 

[Foon Nerfdahl]

Come now, Doc.......his questions were impertinent and insolent. I doubt that refusing to entertain such hostility is irrational.......indeed, I think it profoundly wise to ignore such people.

It helps keep the peace.

 

[CaDan]

We could divert this thread into a discussion of Paul and Deutero-Paul.

But I'm a thousand miles from my library. All I have here in the desert is the new Crossan book on Paul and "A Myth of Innocence" by Burton Mack.

 

[Misty Minister]

Let us look at Paul objectively.

Paul's "gospel" is one of defeat. Paul says he tries and tries, but he just keeps on sinning (apparently constantly). Poor sap is obsessed with sin and sees it behind every bush......for himself and others. He thinks he's chained to a body of death. He has a thorn in his side, he says.

Thorn in his brain, maybe.

Paul's "gospel" is sort of pathetic.

Jesus, on the other hand, is exceedingly positive. He rather calmly tells people not to sin.

Paul would have a cat if he heard that one.

See the difference here?

Zacchaeus says, "I have given half of what I own to the poor and made amends to those I have cheated."

Jesus responds: "This man is going to heaven."

Jesus told the woman caught in adultery, "Go now and leave your life of sin."

Paul would get a severe cramp in the side on hearing that one.

Jesus said, "If the son sets you free (from sin, in context) then you shall be free indeed."

John wrote,
Paul, however, says..........
Paul is in direct opposition to Jesus and John (and everybody) on sin......and to make it worse--Paul invented a theology of Radical Grace to cover his bizarre stance on sin.

What Paul's writings do is encourage people to think they have no choice but to sin.......but hey.....Paul says that's ok because we have the Radical Grace theology to cover us.

Unfortunately, what Paul wrote is simply wrong.

Paul's words are not confusing.

They are wrong.

Very good Foon! Paul brought a gospel of Paul to the Gentiles that was so strange to Jews that they would not recognise it as being Jewish. Paul continued to work on his original commision to protect Jews from the true teachings of Jesus.

 

[Misty Minister]

And Foon, everything you have written takes Paul's words on their English meaning at face value. If you read it that way, even Jesus contradicts himself as well as lots of contradictions in the rest of the Bible.

Hi Freud,
So? We read and think in English.

 

[Misty Minister]

Foon Nerfdahl,

Oh I see up there in the corner the little donkey, you're a Democrat, that explains it. The government must take the place of God, and to do that we rewrite history even the Bible. Oh holly government please be our "safety net" let all men turn to you for all things.

Works through taxes Now that’s a biblical concept. Make the other guy help the poor.

OK I'll go sizzle some where.
Fat

Fat,
I took some bacon and put it in a frying pan so that spelled FAT. I watched it sizzle and this DEMOCRAT feels blessed.

 

[Misty Minister]

Foon Nerfdahl,

Oh I see up there in the corner the little donkey, you're a Democrat, that explains it. The government must take the place of God, and to do that we rewrite history even the Bible. Oh holly government please be our "safety net" let all men turn to you for all things.

Works through taxes Now that’s a biblical concept. Make the other guy help the poor.

OK I'll go sizzle some where.
Fat

Fat,
I took some bacon and put it in a frying pan so that spelled FAT. I watched it sizzle and this DEMOCRAT feels blessed.

 

[ahab]

Love It,

Ok that gets rid of Acts and Luke

So we're down to Matthew, Mark, John, 1 John, 2 John, 3 John, James, 1 Peter, 2 Peter, Jude, Revelation, and possibly Hebrew

.



And 2 Peter and 1 Peter because Peter testifies to Paul’s teaching and wisdom. Also Matthew and Mark are suspect as they are so similar to Luke’s being the synoptics.



That leaves John, 1 John, 2 John, 3 John, James, Jude, Revelation, and possibly Hebrew.



Actually Paul did not receive is teaching from any man (Gal 1) but from Jesus Himself. Peter testifies to this (Peter 3:15) Paul worked with many of the other apostles and disciples (Acts) Luke who wrote one of the gospels wrote about Paul and most would agree accompanied Paul at Times.

