haha. I'm not a Christian. I'm not even religious at all. There isn't anything at stake in this for me,  I'm just into this stuff cause I'm a geek.

Sorry to disappoint u. 

No apology needed. I get it. 'Far-fetched', 'You're just being dramatic', 'You've said little of any substance', the whole tone of that post is how you make friends.

I backed all I said up from history, from the Bible, from the work of impartial scholars on the subject. These are things anyone can research and see whether they're true or not, independent of the person making the argument. That's what an argument is. To counter it, you simply put an alternative argument forward and back it up from the same sources or better. You don't make assertions you don't back up, put that forward and then say one isn't willing to listen. If that's enough for you, that's fine. But your standards aren't everybody else's. This thread is about stating an opinion on a topic. Everyone is free to do that. I'm off the subject.

Vesc,
I was kidding about the biting o!

Those were not insults.

Pauls wrote letters, not scripture. He was responding to specific situations in a specific context. he did not ask for his letters to become Christian bible. When u take his statements thAt he wrote to a specific group of people, about a specific issue, and use that to connect him with the atrocities committed by an Imperial institution many centuries later, that is, IMO  far fetched and even ridiculous. When Jesus asks u to cut off your hands that makes u sin why don't u do that? Why not take him literally? If I keep thinking lustful thoughts and decide to shoot myself in the head so that I stop sinning, can I go ahead and blame Jesus for that?  How does being a Pharisee affect one being an apostle? How does acts, a book written decades after Paul, by an unknown author become more reliable than the letters of the person it describes? I can go on and on. . And I will when I respond later.


When I said u have said little of substance, I meant it. Do I regret that I did, yes. I was a bit irritated at the time and let it get the best of me. I could have chosen my words more carefully and I have apologized.

Aww, big egos.

Uh, so you still don't have nerves Max? Just when I thought I found one.

Two hit combo! You're now very intriguing to me. Krayola has a point in saying it's not Paul's fault that a buncha Catholic thugs roasted people they considered witches. Neither is it his fault his letters were chosen to form majority of the NT. But did he want his teachings to take precedence? Yes sir. If it were left to him, I think he might write the whole 'bible' and tell us that nothing should be added or subtracted.

It's all muddy water. Me, as far as the bible is concerned, I'm of the opinion that you can only tell for sure what is an untruth and can never tell what is true or who said the thing.

This thread just got interesting again. Me, I like arguments. I like to learn though and not just to prove I'm right.

@ Mad max. I apologize if i came across rude. your opinions are very welcome and I hope u continue to contribute to this discussion. I should have responded to your posts but I was just being lazy, and i, wrongly and maybe foolishly, didn't think u were interested in listenin to anyone so i just shied away. Abeg no vex o. Jesus talk say make we no fight.  Oya, chop knuckle

Mad_Max:

The messages of Christ were there. The apostles Christ appointed were spreading them. Paul does not buttress his teachings with the teachings of Jesus because he refused to learn from the apostles.

Paul disagreed with the disciples on what was required of Gentiles who wanted to come to Jesus. I am unaware of Jesus giving any specific orders regarding this. Jesus, during his life, preached to Jews, and even, on occasion, referred to Gentiles as dogs. Paul's beef with the disciples was not really about doctrinal issues, but conversion issues. It was a new issue that had just come up, and Paul, convinced his mission was to Gentiles, and that their salvation, and the return of Jesus was at stake, was determined to get the Gentiles saved. He wouldn't let anyone stop him, not even the disciples. We can disagree with him, but that does not necessarily make him a bad person. If u have some instances when Paul disagreed with the disciples about the teachings of Jesus, please let me know.

Mad_Max:

He merely propagated his own teachings.

For example . . . . . . ?

If u mean Paul asking people to be cast out of the church and left to satan, Jesus asks to treat dissenters like one would treat a pagan  or a tax collector. Matthew 18 15. Now Paul's rhetoric might seem to us in this day and age as over the top, but I will attempt to put that in context later in this response.

We need to remember that we live 2000 years after the fact, and there is a lot of history that clouds our judgement. . . so it is very difficult to look back at the events of the 1st century without doing it thru the lens of the horrendous history of the Imperial church, and the frustration and anger we feel towards those we think, rightfully or not, are responsible. Objectivity, especially for people with something at stake in this, is extremely difficult.

