Paul - An Apostle?

[nPeace]

Of course you do. Evasion, ducking, avoiding clear responses, are your constant tactic.

Asked to guess, I'd say it's because you have a deep fear of having to defend clear statements, so you don't make clear statements ─ instead you give generic dismissals, never with relevant particulars (eg never with bible quotes contradicting the bible quotes on that link, and more generally).

And here you are, apparent;y too frightened to state why you think the bible should reflect modern cosmology and not the cosmology of the time and place it was written.

That's a simple question from me, and the entirety of your reply is evasion.

Goodness, you're not saying you don't know you're doing that, are you? The sleepwalker's defense?

Once again you ignore the ball, and fumble again as you try to serve your loaded ball.
The guys playing cricket cheat too. They "fix" the ball as well.
That's right blu, keep talking to yourself and ignore what I say. No one is listening to you, but you.

 

[lukethethird]

You are only "seeing" what you want to see and believing what you want to believe, and that's abundantly clear. So, if you want this to be your m.o., so be it, but I'll not play into that. "Us" is a plural pronoun, so your position literally doesn't have any evidence to support it whatsoever.

You are quoting from 2 Thessalonians, which is of questionable authorship. Who do you think is meant by "us?"

 

[YoursTrue]

We have to consider that many heard of Jesus for the first time through Paul. Paul was very charismatic and developed a following of his own. He did have wonderful spiritual insights and compelling philosophical and theological views. After his death then he was revered as a legend. But Paul would be horrified to learn that his letters of correspondence became canonized as "the Word of God".

There was a religion of Jesus that he lived, taught and preached for 3+ years. Christianity became a religion about Jesus. The original Gospel of the Kingdom was largely forgotten and replaced with "Christ and him crucified" presumably for the sins of the world. Atonement was already a belief in the Pagan world and among the Mystery religions.

Yes, many heard for the first time about Christ through the apostle Paul. Paul was a learned man in Judaism. And it took a powerful presentation from Jesus, who knew Paul's personality, to prove to Paul what he was doing.

 

[YoursTrue]

You are quoting from 2 Thessalonians, which is of questionable authorship. Who do you think is meant by "us?"

Uh oh...

 

[blü 2]

Once again you ignore the ball, and fumble again as you try to serve your loaded ball.

Once more you evade answering the question:

which was, of course, why do you think the bible would reflect modern cosmology and not the cosmology of the time when it was written?

How many times is that I've asked you? In this thread alone in posts #105, #139, #160, #179 and this one.

You've evaded giving an answer on all the other occasions.

It's a characteristic of yours, of course. Your aim is to avoid answering until I get tired and go away.

Well, that's your style of Christian honesty in action, I guess.

 

[lukethethird]

Yes, many heard for the first time about Christ through the apostle Paul. Paul was a learned man in Judaism. And it took a powerful presentation from Jesus, who knew Paul's personality, to prove to Paul what he was doing.

You say Jesus knew Paul?

 

[nPeace]

Once more you evade answering the question:

which was, of course, why do you think the bible would reflect modern cosmology and not the cosmology of the time when it was written?

How many times is that I've asked you? In this thread alone in posts #105, #139, #160, #179 and this one.

You've evaded giving an answer on all the other occasions.

It's a characteristic of yours, of course. Your aim is to avoid answering until I get tired and go away.

Well, that's your style of Christian honesty in action, I guess.

How many times have I answered you, but you do not listen.
Listen for once, and I am sure, you will know that I answered you.
I would rather not think that you are so void of understanding to understand what someone says.

If you are looking for an answer that fits your agenda, you are not going to see it. Review the definition of "loaded question". @blü 2

 

[blü 2]

How many times have I answered you, but you do not listen.

I know you're playing games, as is typical of you. You are an unhappy face for a religion to present ─ sneaky, distorting, evasive, dishonest ...

As shown, for instance, by your failure to quote the answer you pretend to have given.

 

[DNB]

Please don't swear.
Remember, Peter did that, when the Devil still had a foot hold on his thinking.

I was just talking to someone about "Christians" who swear every 5 seconds, and here you are, swearing every millisecond.

