Paul - An Apostle?

lukethethird said:

How would anybody know that?

Click to expand...

Paul mentions it, plus the 2nd and 3rd century appointees [episcopi "bishops"] sometimes referred to this when it came to trying to iron out some of the theology. Even the selection of the canon in the 4th century at least partially relied on this.

Matter of fact, the single best theological text I've ever read was Dr. Hanson's [Anglican] "Tradition In the Early Church", which is heavily documented btw.

metis said:

Paul mentions it, plus the 2nd and 3rd century appointees [episcopi "bishops"] sometimes referred to this when it came to trying to iron out some of the theology. Even the selection of the canon in the 4th century at least partially relied on this.

Matter of fact, the single best theological text I've ever read was Dr. Hanson's [Anglican] "Tradition In the Early Church", which is heavily documented btw.

Click to expand...

Paul provides his sources and claims that what he knows about Jesus did not come from any man. So, no, Paul claims exactly the opposite.

lukethethird said:

Paul provides his sources and claims that what he knows about Jesus did not come from any man. So, no, Paul claims exactly the opposite.

Click to expand...

That's not what I was referring to, which is this:
1Cor.11[2] I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you.

2Thes.2[15] So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.

2Thes.3[6] Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from any brother who is living in idleness and not in accord with the tradition that you received from us.

The scriptures were carried by word-of-mouth before any of it was written.

metis said:

That's not what I was referring to, which is this:
1Cor.11[2] I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you.

2Thes.2[15] So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.

2Thes.3[6] Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from any brother who is living in idleness and not in accord with the tradition that you received from us.

The scriptures were carried by word-of-mouth before any of it was written.

Click to expand...

No, Paul recieved information about Jesus by reading his ancient scrptures, what we now call the Old Testament, and also through revelations, visions of a heavenly Christ. That is where the tradition came from that Paul taught, and people recieved Paul's teachings through word of mouth or letter, his epistles. Paul's epistles are the earliest Christian writings we have, they predate the gospels and Acts.

nPeace said:

Why does a consensus matter, or why is it valid, when as you said, there is no certainty, and we agree reputable experts disagree?
Maybe you should take a look at this thread.

Click to expand...

For crying out flippin' loud, what the flippin' heck is your point????
Did Paul, or did he not write the Book of Hebrews?

nPeace said:

Jesus was going to himself. Don't you get it already?

Click to expand...

nPeace said:

Jesus was going to himself. Don't you get it already?

Click to expand...

Perhaps someone who believes in the Trinity, like @metis or another learned worshipper perhaps can explain it more?

nPeace said:

Huh?

Click to expand...

Which part are you having trouble with?

Absolutely not an apostle.

Simple.

A true 'Xian'? Yes, but that does NOT necessarily mean a true disciple of Yeshua.

Let me re-phrase:

Yes, an Xian
NO, not an apostle
NO, not a disciple of Yeshua. Never even heard Yeshua.

'Agree with the scriptures'? What scriptures? I simply don't think anything authored
or even inspired by Paul IS 'scriptures'. I'm strictly Mathew-Only with Others per review,

Pretty simple. I don't accept Paul in any way, shape, or form. Period.

lukethethird said:

No, Paul recieved information about Jesus by reading his ancient scrptures, what we now call the Old Testament, and also through revelations, visions of a heavenly Christ. That is where the tradition came from that Paul taught, and people recieved Paul's teachings through word of mouth or letter, his epistles.

Click to expand...

In its context, that clearly is not correct since he used the pronoun "us" and is in the context of teaching Jesus' Gospel. We also know this from early writings, btw.

lukethethird said:

Paul's epistles are the earliest Christian writings we have, they predate the gospels and Acts.

Click to expand...

Now that is correct, so you're batting 500!

nPeace said:

Was Paul really a true Christian, and apostle, as the scriptures say?
What do you believe, and does your belief agree with the scriptures?

Click to expand...

The first thing that should be done is to define "what is a true Christian?" Thus, we should look for someone whose behavior and mindset reflects the Anointed One (Jesus). So, if this is true: What behavior and mindset was exhibited by Jesus from a biblical perspective?

