How To Get To Heaven When You Die (2 Viewers)

[Ditkaless Wonders]

Insofar as I may be heard by anything, which may or may not care what I say, I ask, if it matters, that I be forgiven for anything I may have done or failed to do which requires forgiveness. Conversely, if not forgiveness but something else may be required to ensure any possible benefit for which I may be eligible after the destruction of my body, I ask that this, whatever it may be, be granted or withheld, as the case may be, in such a manner as to insure my receiving said benefit. I ask this for myself and that which may not be myself, but which may have an interest in the matter of my receiving as much as it is possible for me to receive of this thing, and which may in some way be influenced by this ceremony. Amen.

Stolen and paraphrased as best as I can remember from Roger Zelazny. Forgive any errors, it has been 40 years since I read it.

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

If I recall correctly Zelazny also had a "cover the options" sort of Lord's Prayer.

 

[timschochet]

I have a feeling that 5 members of the Supreme Court aren't getting in...

 

[joffer]

I have a feeling that 5 members of the Supreme Court aren't getting in...

if Scalia's in, I'm out.

 

[Zow]

Paddington's head explode today?

 

[matuski]

Paddington's head explode today?

Paddington is shtick.. kind of shoddy satire.

But he will do until we can get a crosseyed/golddigger type to come back.

 

[Zow]

I understand that. I was poking the shticky bear. We need some religious zealot flipping about the Supreme Court decision yesterday.

 

[Politician Spock]

Do you believe that the Bible is God's word?

I did for three decades, but not anymore.

 

[cstu]

http://youtu.be/6RT6rL2UroE

...but he loves you!

 

[Paddington]

Do you believe that the Bible is God's word?

I did for three decades, but not anymore.

What made you disbelieve?

 

[Politician Spock]

Do you believe that the Bible is God's word?

I did for three decades, but not anymore.

What made you disbelieve?

I went to seminary, and after two semesters realized the reason why Christians believe the Bible is God's word is ridiculous.

It would be like the Tea Party expelling all democrats, republicans, libertarians, etc... from congress, and then all of them being in full agreement that they recognize the writings of Ayn Rand are the inspired and inerrant word of God. Of course democrats, republicans, libertarians, et al, would disagree, but they're all heretics, so what do they know.

Fact is, it was two decades between Jesus' death before the first word of any of the New Testament books was even penned onto paper. The gospels weren't written until decades after that, at least two of which are clearly plagiarized, and this plagiarism isn't even denied by the church. They call the source being plagiarized as "Q". And the plagiarism is okay because God inspired the writers of these gospels to plagiarize Q. Yes, we are to believe the Bible is the Word of God because God inspires plagiarism.

Most scholars, even those within the church, recognize that at least three of the gospels, if not all four, were not written by anyone by the name given to the gospel. No one knows how they got named. And the chance that any writer of the gospels was an actual eye witness of the events they describe is incredibly unlikely. And worse yet, the best source we have of any of them is a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy. We do however know that things were added over the centuries. For example, the story in John where people were about to stone the adulterer and Jesus told them he without sin cast the first stone does not exist in many of the earliest copies we have of John, but first appears many centuries later. The ending of the book of Mark, same issue. Not in the earliest copies, but appeared later. There are many other examples of such evidence. Why would God inspire people to write his word if he didn't do anything to keep people from altering it as time progressed? It was nearly three hundred years before any "official" decision was made on what writings are biblical and which ones aren't. Yes it's true that these letters were being read by early church fathers such as Polycarp, Irenaeus, et al... but so were many other letters that claimed different beliefs and doctrines of Christ.

What is unclear, but incredibly important, is what happened to early church in Jerusalem. Christians are expected to just assume the church today is what it became, but there is not only evidence that it died off in the mid 2nd century due to Rome sacking Jerusalem and expelling the Jews in 70 AD in response to the great Jewish revolt, and the 135 AD revolt that expelled the Jews from all Judea, there is evidence that their teaching and doctrines were vastly different than what Paul taught. But because the church as we know it today is a result of much post-135 AD solidification, what the early church in Jerusalem actually believed was very likely deemed a heresy due to lack of support from the gentile believers, which means any writings of theirs were very likely destroyed per Constantine's decree after the Council of Nicea decided the cannon, and the war against heresy commenced with backing of the world's largest empire behind it. It's only now thanks to modern archeologists that we are uncovering their writings that the war on heresy didn't get to. These writings show that the early church in Jerusalem was very Jewish. It was as Jewish as Jesus. It was as Jewish as the 12 apostles. It was as Jewish the 70 disciples. It was a Jewish church that was set on returning Israel back to it's roots. The teachings of Paul are very different than what this church believed and taught, and there is much evidence that Paul and this early church disagreed a lot. Paul's letters even reveal this disagreement, but if you assume Paul and the early church were one in the same, the context doesn't come through. If you read Galatians from the context that the "other Gospel" is the gospel being taught by the Jerusalem church, Paul's letter to the Galatians make a lot more sense.

What I've written here just scratches the surface of what I learned before finally letting go. It took me over two years to let go of my "Christian" belief. I love Jesus. I consider myself to be a disciple of him. But I have concluded that Paul's writings are absolutely not the Word of God. The Gospels themselves were very likely written after Paul's death, by gentiles who prefered Paul's non-Jewish doctrine to the Jerusalem Church's Jewish doctrine of Jesus. They very likely plagiarized from a writing from the Jerusalem church, adding their own spin to make it Pauline, and then the source was destroyed post Constantine. Most scholars agree 2 Peter is a forgery, and not written by Peter. Some even claim 1 Peter is a forgery too. The one book in the Bible that appears closest to what the Jerusalem Church believed is the book of James. But even with that book our best source is a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy. To think we can trust anything from that time to be authentic, let alone the unaltered inerrant word of god is insane.

 

[cstu]

Great stuff, PS.

 

[Paddington]

[SIZE=12pt]THIS VIDEO WILL EXPLAIN HOW THE NEW TESTIMENT OF THE BIBLE WAS CANONIZED (CAME TO BE):[/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]WHOLE VIDEO:

http://www.godtube.com/watch/?v=D76LD7NXhttp://www.tangle.com/view_video?viewkey=8adaf8fda7c348271151 [/SIZE]

 

[Todd Andrews]

Do you believe that the Bible is God's word?

I did for three decades, but not anymore.

What made you disbelieve?

I went to seminary, and after two semesters realized the reason why Christians believe the Bible is God's word is ridiculous.

It would be like the Tea Party expelling all democrats, republicans, libertarians, etc... from congress, and then all of them being in full agreement that they recognize the writings of Ayn Rand are the inspired and inerrant word of God. Of course democrats, republicans, libertarians, et al, would disagree, but they're all heretics, so what do they know.

Fact is, it was two decades between Jesus' death before the first word of any of the New Testament books was even penned onto paper. The gospels weren't written until decades after that, at least two of which are clearly plagiarized, and this plagiarism isn't even denied by the church. They call the source being plagiarized as "Q". And the plagiarism is okay because God inspired the writers of these gospels to plagiarize Q. Yes, we are to believe the Bible is the Word of God because God inspires plagiarism.

Most scholars, even those within the church, recognize that at least three of the gospels, if not all four, were not written by anyone by the name given to the gospel. No one knows how they got named. And the chance that any writer of the gospels was an actual eye witness of the events they describe is incredibly unlikely. And worse yet, the best source we have of any of them is a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy. We do however know that things were added over the centuries. For example, the story in John where people were about to stone the adulterer and Jesus told them he without sin cast the first stone does not exist in many of the earliest copies we have of John, but first appears many centuries later. The ending of the book of Mark, same issue. Not in the earliest copies, but appeared later. There are many other examples of such evidence. Why would God inspire people to write his word if he didn't do anything to keep people from altering it as time progressed? It was nearly three hundred years before any "official" decision was made on what writings are biblical and which ones aren't. Yes it's true that these letters were being read by early church fathers such as Polycarp, Irenaeus, et al... but so were many other letters that claimed different beliefs and doctrines of Christ.

