Who is Jesus?

[SeekingAllTruth]

When and where did Paul admit to lying?

Someone might argue, "If my falsehood enhances God's truthfulness and so increases his glory, why am I still condemned as a sinner?" Romans 3:7

 

[paarsurrey]

Someone might argue, "If my falsehood enhances God's truthfulness and so increases his glory, why am I still condemned as a sinner?" Romans 3:7

Thanks for the information.
Does one mean that there was an uproar from the truthful followers of Jesus against Paul that he had:

1. sinned to fake the vision by dint of which
2. Paul assumed the title of Apostle of Jesus, unauthorized by Jesus.

or there is some other falsehood he did for which Paul was condemned a sinner by other followers of Jesus. Right?

I get people have pointed out some 40 lies/falsehood Paul committed, I am not sure, but needs investigation:
11. Paul's 40 Lies
Right?

Regards

 

[SeekingAllTruth]

Thanks for the information.
Does one mean that there was an uproar from the truthful followers of Jesus against Paul that he had:

1. sinned to fake the vision by dint of which
2. Paul assumed the title of Apostle of Jesus, unauthorized by Jesus.

or there is some other falsehood he did for which Paul was condemned a sinner by other followers of Jesus. Right?

I get people have pointed out some 40 lies/falsehood Paul committed, I am not sure, but needs investigation:
11. Paul's 40 Lies
Right?

Regards

I think Paul was nuttier than a fruitcake. An extremely intelligent fruitcake to be sure, but a fruitcake none the less. I think he had so many head problems he could have kept Freud working 24/7 for 10 years trying to untangle all those knotted dendrites. Likely many knew Jesus' original teachings and they knew how Paul was falsifying them and it made them sick so they called Paul out on his falsehoods. Interesting, article, BTW> Thanks.

 

[Trailblazer]

To think God had anything to do with this clusterfact is to see him as a complete inept bumbling boob, not able to control which way he wanted his son's religion to veer. The whole notion God was involved in any of this mess is preposterous.

No, God was not involved in anything except sending Jesus and communicating to Jesus. Everything after that was caused by the free will decisions of man and as we all know, man often screws up royally. Logically, God cannot be blamed for man's screw-up.

 

[Brian2]

I think Paul was nuttier than a fruitcake. An extremely intelligent fruitcake to be sure, but a fruitcake none the less. I think he had so many head problems he could have kept Freud working 24/7 for 10 years trying to untangle all those knotted dendrites. Likely many knew Jesus' original teachings and they knew how Paul was falsifying them and it made them sick so they called Paul out on his falsehoods. Interesting, article, BTW> Thanks.

Then why does the record show that Paul and the other apostles agreed on the gospel? Why do the people who knew apostles, the apostolic Fathers agree with what Paul said?

 

[Brian2]

Someone might argue, "If my falsehood enhances God's truthfulness and so increases his glory, why am I still condemned as a sinner?" Romans 3:7

Paul did not admit to lying there, at Romans 3:7.

 

[Brian2]

Again, I go back to the simple but undeniably powerful FACT that nobody outside the gospels (which are testimonies of faith --they are NOT history as would be recognized by any responsible historian) recorded any of the Biblical facts pertaining to Jesus. Without unbiased evidence to corroborate what is presented in these 4 testimonies of faith, we must accept what is stated about Jesus purely on faith--blind faith. The greatest miracle of our entire civilized age--the resurrection of Jesus--and we haven't a single secular historian even mentioning it in passing?????

It's beyond unbelievable. It's completely unacceptable logically.

Why are testimonies of faith not also historical fact?
Secular historians are different to real historians if they want to remain secular. They do not admit to the truth of the supernatural. In that respect they are like professional scientists who do not want to lose their standing in the scientific community by bringing God into the picture.
Secular means biased towards an understanding of history that does not bring God into it.
Why is believing the gospels blind faith and believing secular historians (who deny the only records we have) not blind faith?
Secular historians of the day in mentioning Christianity are also speaking about the beliefs of Christianity, including the resurrection.