1. He claimed that there is only one God (Matt. 4:10, Mk. 12:28-34, 13:32, Jn. 20:17 & Rev. 3:11-12 NKJV). 2. He claimed that the words spoken by him came from his Father (Jn. 5:19-24 & 7:16-18 NIV). 3. He exhibited love for his fellow man by blessings and preaching (Jn. 3:1-21, Matt. 14:13-21, 5:32-39, Mk. 6:30-44, 8:1-13, Matt 5-7 & Lk. 6:20-49 KJV).
4. He preached the resurrection of the dead (Matt. 22:29-32, Lk. 14:12-14, Jn. 11:24-26 & Mk. repeats the marriage at the resurrection only. NIV). 5. Jesus explains what the acts of a true Christian would be (Matt. 10:24-25, Mk 2:27-28, Lk. 17:10 & Jn. 11:25-26 NIV).

So, by this information can we search in Paul's writings to claim that he was a true Christian? I believe so…

1. Paul didn't support the idea that God was a triune of personages. In all of his introductions to the epistles, Paul didn't include the Holy Spirit (Ghost) with the Father and Son. This would be highly unusual and disrespectful if he accepted this concept. 1Cor. 8:6 (NIV): yet for us there is but one God, the Father from whom all things came and for whom we live and there is one Lord, Jesus (the) Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live. Note: the expression "through whom all things came and through whom we live is a reference to the New Covenant, which technically began at the birth of the Anointed One (the Messiah). 1Tim. 2:5 (NIV): For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus. Paul knew that the term Holy Spirt (Ghost) was the power of God and not a personage of the Trinity (Acts 10:38, Acts 19:1-7, 2Tim. 1:6-7 (NIV). The majority of Paul’s letters are sent to gentiles. These gentiles had a polytheistic background who had worshipped different/many gods. Thus, sending them letters would be a perfect opportunity for Paul to teach the Trinity and introduce new converts to this doctrine. However, we don’t find any of this in his writings to the Gentiles.
2. Where does Paul claim his understandings of the gospel came from (Gal. 1:1, 11-12, 1Cor. 11:23 KJV)?
3. Paul exhibited great love, blessings and tireless preaching (1Cor. 13, Acts 14:8-10, 19:11-12, 20:10-12, Acts and the thirteen epistles KJV).
4. Paul addresses the resurrection of the dead, not a heaven or hell concept (1Cor. 15 KJV).
5. Paul addresses the acts of what a true Christian should be doing (Col. 3 KJV).

Was Paul an apostle? Again, we would need to define what an apostle is to correctly address this question: The Greek word used in the N.T for apostle is defined as: a delegate, messenger or one sent forth with orders. It is clear that Paul was not one of the original 12, but the bible or the definition of apostle doesn't put a limit on how many can be labeled as an apostle. However, they must be sent forth! Paul was sent forth by the Anointed One (Acts 26:14-18 NKJV).

So, it seems to me that Paul was a true Christian and apostle. Yet, he had his own issues just like all humans do (Romans 7:14-25 KJV).

(Again, this post is my opinion and should only be understood in that context)

cOLTER said:

* Jesus inaugurated the Kingdom, his apostles were his ambassadors.

Click to expand...

No, God did. Psalms 2 ; Daniel 2:44 ; Daniel 7:13, 14, 18, 27 ; Luke 1:32, 33 ; Luke 12:32; Luke 22:28-30
Jesus declared the good news about God's kingdom. Isaiah 61:1-3 ; Matthew 4:17, 23

I reccomend you get familiar with the places in the Bible, where the kingdom is spoken of.
Drawn near is the same as come near, or is... at hand.



Jesus the would-be king of God's Kingdom was here - on hand.

cOLTER said:

* At hand means its now here.

Click to expand...

At hand means is nearby - same as come near.
Jesus the would-be king of God's Kingdom was here - on hand.

cOLTER said:

* In our midst means its here. The Jews were looking for a material Messiah and a material kingdom. The Kingdom of Jesus is spiritual.

Click to expand...