Mad_Max:

Where did he get his teachings? He says Christ was revealed in him. (Whatever that means).Don't take my word for it. He said so himself. Galatians 1 :11-12, 16-17.

I want you to know, brothers, that the gospel I preached is not something that man made up. I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ. Yeah, right.

But when God, who set me apart from birth and called me by his grace, was pleased to reveal his Son in me so that I might preach him among the Gentiles, I did not consult any man, nor did I go up to Jerusalem to see those who were apostles before I was

The issues in Galatians were about conversion. Paul, according to the sources we have, believed he had a vision and was instructed to bring the Gentiles on board. He had taken that message to the Galatians, and others had come and told them they had been misled, and that they had to accept the Jewish purity laws and  have their males circumcised. We can reject Paul's position. TBH I do. I also reject all the claims about Jesus being divine and walking on water and all that, IMO, nonsense. But what would be, in my view, inappropriate, will be to call the people who made all those claims evil, arrogant, malicious, etc and the people who believe such, using your words "wallowing in deception", and "deceiving themselves".  (I confess i've called them such few times on NL so this halo i'm trying to hang over my head na counterfeit  ) Again, Paul did not disagree with the disciples about something Jesus taught or instructed, but on what was required of new converts.

Mad_Max:

He was constantly at war with the genuine apostles, who rejected him. Always sowing discord, always boasting and defending himself against accusations of lying.

"Genuine" apostles? Please remember that these people were also human. Some of whom were even, according to the gospels, scolded by Jesus in his lifetime. One betrayed him, one denied him three times in a very short period of time, one doubted the resurrection, and none hung around to watch him suffer and die. We are not in any position to vouch for the character of these individuals. We do not have a written copy of what these people said to Paul, or any of these communities, to see how polite or civil they were. You are free to pick sides, but I hope you realize that we know very little of these individuals.  We have letters from Paul so we can dissect and make all sorts of judgments about him, but they get a "get out of jail free" pass.  Maybe if we had a copy of one of the letters Paul's opponents wrote, if they could write, we could say we had an informed opinion. . . but only Paul left us correspondence, so he gets all the heat.

Also, according to Acts 13 the Holy spirit instructed hands to be laid on Barnabas and Saul, and then had them sent out for some special work. . .  and Paul went and encountered some sorcerer dude and what not and made him blind. SO the genuine disciples, that u say rejected him, did send Paul on a mission, and Paul was filled with the Holy Spirit, according to texts that Paul had nothing to do with, and were written over 50 years after Paul. How Paul pulled this forgery off is beyond me. Maybe u can shed some light on this.

Paul did disagree with the disciples though, but u are, IMO, exaggerating the scope of the disagreements. He was IMO not distorting the teachings of Jesus, but insisting on an all inclusive Kingdom of God.

Mad_Max:

And his letters were written in Greek. The apostles spoke and wrote Aramaic.  Paul could speak and write in Aramaic but wrote his letters in Greek, which the apostles of Christ could not read.

Paul wrote Greek letters because his audience spoke Greek and not Aramaic. It, IMO, probably wasn't because he did not want the disciples to understand. WHy write Aramaic letters to Gentiles? Would u have done that?

Mad_Max:

Interesting possibilities as to why.  27 books in the New Testament. Only 8 written by the genuine apostles: Mattew, John, James, 1 John, 2 John, 3 John, Jude, and Revelations.

The "genuine" apostles were most likely illiterate. They, almost certainly, did not write any of the books u listed there. Matthew's author is unknown. John's author is unknown, and this gospel is largely viewed and ahistorical, and more of a theological text. The letters of John were believed to have been written by the author of the gospel of John, but most scholars believe they were authored by a group related to this author, maybe students of his, but not the same individual. (This was discussed in depth in a thread recently. . i'll try to find a link to it. Can't remember what thread it was). The dating of the letters make them impossible to have been written by the apostle John. He would have been well over 100 years old.  James and Jude are Pseudonymous.  Revelation is believed to be from the same group that authored the letters of John.