 

[Brian2]

Exactly. This is why I loudly insist God had nothing to do with Christianity's founding. It was purely a matter of political events involving Israel--Jerusalem's destruction, the loss of the temple, the need to dispense with the animal sacrifice because of no temple, the idea that a permanent sacrifice of a son of god for all sins for all time to solve the problem of no more animal sacrifices, the corruption of the Jesus doctrine by Paul, then Simon, then, Marcion, then the scribes from the very beginning. To think God had anything to do with this clusterfact is to see him as a complete inept bumbling boob, not able to control which way he wanted his son's religion to veer. The whole notion God was involved in any of this mess is preposterous.

Or it could just be true along with the records that the orthodox church retained as authentic.

 

[Brian2]

The problem is that we don't know for sure whether the Paul of history was the same personality as the author or initiator of the oldest Pauline letters. The initiator of the oldest parts of those "Pauline" letters may have been the first century mystic Simon Magus.
We don't know whether this Simon Magus objected to the actual teachings of Jesus or to an early version of Christianity that had already diverted from that original mission of Jesus.

The Marcionite version of Christianity leaned more towards the teachings of Simon Magus, but the orthodox version of Christianity is a much less ideological and a more syncretic mix that relies more on rituals than on real spiritual practices.

Why would the early orthodox church keep the letters of Simon Magus as authentic letters by Paul?
What rituals did the early orthodox Christianity have except the Lords supper, commemorating His death and Baptism?
What was syncretic in the early church?

 

[Brian2]

Common sense will tell you the Bible was not written for those who have no care or concern about Jehovah correct? The entire Bible was written for Jehovah's people of course. Those who serve other gods obviously have their own sources. The Greek scriptures are for those in the new covenant. Many of the letters Paul wrote which are a large part of the Greek scriptures start off identifying those in whom it was written to, an example: (Romans 1:1-7) . . .Paul, a slave of Christ Jesus and called to be an apostle, . . . 7 to all those who are in Rome as God’s beloved ones, called to be holy ones:. . .

Those holy ones are the spirit begotten Christians, those of the 144k

All Christians are in the New Covenant. That is what the Gospel is.
To identify the holy ones, saints in Romans 1:1-7 as only the 144,000 is to read something into the text that is not there.
You may be taught by the Watchtower that Paul was only referring to the 144,000 there, but to believe that is just showing your loyalty to the teachings of the Watchtower and not to what the Bible teaches.
EVERYONE who believes Jesus is the Christ is born of God. (1John 5:1)
If ANYONE loves Jesus, the Father and Jesus will come and make their home with him. (John 14:23)
The Watchtower has to deny the Bible to believe what they teach about the 144,000.
The Watchtower denies the true identity of all Christians, including yourself.

 

[SeekingAllTruth]

Or it could just be true along with the records that the orthodox church retained as authentic.

I'm not aware the church retained any records from the 1st century. There is a disputed epistle from Clement that Biblical scholars claim dates from 90 CE or so. Do you know of any such authentic records dated to before 90 CE? I am not.

 

[SeekingAllTruth]

Why are testimonies of faith not also historical fact?
Secular historians are different to real historians if they want to remain secular. They do not admit to the truth of the supernatural. In that respect they are like professional scientists who do not want to lose their standing in the scientific community by bringing God into the picture.
Secular means biased towards an understanding of history that does not bring God into it.
Why is believing the gospels blind faith and believing secular historians (who deny the only records we have) not blind faith?
Secular historians of the day in mentioning Christianity are also speaking about the beliefs of Christianity, including the resurrection.

I'm not aware of a single secular historian who mentions the resurrection as if it were fact. Tacitus as we all know mentions a "Christ who suffered the extreme penalty at the hands of Pontius Pilate" but that's all he says. Are you aware of any secular historians from the 1st or 2nd century who mention the resurrection?

 

[SeekingAllTruth]

Paul did not admit to lying there, at Romans 3:7.

He didn't????

 

[SeekingAllTruth]

Then why does the record show that Paul and the other apostles agreed on the gospel? Why do the people who knew apostles, the apostolic Fathers agree with what Paul said?