Please provide the scriptures that say 'the kingdom of Jesus is spiritual'.
The kingdom of God is a real kingdom which is headed by a king... and in this case, kings.
It is the Kingdom of the heavens. Matthew 5:3,10, 19, 20 ;
Luke 22:28-30
“However, you are the ones who have stuck with me in my trials; and I make a covenant with you, just as my Father has made a covenant with me, for a kingdom, so that you may eat and drink at my table in my Kingdom, and sit on thrones to judge the 12 tribes of Israel.

Are we not referring to that kingdom?
Jesus the would-be king of God's Kingdom was here - on hand... actually among them, or in their midst.

Again, I reccomend you get familiar with the places in the Bible, where the kingdom is spoken of.
The kingdom of God is mentioned in the Bible as a real kingdom, with Jesus as king, along with ones chosen to rule as kings, with him, and they will rule over the earth - the king's domain.
Isaiah 9:7 ; Daniel 2:44 ; Daniel 7:13, 14, 18, 27 ; Luke 1:32, 33 ; Revelation 5:10 ; Revelation 20:6 ; Revelation 22:5

Luke 1:32, 33

Daniel 2:44

Daniel 7:13, 14, 27
That's not so hard to see, is it?

cOLTER said:

* I pray for it because its already here and I'm in it.

Click to expand...

It is evident you are mistaken. However, what makes you think you are in it, and not the early Christian followers?
According to Revelation 20:6, there are those who have part in the first resurrection. They rule in the kingdom. Are you saying there are none, or the apostles do not fit in there, but you do?

I do mean to disappoint you, Stephen was stoned to death, because he was a man full of holy spirit. Acts 7
John was exiled to Patmos... for what? ...endurance in association with Jesus, and speaking about God and bearing witness concerning Jesus. . ., where the king of kings sent an angel to show him the things that would shortly take place, and he said in his closing words, 'Yes. Come, Lord Jesus'. Revelation 1 - 22
He also spoke of the souls of the saints, and the 144,000 whom the angels held back the four winds, until they were sealed.
What were they sealed with? Yes. Holy spirit - 2 Corinthians 1:22 ; Ephesians 1:13
Yes, they stuck with Jesus as the lamb of God is seen with them, all having the name of the father, and the lamb, on their forehead. Revelation 14:1-5

So you are mistaken. I don't think you understand why though, but what Paul said at 2 Thessalonians 2 could help.
Again, I don't want to write a book.

cOLTER said:

Faith is the requirement for entrance into the fellowship (kingdom) of believers.

1 John 1
1 What was from the beginning, what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, what we have looked at and touched with our hands, concerning the Word of Life— and the life was manifested, and we have seen and testify and proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and was manifested to us— what we have seen and heard we proclaim to you also, so that you too may have fellowship with us; and indeed our fellowship is with the Father, and with His Son Jesus Christ. These things we write, so that our joy may be made complete.

Click to expand...

I agree that faith is required, but I am not sure we agree on what faith is, and what is involved in exercising faith.

blü 2 said:

You STILL haven't told us why the bible should reflect modern cosmology and not the cosmology of its time and place of writing.

Please clarify that point.

Click to expand...

Loaded question. Please try again.

lukethethird said:

So Paul's and Peter's commission to be apostles was granted by God, or so Paul claims.

Click to expand...

Everybody makes claims, as you yourself do.
Jesus made claims too. Some claim do prove true.

nPeace said:

Everybody makes claims, as you yourself do.
Jesus made claims too. Some claim do prove true.

Click to expand...

I'll take Paul's word over yours.

metis said:

In its context, that clearly is not correct since he used the pronoun "us" and is in the context of teaching Jesus' Gospel. We also know this from early writings, btw.

Now that is correct, so you're batting 500!

Click to expand...

I'll take Paul's word over yours. He makes it perfectly clear where he gets his information.

nPeace said:

No, God did. Psalms 2 ; Daniel 2:44 ; Daniel 7:13, 14, 18, 27 ; Luke 1:32, 33 ; Luke 12:32; Luke 22:28-30
Jesus declared the good news about God's kingdom. Isaiah 61:1-3 ; Matthew 4:17, 23

I reccomend you get familiar with the places in the Bible, where the kingdom is spoken of.
Drawn near is the same as come near, or is... at hand.

