jesus founded nothing.

[outhouse]

Got a better, more "reliable" source?

For what bud?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_of_Tarsus

Paul recounts: "I opposed [Peter] to his face, because he was clearly in the wrong". Paul reports that he told Peter: "You are a Jew, yet you live like a Gentile and not like a Jew.


sound like best friends??

 

[sojourner]

For what bud?

For historical facts concerning what you're trying to prove here.

 

[outhouse]

For historical facts concerning what you're trying to prove here.

I added to my post as you were typing, [see above]

 

[CynthiaCypher]

For what bud?

Paul the Apostle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Paul recounts: "I opposed [Peter] to his face, because he was clearly in the wrong". Paul reports that he told Peter: "You are a Jew, yet you live like a Gentile and not like a Jew.


sound like best friends??

So compatriots can't have disagreements?

 

[cablescavenger]

For historical facts concerning what you're trying to prove here.

Can't people just accept him on faith?

 

[sojourner]

Best friends spawn some of the worst arguments. So what?

Somehow, Wikipedia doesn't strike me as any more historically accurate than Acts in this case. Sure, there are problems with Acts, just as there are with any other biblical book. Luke's sense of what constitutes history is not the same as our sense. But, all in all, it's the best we've got, outside some passages in his epistles.

 

[fallingblood]

you would argue paul didnt take his message to gentiles

or that jesus real message failed within judaism???

What are you talking about. I didn't say either. You said Paul was a Roman because he preached to the Romans. I showed why that was simply wrong.

Gentiles do not equal Romans.

 

[cablescavenger]

Best friends spawn some of the worst arguments. So what?

Somehow, Wikipedia doesn't strike me as any more historically accurate than Acts in this case. Sure, there are problems with Acts, just as there are with any other biblical book. Luke's sense of what constitutes history is not the same as our sense. But, all in all, it's the best we've got, outside some passages in his epistles.

We have to give him a chance.

He has placed it on the internet now, so maybe sometime in the next 70 years someone will find it and mention it in their homework, this in turn will validate it as being true and consign it to history as fact

 

[idav]

whats wrong with this picture

Jesus wasn't trying to found a religion, that is more what his failed followers were about. The kingdom talked about wasn't about the material world.

 

[outhouse]

Jesus wasn't trying to found a religion, that is more what his failed followers were about. The kingdom talked about wasn't about the material world.

correct

 

[outhouse]

Best friends spawn some of the worst arguments. So what?

Somehow, Wikipedia doesn't strike me as any more historically accurate than Acts in this case. Sure, there are problems with Acts, just as there are with any other biblical book. Luke's sense of what constitutes history is not the same as our sense. But, all in all, it's the best we've got, outside some passages in his epistles.

Imagine your a real apostle who walked and talked with jesus and knew his feelings and what he wanted.

Then imagine hearing about some roman want to be apostle, preaching to gentiles with a completely made up version of a guy you knew in detail preaching the exact opposite of the original movement taking it into a direction without the original intent.


then tell me they were buddies.

 

[outhouse]

paul created a mythical jesus, so who's to say he didnt create a mythical history

 

[fallingblood]

Imagine your a real apostle who walked and talked with jesus and knew his feelings and what he wanted.

Then imagine hearing about some roman want to be apostle, preaching to gentiles with a completely made up version of a guy you knew in detail preaching the exact opposite of the original movement taking it into a direction without the original intent.


then tell me they were buddies.

Paul wasn't a Roman.

Paul spent time with Peter and learned from him, thus he logically would have know about Jesus.

The Jerusalem Church apparently supported Paul and his mission.

Were they bodies? Probably yes. They spent time together, were both Jews, and were apart of the same mission.

 

[fallingblood]

paul created a mythical jesus, so who's to say he didnt create a mythical history

Well, Paul didn't create a mythical Jesus in the first place, thus your argument fails.

 

[fallingblood]

Real scholars

show me a credible scholar who doesnt! even the scripture states paul was a jew persecutor [enemy]

want to be apostle, paul was a roman preaching to romans

REAL apostle, peter was a jew preaching to jews

Paul was not a Jew persecutor, and neither does scripture state that. You are simply making things up. Scripture states that Paul, being a Jew himself, persecuted a sect of Jews (the Jesus movement). He was hardly the only one, and there is good reason why other Jews would have persecuted that sect. It was dangerous, and it was seen by many as being wrong. To what effect Paul persecuted those members though is not completely apparent.

Paul was never a Roman though. There is no evidence he preached to the Romans, unless you consider everyone in the Roman empire to be Romans (which would then mean Jesus was a Roman), but that simply is an illogical position. Paul preached to Gentiles. Gentiles do not equal Romans.

Also, Acts states that Peter preached to Gentiles as well. Paul even states that Peter mingled with the Gentiles too. So your argument there fails.

As for real scholars who don't think they were enemies, Bart Ehrman, Marcus Borg, Pamela Eisenbaum, Amy-Jill Levine. Should I go on?

Why don't you support your claim and show some scholars who think that Paul and Peter were enemies.

 

[obi one]

Paul wasn't a Roman.