Mad_Max:

The rest was made up of the writings of Paul and his descendant disciples. And no, they, not Peter, wrote 1 and 2 Peter. Their little fraud was exposed by scholars, and the stylistic similarities between the Peter letters and Pauline writing are too overwhelming for doubt. Not only that, but 2 Peter promotes whatever Paul teaches, even if you don't understand it.  2 Peter 3: 15-16

wow! Going by what u call  "fraud", Genesis all the way to Revelation, except the confirmed letters of Paul, are a fraud, because most of the claimed authors didn't write nada.  Ascribing authors to texts was common practice in those days.  Below is an excerpt from my old class notes on this issue

Pseudepigraphy (ascribing  false names of authors to works)

1. The term “pseudepigraphy” is closely related to “pseudonymity”.
a. Does pseudepigraphy present problems for faith and theology?
 Critical questions regarding authorship are not the same as questioning the “Scriptural” or “canonical” status of a document.

2. The practice of pseudepigraphy in the 1st century
a. Reasons for writing in Paul’s name
i. To show respect for Paul’s mission and views.
ii. To show dependence on the revelatory tradition of Paul as an apostle or messenger of God (“guarding the deposit”).
 Distinction between “writer” and “author” of letter (Raymond E. Brown).
iii. To correct perceived misinterpretations of the apostle’s legacy
iv. To garner support for a particular interpretation of Paul’s teaching during a time of controversy
b. Was anyone fooled? Was the pseudepigraphy transparent? (Andrew Lincoln)

3. Kinds of data leading to the suspicion of pseudepigraphy:
a. Style of writing: is this simply the result of the use of various secretaries or scribes (amanuenses), or a sign of another author altogether?
b. Theology, such as eschatology
c. Sociology, or move toward greater institutionalization and more conservative community structure and interpersonal relationships

4. List of “disputed” letters:
 2 Thessalonians
 Colossians
 Ephesians
 1 Timothy
 2 Timothy
 Titus

Right from the Old Testament, this was common practice. . . The letters of John that u claim to have been written by the original apostles were written in similar manner.

I have to run now but I'll finish maybe tomorrow. This is takin a lot of time and it's saturday night. Reading books about 1st century Palestine isn't what I wanna be doing right now. I still have lots to add tho, especially about why Paul seems to come across as boastful and arrogant. .  and I'll finish it up later. ciao. 

haha. All the posts don dissapear. SHina Rambo in the building! 


@Vescucci. I can't remember everything u said cause the post has disappeared.  But I'm pretty sure u asked something about Jewish Messianic expectations.

Jews believed and expected different things. We tend to view them as this homogeneous group of people that shared a uniform set of beliefs, but that is far from the truth. There were Jews that didn't even believe in God. There were pagan Jews, conservative devout Jews, Liberal devous Jews, Essenes, Zealots etc etc ., each with their own version of Hebrew religion, and different messianic expectations, or even none at all. Jerusalem religious Jews would have had somewhat different ideasn from Galiliea Jews, would have had different ideas from diaspora Jews in different parts of the empire etc etc. They were all still considered religious Jews, and would have come to the temple for Passover and all that. Judaism[b]s[/b] would be a more accurate way to describe it, and they were all recognized.

DIfferent ideas of the Messiah existed. SOme expected no messiah at all, some expected a military Messiah, some expected 2 kinds of Messiahs, one prophetic and one military, some believed Jesus was the Messiah, some believed other people, that lived during Jesus were the Messiah etc etc. I've been trying to emphasize since that the NT is a faith documet, while others have been using it as a record of history. It presents Jesus as the "true" Messiah because it was written by people that believe strongly in Jesus as the Messiah. It paints Jesus' opponents as "filled with envy",  malicious when they challenge Jesus, etc etc. Those narratives have to be read very critically. They represent one view amongst many, and are far from fair and balanced in their portrayal of events and people groups.