View attachment 60271

Jesus the would-be king of God's Kingdom was here - on hand.


At hand means is nearby - same as come near.
Jesus the would-be king of God's Kingdom was here - on hand.

View attachment 60270


Please provide the scriptures that say 'the kingdom of Jesus is spiritual'.
The kingdom of God is a real kingdom which is headed by a king... and in this case, kings.
It is the Kingdom of the heavens. Matthew 5:3,10, 19, 20 ;
Luke 22:28-30
“However, you are the ones who have stuck with me in my trials; and I make a covenant with you, just as my Father has made a covenant with me, for a kingdom, so that you may eat and drink at my table in my Kingdom, and sit on thrones to judge the 12 tribes of Israel.

Are we not referring to that kingdom?
Jesus the would-be king of God's Kingdom was here - on hand... actually among them, or in their midst.

Again, I reccomend you get familiar with the places in the Bible, where the kingdom is spoken of.
The kingdom of God is mentioned in the Bible as a real kingdom, with Jesus as king, along with ones chosen to rule as kings, with him, and they will rule over the earth - the king's domain.
Isaiah 9:7 ; Daniel 2:44 ; Daniel 7:13, 14, 18, 27 ; Luke 1:32, 33 ; Revelation 5:10 ; Revelation 20:6 ; Revelation 22:5

"This one will be great and will be called Son of the Most High, and Jehovah God will give him the throne of David his father, and he will rule as King over the house of Jacob forever, and there will be no end to his Kingdom."​

Luke 1:32, 33

“In the days of those kings the God of heaven will set up a kingdom that will never be destroyed. And this kingdom will not be passed on to any other people. It will crush and put an end to all these kingdoms, and it alone will stand forever...​

Daniel 2:44

“I kept watching in the visions of the night, and look! with the clouds of the heavens, someone like a son of man was coming; and he gained access to the Ancient of Days, and they brought him up close before that One. And to him there were given rulership, honor, and a kingdom, that the peoples, nations, and language groups should all serve him. His rulership is an everlasting rulership that will not pass away, and his kingdom will not be destroyed.
“‘And the kingdom and the rulership and the grandeur of the kingdoms under all the heavens were given to the people who are the holy ones of the Supreme One. Their kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, and all rulerships will serve and obey them.’​

Daniel 7:13, 14, 27
That's not so hard to see, is it?


It is evident you are mistaken. However, what makes you think you are in it, and not the early Christian followers?
According to Revelation 20:6, there are those who have part in the first resurrection. They rule in the kingdom. Are you saying there are none, or the apostles do not fit in there, but you do?

I do mean to disappoint you, Stephen was stoned to death, because he was a man full of holy spirit. Acts 7
John was exiled to Patmos... for what? ...endurance in association with Jesus, and speaking about God and bearing witness concerning Jesus. . ., where the king of kings sent an angel to show him the things that would shortly take place, and he said in his closing words, 'Yes. Come, Lord Jesus'. Revelation 1 - 22
He also spoke of the souls of the saints, and the 144,000 whom the angels held back the four winds, until they were sealed.
What were they sealed with? Yes. Holy spirit - 2 Corinthians 1:22 ; Ephesians 1:13
Yes, they stuck with Jesus as the lamb of God is seen with them, all having the name of the father, and the lamb, on their forehead. Revelation 14:1-5

So you are mistaken. I don't think you understand why though, but what Paul said at 2 Thessalonians 2 could help.
Again, I don't want to write a book.


I agree that faith is required, but I am not sure we agree on what faith is, and what is involved in exercising faith.

Click to expand...

“Again, the kingdom of heaven is like a merchant seeking beautiful pearls, who, when he had found one pearl of great price, went and sold all that he had and bought it” (Matthew 13:45-46).


The message of the kingdom of heaven is a genuine offer from God to rule in the hearts of those who believe in His name.

John began preaching the coming of the kingdom as eminent, as a present tense reality. Jesus inaugurated the spiritual Kingdom which will finally come to full fruition over a long period of time. (The Jews speculated that the deliverer would do everything instantly). But even John was confused by the erroneous Messiah teachings. "But when John saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees coming to his place of baptism, he said to them, “You brood of vipers, who warned you to flee from the coming wrath?