Fascinating article:
It was Paul who established Christianity, not Peter or Jesus

"Paul, who never met Jesus and did not witness his crucifixion, transformed the stories he heard into mythical images which the four evangelists incorporated into the weaving of their gospels. Paul picked up his “Christ stories” not from Jewish communities who had known Jesus in Galilee, but from Greek communities who had already changed him into a god. This is obvious in the beautiful hymn Paul quotes to the Philippians 2:6 which talks of Christ “existing in the form of God.” No Jew could have written this."

https://www.macon.com/opinion/opn-columns-blogs/article134736899.html

 

[Skywalker]

A Greek anti-Jewish messiah, created by Emperor Constantine in the year 325ce for Christians.

Jesus was not anti Jewish. Jesus and his followers were Jewish. I believe that anti-semetism is related to the hatred of Jesus. The form of following Jesus of the first Christians who were Jewish isn't the form of Christianity practiced today, because following Jewish law isn't meaningful for most Gentiles, and following Jesus became Gentile after it was spread to the Gentiles. After Christianity and Judaism separated, they were considered different religions, but in the start, the term Christian wasn't used as much as the boundaries between Christianity and Judaism weren't clear cut. They were like two religions in one.

 

[lukethethird]

Who is Jesus?

Don't know. May have existed, may not have. We really have no way of knowing.

 

[capumetu]

Who is Jesus?

Don't know. May have existed, may not have. We really have no way of knowing.

Hi Luke, it is true Jesus is not here, but there is much evidence that he existed, or was the biggest spoof created from some very intelligent people.

Even time calculated on his existence sir. AD means the year of our lord, speaking of Jesus of course. It is history.

 

[SeekingAllTruth]

Hi Luke, it is true Jesus is not here, but there is much evidence that he existed, or was the biggest spoof created from some very intelligent people.

Even time calculated on his existence sir. AD means the year of our lord, speaking of Jesus of course. It is history.

We now used CE common era.

 

[lukethethird]

Hi Luke, it is true Jesus is not here, but there is much evidence that he existed, or was the biggest spoof created from some very intelligent people.

Even time calculated on his existence sir. AD means the year of our lord, speaking of Jesus of course. It is history.

We know that a religion was born but when it comes to a Jesus we have to settle for a little ambiguity. Pre-gospel Christianity appears totally different than post-gospel Christianity. Christianity thrives on these texts to this day.

 

[paarsurrey]

We know that a religion was born but when it comes to a Jesus we have to settle for a little ambiguity. Pre-gospel Christianity appears totally different than post-gospel Christianity. Christianity thrives on these texts to this day.

Does one belong to the Pre-Gospel Christianity, please?

Regards
____________
More About Q and the Gospel of Thomas
by Marilyn Mellowes

"The text found at Nag Hammadi, although complete, was written in Coptic, which was the form of the Egyptian language in use during later Roman imperial times.
On the basis of this text, however, scholars were able to reconstruct the Gospel of Thomas in Greek, the original language of its composition. By this means, they were able to compare its contents with those of writings found in the New Testament.
The Gospel of Thomas is very different from the gospels that have become part of the New Testament. It contains no narrative material, nor is there any story of the birth, the life, or the death of Jesus. It consists only of sayings, 114 in all, each preceded by the phrase, "And Jesus said." The collected sayings of the Gospel of Thomas are designated by its author as "the secret sayings which the living Jesus spoke."

"Q stands for "Quelle," the German word for source. Although no actual copy of Q has ever been found, many scholars are convinced that such a document once circulated in early Christian communities. Since it was difficult to get excited about something that did not exist, Q remained a hypothesis that lingered on the edges of scholarly research. But in 1945, a chance discovery in Egypt provided surprisingly new evidence that rekindled interest in the possible existence of Q.

Two brothers were looking for fertilizer at the base of cliffs in the Egyptian region of Nag Hammadi,"

"One scholar, Burton Mack, has advanced a radical thesis: that at least some Christian communities did not see Jesus as a Messiah; they saw him as a teacher of wisdom, a man who tried to teach others how to live. For them, Jesus was not divine, but fully human. These first followers of Jesus differed from other Christians whose ritual and practice was centered on the death and the resurrection of Jesus."
The Story Of The Storytellers - More About Q And The Gospel Of Thomas | From Jesus To Christ | FRONTLINE | PBS
Search terms: "Pre-Gospel Christianity"