What is unclear, but incredibly important, is what happened to early church in Jerusalem. Christians are expected to just assume the church today is what it became, but there is not only evidence that it died off in the mid 2nd century due to Rome sacking Jerusalem and expelling the Jews in 70 AD in response to the great Jewish revolt, and the 135 AD revolt that expelled the Jews from all Judea, there is evidence that their teaching and doctrines were vastly different than what Paul taught. But because the church as we know it today is a result of much post-135 AD solidification, what the early church in Jerusalem actually believed was very likely deemed a heresy due to lack of support from the gentile believers, which means any writings of theirs were very likely destroyed per Constantine's decree after the Council of Nicea decided the cannon, and the war against heresy commenced with backing of the world's largest empire behind it. It's only now thanks to modern archeologists that we are uncovering their writings that the war on heresy didn't get to. These writings show that the early church in Jerusalem was very Jewish. It was as Jewish as Jesus. It was as Jewish as the 12 apostles. It was as Jewish the 70 disciples. It was a Jewish church that was set on returning Israel back to it's roots. The teachings of Paul are very different than what this church believed and taught, and there is much evidence that Paul and this early church disagreed a lot. Paul's letters even reveal this disagreement, but if you assume Paul and the early church were one in the same, the context doesn't come through. If you read Galatians from the context that the "other Gospel" is the gospel being taught by the Jerusalem church, Paul's letter to the Galatians make a lot more sense.

What I've written here just scratches the surface of what I learned before finally letting go. It took me over two years to let go of my "Christian" belief. I love Jesus. I consider myself to be a disciple of him. But I have concluded that Paul's writings are absolutely not the Word of God. The Gospels themselves were very likely written after Paul's death, by gentiles who prefered Paul's non-Jewish doctrine to the Jerusalem Church's Jewish doctrine of Jesus. They very likely plagiarized from a writing from the Jerusalem church, adding their own spin to make it Pauline, and then the source was destroyed post Constantine. Most scholars agree 2 Peter is a forgery, and not written by Peter. Some even claim 1 Peter is a forgery too. The one book in the Bible that appears closest to what the Jerusalem Church believed is the book of James. But even with that book our best source is a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy. To think we can trust anything from that time to be authentic, let alone the unaltered inerrant word of god is insane.

Preach it, brother.

Acts not faith. Follow Jesus not Paul.

 

[TheAristocrat]

Do you believe that the Bible is God's word?

I did for three decades, but not anymore.

What made you disbelieve?

I went to seminary, and after two semesters realized the reason why Christians believe the Bible is God's word is ridiculous.

It would be like the Tea Party expelling all democrats, republicans, libertarians, etc... from congress, and then all of them being in full agreement that they recognize the writings of Ayn Rand are the inspired and inerrant word of God. Of course democrats, republicans, libertarians, et al, would disagree, but they're all heretics, so what do they know.

Fact is, it was two decades between Jesus' death before the first word of any of the New Testament books was even penned onto paper. The gospels weren't written until decades after that, at least two of which are clearly plagiarized, and this plagiarism isn't even denied by the church. They call the source being plagiarized as "Q". And the plagiarism is okay because God inspired the writers of these gospels to plagiarize Q. Yes, we are to believe the Bible is the Word of God because God inspires plagiarism.

Most scholars, even those within the church, recognize that at least three of the gospels, if not all four, were not written by anyone by the name given to the gospel. No one knows how they got named. And the chance that any writer of the gospels was an actual eye witness of the events they describe is incredibly unlikely. And worse yet, the best source we have of any of them is a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy. We do however know that things were added over the centuries. For example, the story in John where people were about to stone the adulterer and Jesus told them he without sin cast the first stone does not exist in many of the earliest copies we have of John, but first appears many centuries later. The ending of the book of Mark, same issue. Not in the earliest copies, but appeared later. There are many other examples of such evidence. Why would God inspire people to write his word if he didn't do anything to keep people from altering it as time progressed? It was nearly three hundred years before any "official" decision was made on what writings are biblical and which ones aren't. Yes it's true that these letters were being read by early church fathers such as Polycarp, Irenaeus, et al... but so were many other letters that claimed different beliefs and doctrines of Christ.

What is unclear, but incredibly important, is what happened to early church in Jerusalem. Christians are expected to just assume the church today is what it became, but there is not only evidence that it died off in the mid 2nd century due to Rome sacking Jerusalem and expelling the Jews in 70 AD in response to the great Jewish revolt, and the 135 AD revolt that expelled the Jews from all Judea, there is evidence that their teaching and doctrines were vastly different than what Paul taught. But because the church as we know it today is a result of much post-135 AD solidification, what the early church in Jerusalem actually believed was very likely deemed a heresy due to lack of support from the gentile believers, which means any writings of theirs were very likely destroyed per Constantine's decree after the Council of Nicea decided the cannon, and the war against heresy commenced with backing of the world's largest empire behind it. It's only now thanks to modern archeologists that we are uncovering their writings that the war on heresy didn't get to. These writings show that the early church in Jerusalem was very Jewish. It was as Jewish as Jesus. It was as Jewish as the 12 apostles. It was as Jewish the 70 disciples. It was a Jewish church that was set on returning Israel back to it's roots. The teachings of Paul are very different than what this church believed and taught, and there is much evidence that Paul and this early church disagreed a lot. Paul's letters even reveal this disagreement, but if you assume Paul and the early church were one in the same, the context doesn't come through. If you read Galatians from the context that the "other Gospel" is the gospel being taught by the Jerusalem church, Paul's letter to the Galatians make a lot more sense.

What I've written here just scratches the surface of what I learned before finally letting go. It took me over two years to let go of my "Christian" belief. I love Jesus. I consider myself to be a disciple of him. But I have concluded that Paul's writings are absolutely not the Word of God. The Gospels themselves were very likely written after Paul's death, by gentiles who prefered Paul's non-Jewish doctrine to the Jerusalem Church's Jewish doctrine of Jesus. They very likely plagiarized from a writing from the Jerusalem church, adding their own spin to make it Pauline, and then the source was destroyed post Constantine. Most scholars agree 2 Peter is a forgery, and not written by Peter. Some even claim 1 Peter is a forgery too. The one book in the Bible that appears closest to what the Jerusalem Church believed is the book of James. But even with that book our best source is a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy. To think we can trust anything from that time to be authentic, let alone the unaltered inerrant word of god is insane.

I took a class in high school called Honors Biblical Exegesis and remember coming to terms with stories written, edited, and re-purposed by common men and began the slow rejection of my upbringing.

It was a very difficult course and I loved it.

 

[Mister CIA]

[SIZE=12pt]THIS VIDEO WILL EXPLAIN HOW THE NEW TESTIMENT OF THE BIBLE WAS CANONIZED (CAME TO BE):[/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]WHOLE VIDEO:[/SIZE]

http://www.godtube.com/watch/?v=D76LD7NX

Way to shrivel up, Shrinky Dink.

 

[Politician Spock]

THIS VIDEO WILL EXPLAIN HOW THE NEW TESTIMENT OF THE BIBLE WAS CANONIZED (CAME TO BE):

WHOLE VIDEO:

http://www.godtube.com/watch/?v=D76LD7NX

God gave you a book. God gave me a brain. I'm pretty sure I got the better deal.

 

[Scoresman]

godtube

 

[Politician Spock]

Jesus did NOT believe in the inerrancy of scripture!

The doctrine of the inerrancy of the Bible is based upon the Bible defining its own inerrancy. While that itself is a logical fallacy, and should be rejected on that basis alone, it is possible to show using only the Bible alone that the Bible is NOT inerrant.

Let's start with the most popular Bible verse used to show Biblical inerrancy, 2 Timothy 3:16, where Paul says:

All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,

If this verse is true, then that's a huge piece of evidence supporting Bible inerrancy. And if the Bible is inerrant, then obviously this verse is true. But how can we now this verse is true if Biblical inerrancy hasn't been established yet? We can't. But we can know that it's false. Jesus tells us it is in Matthew 19:3-9:

And Pharisees came up to him and tested him by asking, “Is it lawful to divorce one's wife for any cause?” He answered, “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.” They said to him, “Why then did Moses command one to give a certificate of divorce and to send her away?” He said to them, “Because of your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery.”