Matthew 3:2

John the Baptist “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.”

Had the Jews interpreted the kingdom as spiritual, and the King as God seated in the heart of the believer, then they would have understood Jesus in an entirely different way.


Matthew 4:17
17 From that time Jesus began to preach and say, “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.”

Matthew 4:23 (NASB95)

Jesus was going throughout all Galilee, teaching in their synagogues and proclaiming the gospel of the kingdom, and healing every kind of disease and every kind of sickness among the people.

There are a number of examples of Jesus preaching the Kingdom as present tense and spiritual. The parables of Jesus were to be understood spiritually.

But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you shut the kingdom of heaven in people’s faces. For you neither enter yourselves nor allow those who would enter to go in. Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you travel across sea and land to make a single proselyte, and when he becomes a proselyte, you make him twice as much a child of hell as yourselves (Matt. 23:13–15).

Matthew 5:3

“Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.


Matthew 18:3–4 (NASB95)

3 and said, “Truly I say to you, unless you are converted and become like children, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven.

4 “Whoever then humbles himself as this child, he is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven.

I would recommend a review of all that Jesus taught about the kingdom using the ear of the spirit.

nPeace said:

Was Paul really a true Christian, and apostle, as the scriptures say?
What do you believe, and does your belief agree with the scriptures?

Click to expand...

Per Yeshua, any self-witnessing is not true (John 5:31). On the other hand, Paul preached as a self professed apostle in Ephesus. Revelation 2:2 points out that "evil men, calling themselves apostles, were in Ephesus. As for "Christianity", "Christianity" is built on Peter and Paul, the two shepherds of Zechariah 11:7, who were to be the staffs/shepherds, used to "pasture the flock (Gentile church) doomed for slaughter", which sat on the beast of Rome (Revelation 13:4 & 17;3), under the tutelage of Constantine the Great, the beast with two horns like a lamb, by which "Christians" are marked on their heads and hands. As for "scriptures", you would have to define what you mean. The "Scriptures" of Yeshua, per John 10:35, cannot be broke, nor can they be nailed to a cross. The "holy writings" of 2 Timothy, were read since youth, which would preclude the NT.

lukethethird said:

I'll take Paul's word over yours. He makes it perfectly clear where he gets his information.

Click to expand...

Where do all false prophets claim to get their information?

lukethethird said:

I'll take Paul's word over yours. He makes it perfectly clear where he gets his information.

Click to expand...

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.

DNB said:

For crying out flippin' loud, what the flippin' heck is your point????
Did Paul, or did he not write the Book of Hebrews?

Click to expand...

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...

DNB said:

Sorry to digress, but no reputable scholar believes that Paul wrote Hebrews

Click to expand...

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.

DNB said:

The reason that we can define reputable in this particular context i.e. textual criticism, because it is largely a science, and not a subjective art.

Click to expand...

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.

DNB said:

THe grounds on which it is based. But, that's the primary point. Secondly, the consensus is in favour of the epistle not being Pauline.

Click to expand...

DNB said:

Two fundamental points, of which no opposing views outweigh, are grounds to accept the Epistles unknown authorship.

Click to expand...

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

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)


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.”

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.

nPeace said:

Loaded question. Please try again.

Click to expand...

Now now ─ you're falling straight back into evasion mode.

You've been shown quotes that demonstrate the cosmology of the authors of the bible.

In that cosmology the earth is flat and immovably fixed at the center of creation; the sun moon and stars go round it. The sky is a hard dome you can walk on. The stars are affixed to it such that if they come loose they'll fall to earth.

Invited to demonstrate that the bible says something different, you've never done so, merely asserted.

So the question that follows directly in this situation is the one you're trying to duck here.

Which is: why would you expect the cosmology of the bible to be anything other than the cosmology of the times and places it was written?

As I pointed out, it's basically the cosmology of ancient Babylon, the understanding of the world in that time and place.

Enough evasion. Just state the reason for your assertion to the contrary.