I dont like some of the things Jesus says in John, James and Revelation, so that leaves Jude and Hebrews.

 

[Mustaphile]

Paul's "gospel" is one of defeat. Paul says he tries and tries, but he just keeps on sinning (apparently constantly). Poor sap is obsessed with sin and sees it behind every bush......for himself and others. He thinks he's chained to a body of death. He has a thorn in his side, he says.

Paul's message is a message of hope. Faith, hope and love, to be precise. The three qualities that bring us out of despair.

 

[cweb255]

After doing some real research into Paul, it seems that the Pastorals (1st and 2nd Timothy and Titus), Ephesians, 2nd Thessalonians, and maybe Collossians aren't even written by Paul. There's half the work cut out already.

 

[ahab]

Hi CWebb255,



I don’t think one is assuming Paul necessarily wrote all of them anyway, he may have dictated to others to scribe portions, others who were traveling with him. Whilst the style of Galatians, probably his first, and Timothy, probably his last, are somewhat different, one must remember that Paul is in somewhat harsher conditions and somewhat more weary when he writes to Timothy, but who is likely to have written letters like those of Tim 1 and 2 to Timothy himself other than Paul? Similarly Titus.

Paul’s letters precede the Gospels, so too does Acts . The gospels are the written accounts of Jesus life and ministry that the church thought was needed, the church being that Paul, Peter and the apostles etc. had already set up. Acts onwards caused the gospels to be written.

 

[Foon Nerfdahl]

Where ARE you getting this information????

Although some OLD church traditions may agree with you, most modern scholarship has Luke and Acts written by the same person, and in chronological order, probably in the 80s C.E. or maybe even later. The Gospel of John is the only one written after that. Mark was probably written in the 60s C.E., as were many of the letters attributed to Paul, and Matthew in the 70s.

No doubt all of them were changed in many ways through the years so they would support currently popular doctrines.

There is no need for the dramatic talk of throwing things out. Certain writings are clearly more important than others and more reliable than others.

If you look to the spirit of the writings, the message always comes through loud and clear........love God and neighbor, care for the poor, live a life of justice and compassion and service--and reject greed, which is idolatry.

Things become difficult only for those trying to protect archaic, self-serving and negative traditions of the religious men of old. The rest of us have no problem.

 

[CaDan]

Paul’s letters precede the Gospels, so too does Acts . The gospels are the written accounts of Jesus life and ministry that the church thought was needed, the church being that Paul, Peter and the apostles etc. had already set up. Acts onwards caused the gospels to be written.

Hi there, Ahab!

Do you have a citation for anyone who argues that Acts precedes the Gospels? I've never seen that before.

 

[ahab]

Hi CaDan,

You are correct in that I can't recall anyone proposing Acts was written before the Gospel. I am in error in my statement. Thanks for correcting me.
Here is a link to some of the dating views..
http://www.errantskeptics.org/Dating_the_NT.htm
My main point was that much of the NT was written before the gospels and what Acts describes is the church that develops and causes the need for a written gospel. Paul being a focal point of that.

 

[Mustaphile]

Hi CaDan,

You are correct in that I can't recall anyone proposing Acts was written before the Gospel. I am in error in my statement. Thanks for correcting me.
Here is a link to some of the dating views..
http://www.errantskeptics.org/Dating_the_NT.htm
My main point was that much of the NT was written before the gospels and what Acts describes is the church that develops and causes the need for a written gospel. Paul being a focal point of that.

Doesn't the source you provided indicate that they could have been written at roughly the same time?

What point is made in determining the order?

 

[ahab]

They could have been written at the same time but there are reasons why most scholars believe various dates.
The point is that the writers are linked. Paul was as instrumental as Peter in the apostolic mission of the church in its beginnings. Strike out Paul and one strikes out the NT.

 

[Mustaphile]

They could have been written at the same time but there are reasons why most scholars believe various dates.
The point is that the writers are linked. Paul was as instrumental as Peter in the apostolic mission of the church in its beginnings. Strike out Paul and one strikes out the NT.

Ah ok. I have no interest in striking out Paul, so I guess there is nothing for me address.