Paul taught in 2 Timothy that ALL scripture is breathed out by God... but Jesus taught that the scripture Moses wrote allowing a man "to give a certificate of divorce and to send her away" was breathed out of the hardness of heart of men. Paul taught that ALL scripture is "profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness"... but Jesus taught that the scripture Moses wrote is unprofitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, as except in certain situations leads to adultery.

Paul was wrong. His verse is false. Scripture is not inerrant according to Jesus.

In fact this is one of many places where Jesus and Paul disagree. In addition to doctrines that disagree, Paul taught many doctrines that Jesus never taught at all, and the times that Paul even mentions a doctrine Jesus taught in all his letters can be counted on your fingers.

Can we even trust Paul at all is a question every Christian should answer, but few to none are even willing to ask themselves and honestly consider it. But consider this, in Revelation 2:1-2: the Church in Ephesus is recognized for having identified false apostles:

“To the angel of the church in Ephesus write: ‘The words of him who holds the seven stars in his right hand, who walks among the seven golden lampstands. I know your works, your toil and your patient endurance, and how you cannot bear with those who are evil, but have tested those who call themselves apostles and are not, and found them to be false.

When one studies who those false apostles were, they evidence in the Bible overwhelmingly points to Paul and those he worked with. In his letters he refers to a dozen or so other people he worked with as apostles that were not the 12 Apostles of Christ. I'm not going to list all the Bible verses that show evidence that Paul and his associates are the false apostles Ephesus tested and found to be false. But Paul's own words are evidence that Ephesus found him to be a false apostle. Ephesus is in Asia. It was sometimes referred to as "the province in Asia". The same letter by Paul that is used to establish the Bible (and more importantly all his letters) as inerrant is also the letter that identifies himself as one of the false apostles Ephesus found. 2 Timothy 1:15:

You are aware that all who are in Asia turned away from me, among whom are Phygelus and Hermogenes.

When you allow for the possibility that Paul may have in fact been the false apostle identified by the Church in Ephesus, a ton of evidence for it in the Bible reveals itself. But if you are not open minded to this possibility, your mind naturally ignores that evidence. I on the other hand cannot look at Paul like I did for decades ever again. He taught different doctrine than Jesus taught during his 3 year ministry. In fact Paul even admits that the gospel he taught did not come from men who heard Jesus teach. Paul said the gospel he teaches came from his revelations of Jesus. Galatians 1:11-12:

For I would have you know, brothers, that the gospel that was preached by me is not man's gospel. For I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ.

When you begin to see that Paul's gospel and the 12 Apostles' gospel were not the same gospel, the truth begins to reveal itself. IF you continue to assume that Paul and the 12 Apostles were teaching the same gospel, then you'll continue practicing this religion Paul created about Jesus, instead of actually practicing what Jesus taught.

Christians are consumed in their focus on who Jesus was when he was born and what he did when he died. What he actually taught for 3 years to the 12 is a "oh yeah, that too" part of their religion. This is because of Paul. Let go of Paul, and there's really no other choice but to focus on what Jesus taught, which is kind of hard given all the writings that were not interpolated, plagiarized and forged to support the Pauline doctrine were destroyed thanks to Rome and Constantine in the 4th century. So were left to focus on what Jesus taught through the writings of those who believed Paul's doctrine.

 

[Jayrok]

I remember not too long ago on this board arguing with Politician Spock (and a few others) over some of these same things he is posting today. Quite a turnaround for you since you attended Seminary, PSpock. Christians get so hung up on inerrancy and, imo, miss the greater point of scripture.

A good read on Paul that you might be interested in:

The Fabricated Paul by German NT scholar Hermann Detering. It can be borrowed for free if you are an Amazon Prime member.

Detering makes a compelling argument regarding how Paul's theology of grace against the law came to be and how his letters were used/redacted by competing Christian sects. He demonstrates the glaring differences of the Paul we see in Acts vs the Paul of the epistles.

 

[Politician Spock]

I remember not too long ago on this board arguing with Politician Spock (and a few others) over some of these same things he is posting today. Quite a turnaround for you since you attended Seminary, PSpock. Christians get so hung up on inerrancy and, imo, miss the greater point of scripture.

A good read on Paul that you might be interested in:

The Fabricated Paul by German NT scholar Hermann Detering. It can be borrowed for free if you are an Amazon Prime member.

Detering makes a compelling argument regarding how Paul's theology of grace against the law came to be and how his letters were used/redacted by competing Christian sects. He demonstrates the glaring differences of the Paul we see in Acts vs the Paul of the epistles.

Yes, I know full well what goes on in the head of a Christian who does not want to let go of Pauline doctrine. It is a life changing decision. Family and friends now look down on me. And while they don't directly call me a heretic, their eyes of heresy are impossible to ignore. It very much is just like waking up from a cult and having to walk away from all of it, but in this case it means pretty much walking away from your entire life.

I'm fortunate that my wife seems okay with it. I know she's not sure what to think. She can't deny that what I've learned is true, but she's nowhere near ready and willing to take a stand and be rejected by our world like I have been.

I don't regret it at all. If the cult was harmless, then I wouldn't have any reason to take a stand. But Christianity is anything but harmless. Slavery, women's suffrage, anti-semitism, etc, etc... have all used Paul's doctrines to support their social injustices. The hatred of gays is only the latest of Christian crimes against humanity, and non of it was actually taught by Jesus. It's all from Paul.

 

[Jayrok]

I remember not too long ago on this board arguing with Politician Spock (and a few others) over some of these same things he is posting today. Quite a turnaround for you since you attended Seminary, PSpock. Christians get so hung up on inerrancy and, imo, miss the greater point of scripture.

A good read on Paul that you might be interested in:

The Fabricated Paul by German NT scholar Hermann Detering. It can be borrowed for free if you are an Amazon Prime member.

Detering makes a compelling argument regarding how Paul's theology of grace against the law came to be and how his letters were used/redacted by competing Christian sects. He demonstrates the glaring differences of the Paul we see in Acts vs the Paul of the epistles.

Yes, I know full well what goes on in the head of a Christian who does not want to let go of Pauline doctrine. It is a life changing decision. Family and friends now look down on me. And while they don't directly call me a heretic, their eyes of heresy are impossible to ignore. It very much is just like waking up from a cult and having to walk away from all of it, but in this case it means pretty much walking away from your entire life.

I'm fortunate that my wife seems okay with it. I know she's not sure what to think. She can't deny that what I've learned is true, but she's nowhere near ready and willing to take a stand and be rejected by our world like I have been.

I don't regret it at all. If the cult was harmless, then I wouldn't have any reason to take a stand. But Christianity is anything but harmless. Slavery, women's suffrage, anti-semitism, etc, etc... have all used Paul's doctrines to support their social injustices. The hatred of gays is only the latest of Christian crimes against humanity, and non of it was actually taught by Jesus. It's all from Paul.

I understand the feeling with family and friends looking at you like you're some kind of heretic. My wife isn't ok with it but as time goes on it doesn't affect our relationship. I attend church with her every week and we don't really talk about things of this nature. In a nutshell, she doesn't want to hear it. We did stop going to the adult Sunday school class though. She got tired of popping me on the leg during the discussion.

 

[Paddington]

I remember not too long ago on this board arguing with Politician Spock (and a few others) over some of these same things he is posting today. Quite a turnaround for you since you attended Seminary, PSpock. Christians get so hung up on inerrancy and, imo, miss the greater point of scripture.

A good read on Paul that you might be interested in:

The Fabricated Paul by German NT scholar Hermann Detering. It can be borrowed for free if you are an Amazon Prime member.

Detering makes a compelling argument regarding how Paul's theology of grace against the law came to be and how his letters were used/redacted by competing Christian sects. He demonstrates the glaring differences of the Paul we see in Acts vs the Paul of the epistles.