Paul spent time with Peter and learned from him, thus he logically would have know about Jesus.

The Jerusalem Church apparently supported Paul and his mission.

Were they bodies? Probably yes. They spent time together, were both Jews, and were apart of the same mission.

You are getting all your information from a supposed associate of Paul, and even this associate said the Paul called out Peter for eating with Gentiles. Not only called out Peter on this, put told the whole world to make Peter look bad. Not the kind of friend I would want. Not quite like Yeshua taught how to treat brothers. Mt 18:15, "if your brother sins, go and reprove him in private;..." As for an excerpt for 2 Peter 15, who knows what unknown writer wrote that piece, put it certainly was someone who was in Paul's camp. As for spending time with each other, Pelosi has to spend time with the new Speaker of the House, but I can guarantee you, that she doesn't like him. As Paul got quickly thrown out of Jerusalem, they surely didn't spend much time together

As for Paul being a Roman, the writer of Acts 22:25 sure thought he was, and Paul tricked 2 cohorts of Roman soldiers to believe he was a Roman citizen. It was not James, Peter, or any of the apostles that helped Paul, but two cohorts of Roman soldiers who got him safely out of town.

 

[obi one]

Paul was not a Jew persecutor, and neither does scripture state that. You are simply making things up. Scripture states that Paul, being a Jew himself, persecuted a sect of Jews (the Jesus movement). He was hardly the only one, and there is good reason why other Jews would have persecuted that sect. It was dangerous, and it was seen by many as being wrong. To what effect Paul persecuted those members though is not completely apparent.

Paul was never a Roman though. There is no evidence he preached to the Romans, unless you consider everyone in the Roman empire to be Romans (which would then mean Jesus was a Roman), but that simply is an illogical position. Paul preached to Gentiles. Gentiles do not equal Romans.

Also, Acts states that Peter preached to Gentiles as well. Paul even states that Peter mingled with the Gentiles too. So your argument there fails.

As for real scholars who don't think they were enemies, Bart Ehrman, Marcus Borg, Pamela Eisenbaum, Amy-Jill Levine. Should I go on?

Why don't you support your claim and show some scholars who think that Paul and Peter were enemies.

Definition of GENTILE

often capitalized : a person of a non-Jewish nation or of non-Jewish faith; especially : a Christian as distinguished from a Jew

A Roman would certainly fit this definition if they weren't a Jew. According to the NT, Paul was a Roman citizen from Taurus. He was also a Pharisee of Pharisees, according to Paul.

I am not sure where you are getting your information, but I would recommend that 8 hours sleep might help with framing responses.

 

[fallingblood]

Definition of GENTILE

often capitalized : a person of a non-Jewish nation or of non-Jewish faith; especially : a Christian as distinguished from a Jew

A Roman would certainly fit this definition if they weren't a Jew. According to the NT, Paul was a Roman citizen from Taurus. He was also a Pharisee of Pharisees, according to Paul.

I am not sure where you are getting your information, but I would recommend that 8 hours sleep might help with framing responses.

Does Gentile equal Roman? Were all Gentiles Roman? No. That is simple logic.

Also, Acts states that Paul was a Pharisee. In fact, all of our sources then state that Paul was a Pharisee.

Now, only Acts states that Paul was a Roman. However, Paul never mentions such. More so, Paul is not treated like a Roman. Which is why many scholars reject the idea that Paul was a Roman.

 

[fallingblood]

You are getting all your information from a supposed associate of Paul, and even this associate said the Paul called out Peter for eating with Gentiles. Not only called out Peter on this, put told the whole world to make Peter look bad. Not the kind of friend I would want. Not quite like Yeshua taught how to treat brothers. Mt 18:15, "if your brother sins, go and reprove him in private;..." As for an excerpt for 2 Peter 15, who knows what unknown writer wrote that piece, put it certainly was someone who was in Paul's camp. As for spending time with each other, Pelosi has to spend time with the new Speaker of the House, but I can guarantee you, that she doesn't like him. As Paul got quickly thrown out of Jerusalem, they surely didn't spend much time together

No, I'm getting my information from a variety of scholars.

Also, friends call friends out from time to time, especially when they think their friend is being a hypocrite. I call my brother out from time to time to, when I think he is being a hypocrite. That doesn't make us enemies.

And when did Paul get thrown out of Jerusalem? He never did.

As for Paul being a Roman, the writer of Acts 22:25 sure thought he was, and Paul tricked 2 cohorts of Roman soldiers to believe he was a Roman citizen. It was not James, Peter, or any of the apostles that helped Paul, but two cohorts of Roman soldiers who got him safely out of town.

I covered this in my other post.

 

[outhouse]

Paul wasn't a Roman.

Paul spent time with Peter and learned from him, thus he logically would have know about Jesus.

The Jerusalem Church apparently supported Paul and his mission.

Were they bodies? Probably yes. They spent time together, were both Jews, and were apart of the same mission.

Wow!! imagine that, most scholars claim he was a roman!



Paul the Apostle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

He was also a Roman citizen—a fact that afforded him a privileged legal status with respect to laws, property, and governance