I couldn't imagine you are serious though, in asking this, but it seems you are.

It all started with this statement...


My response... In other words, why does that matter, or why is it valid?

Your response here, seems to be basically saying either of the following. Otherwise, I can't figure out what your point is.
Because
a) the majority override the minority.
b) They are all reputable scientist, but the most reputable are the majority.
c) The minority are subjective art, whereas the majority is objective science.


So my response....
Right, so there are reputable scholars who do not deny Paul's writership of Hebrews.
Which is contrary to your claim.

How did you respond to that?
DNB said...
But, as i said, in this particular case, a matter of quantifiable fact, the consensus amongst the scholarly circles is in favour of Paul not being the author of Hebrews. My personal opinion agrees with this unequivocally - the only Pauline aspect of the letter of Hebrews is the author's familiarity with the Levitical Law, and this is not a great or distinguishing feat during the early days of the Church - the first thousands of believers were Jews.

So at this point, and even now, you did not get the point... even though it should be clear by now.
So, I was asking why does that matter, or why is it valid?
So I mean, like wow. You still don't see my point?

Obviously. You repeat yourself, using different words.



So, if I had to go by this, I would have to say that all three - a, b, and c, is basically what your point.
a) the majority override the minority.
b) They are all reputable scientist, but the most reputable are the majority.
c) The minority are subjective art, whereas the majority is objective science.
You'll have to correct me with something more than repeating yourself.

Since you don't understand what I said next...
Why does a consensus matter, or why is it valid, when as you said, there is no certainty, and we agree reputable experts disagree?
...and the thread did not help - this thread.

Let me see if you get the point here. I just realize RF has given us a new font size.
Reputable scientists do agree that Paul wrote Hebrews.

Therefore, the Argumentum ad populum
When an argument uses the appeal to the beliefs of a group of experts, it takes on the form of an appeal to authority
which you present, does not matter, and is not valid.

That is the point... which you know very well is what it boils down to, but you felt that repeating what you said, as though by rote, will convince you that your statement correct.

Thanks RF. That was just in time.

Your statement is not correct.
The fact that you favor the opinion of the majority, does not validate your claim.
You do not believe it's opinion, and not fact?
Read
...doubt on Pauline authorship in the Roman Church is reported by Eusebius. Modern biblical scholarship considers its authorship unknown, perhaps written in deliberate imitation of the style of Paul.
Some scholars believe it was written for Jewish Christians who lived in Jerusalem.

There are countless disagreements among reputable scholars, which make these opinion as fickle as the arguments they present.
Authorship of the Pauline epistles

Spoiler: The undisputed epistles

The name "undisputed" epistles represents the general scholarly consensus asserting that Paul authored each letter. However, even the most undisputed of letters, such as Galatians, have found critics. Moreover, the unity of the letters is sometimes questioned. First and Second Corinthians have garnered particular suspicion, with some scholars, among them Edgar Goodspeed and Norman Perrin, supposing one or both texts as we have them today are actually amalgamations of multiple individual letters. There remains considerable discussion as to the presence of possible significant interpolations. However, such textual corruption is difficult to detect and even more so to verify, leaving little agreement as to the extent of the epistles' integrity.

Romans
First Corinthians
Second Corinthians
Galatians
Philippians
First Thessalonians
Philemon

These letters are quoted or mentioned by the earliest of sources, and are included in every ancient canon, including that of Marcion (c.140[15]). There is no record of scholarly doubt concerning authorship until the nineteenth century when, around 1840, German scholar Ferdinand Christian Baur accepted only four of the letters bearing Paul's name were genuine, which he called the Hauptebriefe (Romans, 1 & 2 Corinthians, and Galatians). Hilgenfeld (1875) and H. J. Holtzmann (1885) instead accepted the seven letters listed above, adding Philemon, 1 Thessalonians, and Philippians; few scholars have argued against this minimal list.