Yes, I know full well what goes on in the head of a Christian who does not want to let go of Pauline doctrine. It is a life changing decision. Family and friends now look down on me. And while they don't directly call me a heretic, their eyes of heresy are impossible to ignore. It very much is just like waking up from a cult and having to walk away from all of it, but in this case it means pretty much walking away from your entire life.

I'm fortunate that my wife seems okay with it. I know she's not sure what to think. She can't deny that what I've learned is true, but she's nowhere near ready and willing to take a stand and be rejected by our world like I have been.

I don't regret it at all. If the cult was harmless, then I wouldn't have any reason to take a stand. But Christianity is anything but harmless. Slavery, women's suffrage, anti-semitism, etc, etc... have all used Paul's doctrines to support their social injustices. The hatred of gays is only the latest of Christian crimes against humanity, and non of it was actually taught by Jesus. It's all from Paul.

Why would any Christian commit such heresy? Paul is the Apostle of the Gentiles. The other Books were written to the Jews under the Law and the Gospel of the Kingdom. Even Peter affirmed Paul's writings.

 

[cstu]

eyes of heresy

Love that band.

 

[cstu]

All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable

Indeed.

 

[Zow]

Homie you can't even spell "testament" correctly.

Although maybe you did and I just had too much of Jesus's "water".

 

[cstu]

Homie you can't even spell "testament" correctly.

Although maybe you did and I just had too much of Jesus's "water".

Gotta stay in character.

 

[Politician Spock]

I remember not too long ago on this board arguing with Politician Spock (and a few others) over some of these same things he is posting today. Quite a turnaround for you since you attended Seminary, PSpock. Christians get so hung up on inerrancy and, imo, miss the greater point of scripture.

A good read on Paul that you might be interested in:

The Fabricated Paul by German NT scholar Hermann Detering. It can be borrowed for free if you are an Amazon Prime member.

Detering makes a compelling argument regarding how Paul's theology of grace against the law came to be and how his letters were used/redacted by competing Christian sects. He demonstrates the glaring differences of the Paul we see in Acts vs the Paul of the epistles.

Yes, I know full well what goes on in the head of a Christian who does not want to let go of Pauline doctrine. It is a life changing decision. Family and friends now look down on me. And while they don't directly call me a heretic, their eyes of heresy are impossible to ignore. It very much is just like waking up from a cult and having to walk away from all of it, but in this case it means pretty much walking away from your entire life.

I'm fortunate that my wife seems okay with it. I know she's not sure what to think. She can't deny that what I've learned is true, but she's nowhere near ready and willing to take a stand and be rejected by our world like I have been.

I don't regret it at all. If the cult was harmless, then I wouldn't have any reason to take a stand. But Christianity is anything but harmless. Slavery, women's suffrage, anti-semitism, etc, etc... have all used Paul's doctrines to support their social injustices. The hatred of gays is only the latest of Christian crimes against humanity, and non of it was actually taught by Jesus. It's all from Paul.

Why would any Christian commit such heresy? Paul is the Apostle of the Gentiles. The other Books were written to the Jews under the Law and the Gospel of the Kingdom. Even Peter affirmed Paul's writings.

The truth is heretical in the eyes of orthodox Christianity. As such, I am no longer a Christian, as the truth is more important to me than conforming to the religious cult that I built my life around for three decades.

Paul is a false apostle, recognized by the Church in Ephesus (Revelation 2:1-2) and all the churches in Asia that Revelation was written to (Revelation 1:4 & 2 Timothy 1:15). There are 12 apostles. No more (Revelation 21:14).

The authenticity of Peter being the real author of 2 Peter was not only questioned back in the fourth century when the cannon was being decided, today it's readily accepted by modern scholars to be a forgery.

If you really want to know what Jesus taught, ignore Paul. He doesn't even need to be rejected. Just ignore him, and see what God reveals to you.

 

[Paddington]

[SIZE=10pt]Story of Angel and Cousin Sarah[/SIZE]

[SIZE=8.5pt]Several years ago, My cousin was playing with a lighter in his bedroom. He caught a newspaper or comic book or something on fire and threw it on his bed. There were several people sleeping there. The whole house went up in flames. Everyone got out except for my 3 year old cousin sarah. They had written her off as dead. The whole house was in flames and filled with smoke. An off duty fireman happened to be driving by and saw the smoke. He stopped to help. He looked into the bedroom window and saw her sitting under the window with her hands on her head. He pulled her out and she was burned and has some scars to this day. He asked her how she knew to come over to that window and sit on the ground. She said that the man in the fire told her "Don't be afraid, to go over to the window sit down and put your hands over your head and face". Years later, she recounted her story with me. She said that the man had no face, light shining from it, he was 3 feet tall and dressed in white. He was floating in the corner of the room. My Grandparents were deeply committed Christians. Often times my Grandmother would be up all night, having trouble sleeping, praying for the safety of the family. At the same exact time that the fire was going on, my grandmother was several miles away sleeping in her bed. She heard a voice that told her "There's been a fire, Liz and the kids got out ok". A few minutes later, my Grandfather got the call on the phone "There's been a fire, liz and the kids got out ok" He tried to tell her what they said, but she already knew. The reason that God Spoke to her, I believe, is because it was HER prayer that the Lord was answering. Otherwise, my cousin would have died in the fire.[/SIZE]

 

[joffer]

cool story bro

http://www.unicef.org/media/media_27680.html

 

[Politician Spock]

I remember not too long ago on this board arguing with Politician Spock (and a few others) over some of these same things he is posting today. Quite a turnaround for you since you attended Seminary, PSpock. Christians get so hung up on inerrancy and, imo, miss the greater point of scripture.

A good read on Paul that you might be interested in:

The Fabricated Paul by German NT scholar Hermann Detering. It can be borrowed for free if you are an Amazon Prime member.

Detering makes a compelling argument regarding how Paul's theology of grace against the law came to be and how his letters were used/redacted by competing Christian sects. He demonstrates the glaring differences of the Paul we see in Acts vs the Paul of the epistles.

Yes, I know full well what goes on in the head of a Christian who does not want to let go of Pauline doctrine. It is a life changing decision. Family and friends now look down on me. And while they don't directly call me a heretic, their eyes of heresy are impossible to ignore. It very much is just like waking up from a cult and having to walk away from all of it, but in this case it means pretty much walking away from your entire life.

I'm fortunate that my wife seems okay with it. I know she's not sure what to think. She can't deny that what I've learned is true, but she's nowhere near ready and willing to take a stand and be rejected by our world like I have been.

I don't regret it at all. If the cult was harmless, then I wouldn't have any reason to take a stand. But Christianity is anything but harmless. Slavery, women's suffrage, anti-semitism, etc, etc... have all used Paul's doctrines to support their social injustices. The hatred of gays is only the latest of Christian crimes against humanity, and non of it was actually taught by Jesus. It's all from Paul.

Why would any Christian commit such heresy? Paul is the Apostle of the Gentiles. The other Books were written to the Jews under the Law and the Gospel of the Kingdom. Even Peter affirmed Paul's writings.

The truth is heretical in the eyes of orthodox Christianity. As such, I am no longer a Christian, as the truth is more important to me than conforming to the religious cult that I built my life around for three decades.

Paul is a false apostle, recognized by the Church in Ephesus (Revelation 2:1-2) and all the churches in Asia that Revelation was written to (Revelation 1:4 & 2 Timothy 1:15). There are 12 apostles. No more (Revelation 21:14).

The authenticity of Peter being the real author of 2 Peter was not only questioned back in the fourth century when the cannon was being decided, today it's readily accepted by modern scholars to be a forgery.

If you really want to know what Jesus taught, ignore Paul. He doesn't even need to be rejected. Just ignore him, and see what God reveals to you.

Are there any parts of the Christian religion you still hold to, even though you don't identify as a Christian?

I consider myself a disciple of Jesus. His teachings are incredible, and I want to live my life that way. I believe he was the Messiah, although the Christian definition of Messiah is far different than it was 2000 years ago. By Messiah, I believe Jesus was anointed as the next King of Israel, the one who would end the gentile occupation of the Holy Land, return all twelve tribes to it, and make the nation of Israel the admiration of all nations. Those who believed in Jesus believed he was the next king of Israel (it was not belief that he was god). When Jesus was killed, his brother James inherited the right to the thrown of Israel, which is why James assumed the leadership of the early Jerusalem church. When there was no more nation in 135 AD, those who believed in this naturally died off.

I do not believe Paul's definition of Messiah (which is what nearly all Christians believe), which is that he is the king of all kings, the savior of the entire world, and who Jesus was when he was born and what he did when he died are the "keys" of belief in Jesus. This line of thinking of Paul is not only NOT what the early Jerusalem church believed, it set off a ridiculous amount of debate about who exactly he was when he was born, and what exactly he did when he died, in addition to many other ridiculous debates about what Paul wrote and what doctrine it produces. This is why there are literally hundreds of different Christian doctrines all resulting from different interpretations of Paul. None of them are right, because they are all based on Paul being wrong.

I believe that with nearly 200 years between the end of Jews living in Judea in 135 AD and the council of Nicea in 325 AD, that the writings of those who believed in the Jewish Christianity of the early Jerusalem church not only significantly slowed down and ceased, but their existing writings were interpolated, plagiarized, and in some cases their names were used to create forgeries (e.g. 2 Peter), all while the writings of those who believed in Paul's gentile Christianity increased, and they as well interpolated, plagiarized and even forged. Modern scholars believe at least six of Paul's letters were not written by the same person, and some letters even have more than one author, and look to be different letters pieced together into one.

Given this, I desire to learn more and more about what Jesus taught. But given how history unfolded, it's hard to really know exactly what Jesus taught because the writings we have today are not trustworthy. So the best that can be done is find commonalities of what Jesus taught, not only from letters that are part of the Bible, but also from writings that believers in Paul's gentile Christianity rejected, likely because they reflected the Jewish Christianity of the early Jerusalem church that had been scattered post 135 AD, and deemed a heresy, which resulted in nearly all of it being destroyed after Rome adopted Paul's gentile Christianity as the official religion.

 

[Zow]

So why are those tribes so special? Just b/c God chose them? If so, that kind of makes him an #######.

 

[Todd Andrews]

I remember not too long ago on this board arguing with Politician Spock (and a few others) over some of these same things he is posting today. Quite a turnaround for you since you attended Seminary, PSpock. Christians get so hung up on inerrancy and, imo, miss the greater point of scripture.

A good read on Paul that you might be interested in:

The Fabricated Paul by German NT scholar Hermann Detering. It can be borrowed for free if you are an Amazon Prime member.

Detering makes a compelling argument regarding how Paul's theology of grace against the law came to be and how his letters were used/redacted by competing Christian sects. He demonstrates the glaring differences of the Paul we see in Acts vs the Paul of the epistles.

Yes, I know full well what goes on in the head of a Christian who does not want to let go of Pauline doctrine. It is a life changing decision. Family and friends now look down on me. And while they don't directly call me a heretic, their eyes of heresy are impossible to ignore. It very much is just like waking up from a cult and having to walk away from all of it, but in this case it means pretty much walking away from your entire life.

I'm fortunate that my wife seems okay with it. I know she's not sure what to think. She can't deny that what I've learned is true, but she's nowhere near ready and willing to take a stand and be rejected by our world like I have been.

I don't regret it at all. If the cult was harmless, then I wouldn't have any reason to take a stand. But Christianity is anything but harmless. Slavery, women's suffrage, anti-semitism, etc, etc... have all used Paul's doctrines to support their social injustices. The hatred of gays is only the latest of Christian crimes against humanity, and non of it was actually taught by Jesus. It's all from Paul.

Why would any Christian commit such heresy? Paul is the Apostle of the Gentiles. The other Books were written to the Jews under the Law and the Gospel of the Kingdom. Even Peter affirmed Paul's writings.

The truth is heretical in the eyes of orthodox Christianity. As such, I am no longer a Christian, as the truth is more important to me than conforming to the religious cult that I built my life around for three decades.

Paul is a false apostle, recognized by the Church in Ephesus (Revelation 2:1-2) and all the churches in Asia that Revelation was written to (Revelation 1:4 & 2 Timothy 1:15). There are 12 apostles. No more (Revelation 21:14).

The authenticity of Peter being the real author of 2 Peter was not only questioned back in the fourth century when the cannon was being decided, today it's readily accepted by modern scholars to be a forgery.

If you really want to know what Jesus taught, ignore Paul. He doesn't even need to be rejected. Just ignore him, and see what God reveals to you.

Are there any parts of the Christian religion you still hold to, even though you don't identify as a Christian?

I consider myself a disciple of Jesus. His teachings are incredible, and I want to live my life that way. I believe he was the Messiah, although the Christian definition of Messiah is far different than it was 2000 years ago. By Messiah, I believe Jesus was anointed as the next King of Israel, the one who would end the gentile occupation of the Holy Land, return all twelve tribes to it, and make the nation of Israel the admiration of all nations. Those who believed in Jesus believed he was the next king of Israel (it was not belief that he was god). When Jesus was killed, his brother James inherited the right to the thrown of Israel, which is why James assumed the leadership of the early Jerusalem church. When there was no more nation in 135 AD, those who believed in this naturally died off.

I do not believe Paul's definition of Messiah (which is what nearly all Christians believe), which is that he is the king of all kings, the savior of the entire world, and who Jesus was when he was born and what he did when he died are the "keys" of belief in Jesus. This line of thinking of Paul is not only NOT what the early Jerusalem church believed, it set off a ridiculous amount of debate about who exactly he was when he was born, and what exactly he did when he died, in addition to many other ridiculous debates about what Paul wrote and what doctrine it produces. This is why there are literally hundreds of different Christian doctrines all resulting from different interpretations of Paul. None of them are right, because they are all based on Paul being wrong.

I believe that with nearly 200 years between the end of Jews living in Judea in 135 AD and the council of Nicea in 325 AD, that the writings of those who believed in the Jewish Christianity of the early Jerusalem church not only significantly slowed down and ceased, but their existing writings were interpolated, plagiarized, and in some cases their names were used to create forgeries (e.g. 2 Peter), all while the writings of those who believed in Paul's gentile Christianity increased, and they as well interpolated, plagiarized and even forged. Modern scholars believe at least six of Paul's letters were not written by the same person, and some letters even have more than one author, and look to be different letters pieced together into one.

Given this, I desire to learn more and more about what Jesus taught. But given how history unfolded, it's hard to really know exactly what Jesus taught because the writings we have today are not trustworthy. So the best that can be done is find commonalities of what Jesus taught, not only from letters that are part of the Bible, but also from writings that believers in Paul's gentile Christianity rejected, likely because they reflected the Jewish Christianity of the early Jerusalem church that had been scattered post 135 AD, and deemed a heresy, which resulted in nearly all of it being destroyed after Rome adopted Paul's gentile Christianity as the official religion.

Nice job giving up Christian polytheism.

Jesus the Hercules/Mithras-style demigod is so primitive.

 

[Jayrok]

Christians get so hung up on inerrancy and, imo, miss the greater point of scripture.

I agree with you that inerrancy is silly, but I'm curious to hear what you think the greater point of scripture is

That the Bible is not a book that a person can read from front to back in an attempt to gain understanding of a story someone is telling. It is a library that spans many years across the many understandings of various writers interested in sharing their points of view to an audience that makes up their own communities.

Of the gospels, I believe Mark was written first and it was not his intent to pen a historical biography of the life of Jesus of Nazareth. I believe this sets the tone for the rest of the gospels and Acts. Marks shows that the disciples were dull and really didn't grasp what "Christ" actually was or meant. Jesus is found/foretold in the Hebrew scriptures and the disciples (and the nation of Israel) didn't understand his role/mission. Matthew comes along and has a slightly different point to make. He corrects some of the 'mistakes' that he feels Mark made here and there. Ditto Luke. By the time John's gospel is written, the nature of Jesus has changed (at least in the author's eyes). He is now God himself in the flesh. His point is different yet again from Mark and the others.