The canonicity of certain individual books of the Christian Greek Scriptures has been disputed by some, but the arguments against them are very weak. For critics to reject, for example, the book of Hebrews simply because it does not bear Paul’s name and because it differs slightly in style from his other letters is shallow reasoning. B. F. Westcott observed that “the canonical authority of the Epistle is independent of its Pauline authorship.” (The Epistle to the Hebrews, 1892, p. lxxi)

Objection on the grounds of unnamed writership is far outweighed by the presence of Hebrews in the Chester Beatty Papyrus No. 2 (P46) (dated within 150 years of Paul’s death), which contains it along with eight other letters of Paul.​

Writership of the letter to the Hebrews has been widely ascribed to the apostle Paul. It was accepted as an epistle of Paul by early writers. The Chester Beatty Papyrus No. 2 (P46) (of about 200 C.E.) contains Hebrews among nine of Paul’s letters, and Hebrews is listed among “fourteen letters of Paul the apostle” in “The Canon of Athanasius,” of the fourth century C.E.

Commenting on this papyrus codex, which was written only about a century and a half after Paul’s death, the eminent British textual critic Sir Frederic Kenyon said: “It is noticeable that Hebrews is placed immediately after Romans (an almost unprecedented position), which shows that at the early date when this manuscript was written no doubt was felt as to its Pauline authorship.” On this same question, McClintock and Strong’s Cyclopedia states pointedly: “There is no substantial evidence, external or internal, in favor of any claimant to the authorship of this epistle except Paul.”

“It is noticeable that Hebrews is placed immediately after Romans (an almost unprecedented position), which shows that at the early date when this manuscript was written no doubt was felt as to its Pauline authorship.”​

Frederic Kenyon
...was a noted scholar of ancient languages, and made a lifelong study of the Bible, especially the New Testament as an historical text. His book Our Bible and the Ancient Manuscripts (1895) shows one way that Egyptian papyri and other evidence from archaeology can corroborate the narrative of historical events in the Gospels. He was convinced of the historical reality of the events described in the New Testament: “the last foundation for any doubt that the Scriptures have come down to us substantially as they were written has now been removed.”

I know it's hard to swallow, but remember... Don't swear.

So, you believe that Paul wrote Hebrews?

 

[DNB]

The reality is that no one knows for sure, including those in the Church when trying to decide on which books should be in the canon. Of the books that were eventually accepted in the NT, Hebrews and Revelation were the most hotly debated.

Paul did not write Hebrews.
Paul signed all of his epistles - Hebrews has no introductory salutation as all Paul's epistles do.
Paul predominantly quotes from the Hebrew texts, Hebrews quotes from the Septuagint. (I may need to be more precise here)
Paul's Greek is an entirely different style and acumen than used by the author of Hebrews.
I can't remember the other points...

 

[lukethethird]

Where do all false prophets claim to get their information?

Same place all prophets claim to get their information.

 

[Colt]

Do you believe the Dead Sea Scrolls are before the church leaders?
The Septuagint (Greek Old Testament) was completed by the 2nd century BCE, and are in acccofd with the Dead Sea Scrolls.

How the Bible Came to Us
Through the centuries, scribes meticulously copied these books. During the Middle Ages, a group of Jewish scribes known as the Masoretes carried on that tradition. The oldest complete Masoretic manuscript is the Leningrad Codex, which dates from 1008/1009 C.E. However, in the middle of the 20th century, some 220 Biblical manuscripts or fragments were discovered among the Dead Sea Scrolls. Those Biblical manuscripts were more than a thousand years older than the Leningrad Codex. A comparison of the Dead Sea Scrolls with the Leningrad Codex confirms a vital point: While the Dead Sea Scrolls contain some variations in wording, none of those variations affect the message itself.

The Dead Sea Scrolls (DSS) are not significantly different from the Bible, and the books selected to be part of the canon, are significantly harmonious.
So if the Bible has ungodly origins, what about the DSS. What are their origins?

The DSS are consistent with the scriptures finalized in Babylon. They were likely brought to Qumran for safe keeping from Jerusalem. They would only be copies of what the Israelites had already produced centuries earlier.

 

[Colt]

Glad you think that so far. Upon consideration I have come to believe that everything Paul said is a truthful account. He was religious before he 'met' Jesus and knew then after he would die for Jesus. A man to love and respect.