Trying to harmonize events from these different gospels often causes, imo, readers to miss the point each writer is making with his version of who Christ really is. It's a library of stories and teachings of Christ told from different points of view. Inerrancy is counter-productive because the apologist is more concerned with showing how 100% of the details of a story match perfectly with the same details of another story in the gospels than he is with the actual understanding of the story itself.

So what's the greater point of scripture? To me it is the telling of the good news of the kingdom of God and the offer of salvation. It is a direct reflection of why there were so many varying sects of believers. Different points of view. Is every story true? of course not. If it has to all be historically accurate and true then you might as well believe it is inerrant as well.

I believe Paul had a different view of Jesus, certainly, than say, Matthew, or the book of James. But I feel that it is all beneficial and the sum of the Bible is greater than its individual parts.

 

[shader]

I remember not too long ago on this board arguing with Politician Spock (and a few others) over some of these same things he is posting today. Quite a turnaround for you since you attended Seminary, PSpock. Christians get so hung up on inerrancy and, imo, miss the greater point of scripture.

A good read on Paul that you might be interested in:

The Fabricated Paul by German NT scholar Hermann Detering. It can be borrowed for free if you are an Amazon Prime member.

Detering makes a compelling argument regarding how Paul's theology of grace against the law came to be and how his letters were used/redacted by competing Christian sects. He demonstrates the glaring differences of the Paul we see in Acts vs the Paul of the epistles.

Yes, I know full well what goes on in the head of a Christian who does not want to let go of Pauline doctrine. It is a life changing decision. Family and friends now look down on me. And while they don't directly call me a heretic, their eyes of heresy are impossible to ignore. It very much is just like waking up from a cult and having to walk away from all of it, but in this case it means pretty much walking away from your entire life.

I'm fortunate that my wife seems okay with it. I know she's not sure what to think. She can't deny that what I've learned is true, but she's nowhere near ready and willing to take a stand and be rejected by our world like I have been.

I don't regret it at all. If the cult was harmless, then I wouldn't have any reason to take a stand. But Christianity is anything but harmless. Slavery, women's suffrage, anti-semitism, etc, etc... have all used Paul's doctrines to support their social injustices. The hatred of gays is only the latest of Christian crimes against humanity, and non of it was actually taught by Jesus. It's all from Paul.

Why would any Christian commit such heresy? Paul is the Apostle of the Gentiles. The other Books were written to the Jews under the Law and the Gospel of the Kingdom. Even Peter affirmed Paul's writings.

The truth is heretical in the eyes of orthodox Christianity. As such, I am no longer a Christian, as the truth is more important to me than conforming to the religious cult that I built my life around for three decades.

Paul is a false apostle, recognized by the Church in Ephesus (Revelation 2:1-2) and all the churches in Asia that Revelation was written to (Revelation 1:4 & 2 Timothy 1:15). There are 12 apostles. No more (Revelation 21:14).

The authenticity of Peter being the real author of 2 Peter was not only questioned back in the fourth century when the cannon was being decided, today it's readily accepted by modern scholars to be a forgery.

If you really want to know what Jesus taught, ignore Paul. He doesn't even need to be rejected. Just ignore him, and see what God reveals to you.

Just because you learned that the particular religion you were a part of for three decades has problems, doesn't mean that the apostle Paul was false.

If there is a God that has inspired a book that has been distributed more widely and in more languages than any other book out there, I'd imagine that He wouldn't allow a fraudulent writer to be able to take up such a large amount of the book (especially of the NT).

Now if the bible is just a man-made document, then yeah whatever, the whole thing is irrelevant, as there isn't a true or a false prophet, or a Jesus, or a resurrection, or a point to any of it.

But if it's God's word, you're gonna need a lot more proof than quoting scriptures such as Rev 2:1,2 to prove that Paul was false.

What you seem to have done is that you have immersed yourself in a bunch of seminary junk, and gotten away from the message of the bible.

Remember the Pharisees that were well-versed in all the Jewish schools of that time, and yet missed the entire message.

 

[Todd Andrews]

Christians get so hung up on inerrancy and, imo, miss the greater point of scripture.

I agree with you that inerrancy is silly, but I'm curious to hear what you think the greater point of scripture is

That the Bible is not a book that a person can read from front to back in an attempt to gain understanding of a story someone is telling. It is a library that spans many years across the many understandings of various writers interested in sharing their points of view to an audience that makes up their own communities.

Of the gospels, I believe Mark was written first and it was not his intent to pen a historical biography of the life of Jesus of Nazareth. I believe this sets the tone for the rest of the gospels and Acts. Marks shows that the disciples were dull and really didn't grasp what "Christ" actually was or meant. Jesus is found/foretold in the Hebrew scriptures and the disciples (and the nation of Israel) didn't understand his role/mission. Matthew comes along and has a slightly different point to make. He corrects some of the 'mistakes' that he feels Mark made here and there. Ditto Luke. By the time John's gospel is written, the nature of Jesus has changed (at least in the author's eyes). He is now God himself in the flesh. His point is different yet again from Mark and the others.

Trying to harmonize events from these different gospels often causes, imo, readers to miss the point each writer is making with his version of who Christ really is. It's a library of stories and teachings of Christ told from different points of view. Inerrancy is counter-productive because the apologist is more concerned with showing how 100% of the details of a story match perfectly with the same details of another story in the gospels than he is with the actual understanding of the story itself.

So what's the greater point of scripture? To me it is the telling of the good news of the kingdom of God and the offer of salvation. It is a direct reflection of why there were so many varying sects of believers. Different points of view. Is every story true? of course not. If it has to all be historically accurate and true then you might as well believe it is inerrant as well.

I believe Paul had a different view of Jesus, certainly, than say, Matthew, or the book of James. But I feel that it is all beneficial and the sum of the Bible is greater than its individual parts.

The Gospels are Jewish midrash.

Paul Hellenized Jesus and his "story" to move it away from Judaism, and the truth, in my opinion.

 

[Todd Andrews]

I remember not too long ago on this board arguing with Politician Spock (and a few others) over some of these same things he is posting today. Quite a turnaround for you since you attended Seminary, PSpock. Christians get so hung up on inerrancy and, imo, miss the greater point of scripture.

A good read on Paul that you might be interested in:

The Fabricated Paul by German NT scholar Hermann Detering. It can be borrowed for free if you are an Amazon Prime member.

Detering makes a compelling argument regarding how Paul's theology of grace against the law came to be and how his letters were used/redacted by competing Christian sects. He demonstrates the glaring differences of the Paul we see in Acts vs the Paul of the epistles.

Yes, I know full well what goes on in the head of a Christian who does not want to let go of Pauline doctrine. It is a life changing decision. Family and friends now look down on me. And while they don't directly call me a heretic, their eyes of heresy are impossible to ignore. It very much is just like waking up from a cult and having to walk away from all of it, but in this case it means pretty much walking away from your entire life.

I'm fortunate that my wife seems okay with it. I know she's not sure what to think. She can't deny that what I've learned is true, but she's nowhere near ready and willing to take a stand and be rejected by our world like I have been.

I don't regret it at all. If the cult was harmless, then I wouldn't have any reason to take a stand. But Christianity is anything but harmless. Slavery, women's suffrage, anti-semitism, etc, etc... have all used Paul's doctrines to support their social injustices. The hatred of gays is only the latest of Christian crimes against humanity, and non of it was actually taught by Jesus. It's all from Paul.

Why would any Christian commit such heresy? Paul is the Apostle of the Gentiles. The other Books were written to the Jews under the Law and the Gospel of the Kingdom. Even Peter affirmed Paul's writings.

The truth is heretical in the eyes of orthodox Christianity. As such, I am no longer a Christian, as the truth is more important to me than conforming to the religious cult that I built my life around for three decades.

Paul is a false apostle, recognized by the Church in Ephesus (Revelation 2:1-2) and all the churches in Asia that Revelation was written to (Revelation 1:4 & 2 Timothy 1:15). There are 12 apostles. No more (Revelation 21:14).

The authenticity of Peter being the real author of 2 Peter was not only questioned back in the fourth century when the cannon was being decided, today it's readily accepted by modern scholars to be a forgery.

If you really want to know what Jesus taught, ignore Paul. He doesn't even need to be rejected. Just ignore him, and see what God reveals to you.

If there is a God that has inspired a book that has been distributed more widely and in more languages than any other book out there, I'd imagine that He wouldn't allow a fraudulent writer to be able to take up such a large amount of the book (especially of the NT).

And yet that God lets babies be slaughtered.

Your primitive anthropomorphism of the divine is interesting. You really think GOD is worried about how much space an exaggerator and prevaricator takes up in a book about him that the orthodox Catholic bishops organized?

 

[Mister CIA]

Are we there yet?

 

[Politician Spock]

Just because you learned that the particular religion you were a part of for three decades has problems, doesn't mean that the apostle Paul was false.

I agree. The answer to the question of whether Paul is true or false stands on it's own. Religions based on Paul neither validate nor discredit him.

If there is a God that has inspired a book that has been distributed more widely and in more languages than any other book out there, I'd imagine that He wouldn't allow a fraudulent writer to be able to take up such a large amount of the book (especially of the NT).

I agree. I'd also imagine he wouldn't allow the inspired text to be altered over time, which has been established as fact by modern archaeology. If God didn't do the later, then he probably didn't do the former either.

Now if the bible is just a man-made document, then yeah whatever, the whole thing is irrelevant, as there isn't a true or a false prophet, or a Jesus, or a resurrection, or a point to any of it.

It still hasn't relevance, just not the degree of relevance it would have if it were inerrant.

But if it's God's word, you're gonna need a lot more proof than quoting scriptures such as Rev 2:1,2 to prove that Paul was false.

If it's God's word, then it's impossible to prove Paul was false. If Paul can be proven false, then that proves it's not God's word. As far as proving Paul is false, all I can do is provide evidence. A lot of that evidence comes from the Bible. Even more comes from non-Biblical texts from the time, again thanks to modern archaeologists who have uncovered the non-Pauline (heretical) texts that the Roman Empire set out to destroy after Constantine made Paul's version of Christianity the official religion of Rome.

What you seem to have done is that you have immersed yourself in a bunch of seminary junk, and gotten away from the message of the bible.

What I did was go to seminary to get answers to why Christians can trust the Bible, only to leave two semesters later with more questions than answers. When I continued to pursue my quest for answers, two years of studying non-seminary sources brought me to the point where everything made sense. It's not the word of God.

Remember the Pharisees that were well-versed in all the Jewish schools of that time, and yet missed the entire message.

So do Christians. Everything Jesus taught for 3 and a half years is an "oh... that too" part of Christianity. Who Jesus was when he was born and what he did when died is the entire message Christians believe in that matters to salvation. They miss the message of his life.

 

[Paddington]

Question: Do you believe that Peter's writings are inspired?

 

[Jayrok]

The Gospels are Jewish midrash.

Paul Hellenized Jesus and his "story" to move it away from Judaism, and the truth, in my opinion.

Well of course it is midrash. That was sort of my point with Mark. Paul, with great success, found a way to pull his Jesus from the Jewish scriptures as well. But his hellenized Jesus was not some apocalyptic preacher from the back woods of Galilee who was born of some virgin in Bethlehem (Paul even warned about believing superstitions and myths like that). He was around with God from the beginning (e.g. Proverbs 8, wisdom), God's first fruits, and descended for his sacrifice to fulfill the laws so that God's secret could be revealed. Which was the key to his success with the greeks and romans. That is, salvation was also available to the gentiles and without the ridiculous requirements of the jewish laws.

 

[Jayrok]

Question: Do you believe that Peter's writings are inspired?

Peter didn't write anything. But those attributed to Peter or written in his name? no, I don't believe they are.

 

[Politician Spock]

Question: Do you believe that Peter's writings are inspired?

To answer this question, you need to define "Peter's writings" and you also need to define "inspired".

Letters claiming to be written by Peter are highly questioned by scholars to be authentic (they're likely forged). It is beyond question that 2 Peter was written by a different author than 1 Peter. This was even questioned in the early 4th century when it was being discussed whether or not to include 2 Peter in the cannon. With modern archaeology to help us, even 1 Peter is looking to be a forgery as well.

Inspired means something to different to "inerrant" believing Christians than it does to Christians who don't believe the Bible is inerrant, as well as non-Christians. When one blindly accepts the premise that the Bible is inerrant, then inspired takes on a new meaning, and the Bible defines itself as being inerrant (which was already accepted as a premise without evidence). This is a logical fallacy, and as such believing that the Bible is inerrant is only a belief of faith. I held to that belief for three decades. I can't prove that Bible is not inerrant, but I can't ignore the mountain of evidence that it's not now that I know that evidence exists.

 

[Politician Spock]

The Gospels are Jewish midrash.

Paul Hellenized Jesus and his "story" to move it away from Judaism, and the truth, in my opinion.

Well of course it is midrash. That was sort of my point with Mark. Paul, with great success, found a way to pull his Jesus from the Jewish scriptures as well. But his hellenized Jesus was not some apocalyptic preacher from the back woods of Galilee who was born of some virgin in Bethlehem (Paul even warned about believing superstitions and myths like that). He was around with God from the beginning (e.g. Proverbs 8, wisdom), God's first fruits, and descended for his sacrifice to fulfill the laws so that God's secret could be revealed. Which was the key to his success with the greeks and romans. That is, salvation was also available to the gentiles and without the ridiculous requirements of the jewish laws.

Oooooohhhh...... tell me more about this secret knowledge that leads to salvation. I love reading about different forms of Gnosticisms.... of which Christianity is but one.

 

[Jayrok]

The Gospels are Jewish midrash.

Paul Hellenized Jesus and his "story" to move it away from Judaism, and the truth, in my opinion.

Well of course it is midrash. That was sort of my point with Mark. Paul, with great success, found a way to pull his Jesus from the Jewish scriptures as well. But his hellenized Jesus was not some apocalyptic preacher from the back woods of Galilee who was born of some virgin in Bethlehem (Paul even warned about believing superstitions and myths like that). He was around with God from the beginning (e.g. Proverbs 8, wisdom), God's first fruits, and descended for his sacrifice to fulfill the laws so that God's secret could be revealed. Which was the key to his success with the greeks and romans. That is, salvation was also available to the gentiles and without the ridiculous requirements of the jewish laws.

Oooooohhhh...... tell me more about this secret knowledge that leads to salvation. I love reading about different forms of Gnosticisms.... of which Christianity is but one.

Grafting in the elect, baby. If you ain't on the A list you are SOL.

 

[shader]

Just because you learned that the particular religion you were a part of for three decades has problems, doesn't mean that the apostle Paul was false.

I agree. The answer to the question of whether Paul is true or false stands on it's own. Religions based on Paul neither validate nor discredit him.

If there is a God that has inspired a book that has been distributed more widely and in more languages than any other book out there, I'd imagine that He wouldn't allow a fraudulent writer to be able to take up such a large amount of the book (especially of the NT).

I agree. I'd also imagine he wouldn't allow the inspired text to be altered over time, which has been established as fact by modern archaeology. If God didn't do the later, then he probably didn't do the former either.

Now if the bible is just a man-made document, then yeah whatever, the whole thing is irrelevant, as there isn't a true or a false prophet, or a Jesus, or a resurrection, or a point to any of it.

It still hasn't relevance, just not the degree of relevance it would have if it were inerrant.

But if it's God's word, you're gonna need a lot more proof than quoting scriptures such as Rev 2:1,2 to prove that Paul was false.

If it's God's word, then it's impossible to prove Paul was false. If Paul can be proven false, then that proves it's not God's word. As far as proving Paul is false, all I can do is provide evidence. A lot of that evidence comes from the Bible. Even more comes from non-Biblical texts from the time, again thanks to modern archaeologists who have uncovered the non-Pauline (heretical) texts that the Roman Empire set out to destroy after Constantine made Paul's version of Christianity the official religion of Rome.