As I said, Paul has his own followers who elevated him and his gospel up to the Word of God.

 

[Sedim Haba]

I'm having trouble with the fact that you haven't provided one scripture, nor source for these sayings of yours, and I am not sure where they originate, or how seriously they should be taken. Or if you want them to be taken seriously.

Oh, really? Show me the scripture where Paul is sitting at Yeshua's feet with the other
apostles learning first hand? That he was there at the Last Supper?

Oh no, the burden of proof is not on me to justify Paul's hijacking of Yeshua's teachings.

To me, he's just a johnny-come-lately charlatan, a fake with a guilty conscience.

And worse. But you're not ready for that.

 

[metis]

You are quoting from 2 Thessalonians, which is of questionable authorship. Who do you think is meant by "us?"

If you cannot understand the implications of using the word "us", then there's no way we can go forth.

We know that the Church followed traditions as even the NT itself was composed from various oral sources. The oldest books were written decades after Jesus was crucified and were composed from an oral tradition. This is basic Christian Theology 101.

Even John's Gospel ends with this verse: John 21[25] But there are also many other things which Jesus did; were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written.

 

[metis]

Paul did not write Hebrews.
Paul signed all of his epistles - Hebrews has no introductory salutation as all Paul's epistles do.
Paul predominantly quotes from the Hebrew texts, Hebrews quotes from the Septuagint. (I may need to be more precise here)
Paul's Greek is an entirely different style and acumen than used by the author of Hebrews.
I can't remember the other points...

Again, we do not know who wrote Hebrews, however most theological analysis I've read agree that it was probably written by someone else. It's "certainty" one way or the other that I have problems with, especially since it was common for a disciple of another to write in their mentor's name.

 

[2ndpillar]

Same place all prophets claim to get their information.

Yet the false prophets prophecy falsely, and "the false prophet" will apparently end up in the lake of fire "tormented day and night forever and ever" (Revelation 20:10)

 

[2ndpillar]

Again, we do not know who wrote Hebrews, however most theological analysis I've read agree that it was probably written by someone else. It's "certainty" one way or the other that I have problems with, especially since it was common for a disciple of another to write in their mentor's name.

Fraud is fraud, and it does not reflect well on the fraudster. Paul was a Greek to the Greeks, and a Pharisee to the Pharisees. That fraud didn't end well for Paul. Apparently, the Romans felt left out, even after Paul called on Caesar to save him, and Nero apparently killed the guy.

 

[2ndpillar]

Do you believe the Dead Sea Scrolls are before the church leaders?
The Septuagint (Greek Old Testament) was completed by the 2nd century BCE, and are in acccofd with the Dead Sea Scrolls.

How the Bible Came to Us
Through the centuries, scribes meticulously copied these books. During the Middle Ages, a group of Jewish scribes known as the Masoretes carried on that tradition. The oldest complete Masoretic manuscript is the Leningrad Codex, which dates from 1008/1009 C.E. However, in the middle of the 20th century, some 220 Biblical manuscripts or fragments were discovered among the Dead Sea Scrolls. Those Biblical manuscripts were more than a thousand years older than the Leningrad Codex. A comparison of the Dead Sea Scrolls with the Leningrad Codex confirms a vital point: While the Dead Sea Scrolls contain some variations in wording, none of those variations affect the message itself.

The Dead Sea Scrolls (DSS) are not significantly different from the Bible, and the books selected to be part of the canon, are significantly harmonious.
So if the Bible has ungodly origins, what about the DSS. What are their origins?

The Dead Sea scrolls were discovered in the 40s and kept under wraps by the Dominicans until photos of the scroll pieces were discovered in a California library, computer scanned and compiled, and released by some nosey scholars around 50 years later. It includes a reference to the "liar", which can be assumed to be Paul, who was chased out of Jerusalem by the Essenes, who are associated with Qumran.

 

[lukethethird]

Yet the false prophets prophecy falsely, and "the false prophet" will apparently end up in the lake of fire "tormented day and night forever and ever" (Revelation 20:10)

Whatever makes you happy.