What you seem to have done is that you have immersed yourself in a bunch of seminary junk, and gotten away from the message of the bible.

What I did was go to seminary to get answers to why Christians can trust the Bible, only to leave two semesters later with more questions than answers. When I continued to pursue my quest for answers, two years of studying non-seminary sources brought me to the point where everything made sense. It's not the word of God.

Remember the Pharisees that were well-versed in all the Jewish schools of that time, and yet missed the entire message.

So do Christians. Everything Jesus taught for 3 and a half years is an "oh... that too" part of Christianity. Who Jesus was when he was born and what he did when died is the entire message Christians believe in that matters to salvation. They miss the message of his life.

So you don't believe it's God's word. Well then, that settles it. But then if it's not God's word, what good is the "message of Jesus life", since we really don't even know if the gospels are true? In the end, it's just a bunch of stories of a good guy.

Look, I have no love for the church throughout the centuries. I believe they started going bad pretty quick, and got away from the message that Jesus preached, and the way that the church operated in the first few decades after Jesus death.

But random documents that have been unearthed don't prove that Paul was false. They prove that there were those against Paul. Which we already know...from reading Paul himself.

What you've done is open yourself up to the idea that the bible isn't God's Word, and begun investigating it from that perspective. Once you've done that, it's all over. Pretty soon you'll start questioning the gospels, then you'll question Jesus, then you'll give up on God. It's a slope without hope. All because you believe scholars who try and pick apart the "flaws" from a human perspective.

Take a step back, and think about the road you're on, and realize that there really isn't much value in the road you're headed down. Jesus believed in the authenticity of the bible, and quoted from the bible (It is written...) numerous times. He obviously felt differently than you've begun to feel. Unless of course, he never really said those things...but if that's the case, then why do you care about the message of his life?

 

[shader]

Question: Do you believe that Peter's writings are inspired?

To answer this question, you need to define "Peter's writings" and you also need to define "inspired".

Letters claiming to be written by Peter are highly questioned by scholars to be authentic (they're likely forged). It is beyond question that 2 Peter was written by a different author than 1 Peter. This was even questioned in the early 4th century when it was being discussed whether or not to include 2 Peter in the cannon. With modern archaeology to help us, even 1 Peter is looking to be a forgery as well.

Inspired means something to different to "inerrant" believing Christians than it does to Christians who don't believe the Bible is inerrant, as well as non-Christians. When one blindly accepts the premise that the Bible is inerrant, then inspired takes on a new meaning, and the Bible defines itself as being inerrant (which was already accepted as a premise without evidence). This is a logical fallacy, and as such believing that the Bible is inerrant is only a belief of faith. I held to that belief for three decades. I can't prove that Bible is not inerrant, but I can't ignore the mountain of evidence that it's not now that I know that evidence exists.

Beyond question? I disagree. There are plenty who do in fact question it and make plenty of good arguments against it.

 

[shader]

Question: Do you believe that Peter's writings are inspired?

To answer this question, you need to define "Peter's writings" and you also need to define "inspired".

Letters claiming to be written by Peter are highly questioned by scholars to be authentic (they're likely forged). It is beyond question that 2 Peter was written by a different author than 1 Peter. This was even questioned in the early 4th century when it was being discussed whether or not to include 2 Peter in the cannon. With modern archaeology to help us, even 1 Peter is looking to be a forgery as well.

Inspired means something to different to "inerrant" believing Christians than it does to Christians who don't believe the Bible is inerrant, as well as non-Christians. When one blindly accepts the premise that the Bible is inerrant, then inspired takes on a new meaning, and the Bible defines itself as being inerrant (which was already accepted as a premise without evidence). This is a logical fallacy, and as such believing that the Bible is inerrant is only a belief of faith. I held to that belief for three decades. I can't prove that Bible is not inerrant, but I can't ignore the mountain of evidence that it's not now that I know that evidence exists.

Beyond question? I disagree. There are plenty who do in fact question it and make plenty of good arguments against it.

There are plenty of people who question evolution and climate change too. I think by "beyond question" he means something different than "everybody in the world agrees with this"

I understand what "beyond question" means, and I reject that as a ridiculous statement.

 

[Politician Spock]

So you don't believe it's God's word. Well then, that settles it. But then if it's not God's word, what good is the "message of Jesus life", since we really don't even know if the gospels are true? In the end, it's just a bunch of stories of a good guy.

So you don't see any good in what Jesus taught? Thank you for proving my point that Christians miss the message of his life.

Look, I have no love for the church throughout the centuries. I believe they started going bad pretty quick, and got away from the message that Jesus preached, and the way that the church operated in the first few decades after Jesus death.

But random documents that have been unearthed don't prove that Paul was false. They prove that there were those against Paul. Which we already know...from reading Paul himself.

When archaeologists uncover copies of books of the Bible dated to 2nd and 3rd century that lack stories that exist in today's copies of the same books, we have evidence of when certain stories were added to the books well after the original authors wrote the letters. Some parts were added nearly nine centuries after the original author lived. The question of the Bible's inerrancy extends well beyond the issue of Paul. It's a situation where the evidence shows much interpolating, plagiarism and forgeries, where as Christians say it's inerrant because God inspired the authors. If that's the case, then God also needed to inspire the interpolators, the plagiarizers, and the forgers.

How that relates to Paul is that the evidence of these things being done in the writings were being done by those who believed in Paul's Gentile Christianity as opposed to those who believed in the Jewish Christianity of the twelve apostles and 70 disciples. When one understands this, then Paul's letters become much easier to read, as it was the gospel of the twelve apostles that was the "different gospel" Paul spoke of, and it was the Jewish Christians in the early Jerusalem church founded by the 12 apostles and the 70 disciples that were against Paul. So yes, even the Bible itself shows much evidence of Paul being false. This is hardly just a case of some random documents, like you want to marginalize it to be.

What you've done is open yourself up to the idea that the bible isn't God's Word, and begun investigating it from that perspective. Once you've done that, it's all over. Pretty soon you'll start questioning the gospels, then you'll question Jesus, then you'll give up on God. It's a slope without hope. All because you believe scholars who try and pick apart the "flaws" from a human perspective.

Yes. When I began on this journey over two years ago, it was a very scary thought to think I would let go of everything I believe in. That was motivation for me to NOT pursue these answers. But my motivation for truth was greater than my fear of having to let go of what I believe. And you are very correct. I view the Gospels as letters plagiarized from Jewish Christian sources of Jesus teachings, and modified to provide an argument for Paul's Gentile Christianity. Given the Roman Empire's war on heresy, writings that were not written to support Paul's christianity, or altered to support Paul's Christianity, were destroyed whenever they were found, leaving us to learn about what Jesus taught through the eyes of Pauline Christianity. Obviously that's not ideal, but what else are we left with thanks to what Christians did? And I can testify that my desire to NOT let go of my beliefs is why it took me two years to finally accept it. It's not something I wanted to let go of. I still want it to be true. There's just too much evidence showing it's not.

Take a step back, and think about the road you're on, and realize that there really isn't much value in the road you're headed down. Jesus believed in the authenticity of the bible, and quoted from the bible (It is written...) numerous times.

The entire new testament was written after Jesus died. Please do not use ridiculous logic if you want to discuss this with me. If you want to talk about what Jesus thought about scriptures that existed when he was alive, feel free, but neither you, nor anyone, can say they know what Jesus thought about writings that hadn't been written yet.

He obviously felt differently than you've begun to feel. Unless of course, he never really said those things...but if that's the case, then why do you care about the message of his life?

Again, it's hard to know what Jesus felt and even said. The Roman Empire pretty much screwed anyone from learning the facts when they went on a fact destroying mission when Paul's Christianity became Rome's religion. So please quit with absolutes like "obviously" when nothing can be obvious anymore.

 

[Jayrok]

Jesus believed in the authenticity of the bible, and quoted from the bible (It is written...) numerous times.

Jesus said: “This is what is written: The Messiah will suffer and rise from the dead on the third day, and repentance for the forgiveness of sins will be preached in his name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem." -- Luke 24:46-47.

Where is this quote found in the Hebrew scriptures?