Messianism formed an important component of religious belief among all the groups in this period. The expectation of a messiah, an anointed scion of the Davidic royal house, took on strong eschatological overtones in the Greco-Roman period. This is in reaction to the political oppression suffered under the Greeks and the Romans, and in some cases to the takeover of the temple and the high priesthood by those deemed unworthy to control it. Messianic beliefs, like everything else in this period, were not uniform across groups; however, messianic expectations seem to be rampant. Josephus describes several messianic movements in this period; he mentions names such as Judas of Galilee, Simon bar Goriah, Theudas, and the Egyptian. In the second Jewish revolt in 132-135 CE, its leader, Simeon bar Kosiba (bar Kokhba) was hailed as messiah by no less a figure than Rabbi Akiba (Collins: 110-11). Therefore it is not surprising that according to the gospels some of Jesus' followers acclaimed him as messiah; such a belief would be neither unusual nor unique in the first century CE.

[21] I have attempted today to paint a picture of the world of Jesus and his disciples that reflects the variety of the multifaceted communities in which they lived and which they would have encountered. This picture constantly changes and expands as our knowledge base changes and expands; therefore no one source is adequate for portraying a realistic version of the life of Jesus.

http://www.unomaha.edu/jrf/2004Symposium/Crawford.htm  This link breaks down 1st century Palestine so one can get a better idea of the context in which all these events happened. I only posted the last paragraph cause it deals with Messianic expectations, but reading the whole thing, especially the second half dealing with the world of Jesus may be very helpful.


@ Madmax. IN Acts 15:24 , we have what seems to me as the Jerusalem apostles, including Peter and James, explicitly endorsing a very same "false" teaching that Paul is being accused of spreading. How do you make sense of that?

4And when they were come to Jerusalem, they were received of the church, and of the apostles and elders, and they declared all things that God had done with them.

5But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses.

6And the apostles and elders came together for to consider of this matter.

7And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe.

8And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us;

9And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith.

10Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?

11But we believe that through the grace of the LORD Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they.

12Then all the multitude kept silence, and gave audience to Barnabas and Paul, declaring what miracles and wonders God had wrought among the Gentiles by them.

13And after they had held their peace, James answered, saying, Men and brethren, hearken unto me:

14Simeon hath declared how God at the first did visit the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name.

15And to this agree the words of the prophets; as it is written,

16After this I will return, and will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down; and I will build again the ruins thereof, and I will set it up:

17That the residue of men might seek after the Lord, and all the Gentiles, upon whom my name is called, saith the Lord, who doeth all these things.

18Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world.

19Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God:

20But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.

21For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day.

22Then pleased it the apostles and elders with the whole church, to send chosen men of their own company to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas; namely, Judas surnamed Barsabas and Silas, chief men among the brethren:

23And they wrote letters by them after this manner; The apostles and elders and brethren send greeting unto the brethren which are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia.

24Forasmuch as we have heard, that certain which went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, Ye must be circumcised, and keep the law: to whom we gave no such commandment:

25It seemed good unto us, being assembled with one accord, to send chosen men unto you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul,

26Men that have hazarded their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ.

27We have sent therefore Judas and Silas, who shall also tell you the same things by mouth.

28For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things;

29That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well.

You put the part where Peter declared HE was the one sent to the Gentiles in bold, a fact no one challenged at that meeting, in case you didn't notice. That's good. I hope you read that. ACTS 21:21 described Paul preaching a false doctrine that Jews were not to follow Jewish laws and Customs and the apostles confronting him about it. Matthew 5:17, the sermon on the mount, confirms Christ taught them nothing of the sort. The meeting you highlighted above was about gentile believers, NOT Jews. The elders sent letters to the GENTILES that they were not to follow the law, or did you conveniently miss 'gentile brethren' in your verse 23? But the erroneous teaching they heard about and confronted Paul with in Acts 21:21 is still in the bible, since his letters comprise most of the NT. The apostles handled him and that false doctrine with great tact. Follow the account and see how he got into trouble of his own making with the Jews with one of his invented teachings.

Life is hard and people are terrible. Life is hard enough without some fraudulent dolt inventing hateful doctrines on whose authority horrible things were done to millions of people for centuries. On whose authority Apartheid theology rested, as does senseless, ungodly gender discrimination and mental abuse. Life is hard and people are terrible enough without someone giving them authority and an excuse to commit atrocities, however short-sighted he might have been. What has 'Love your enemies' got to do with ''Bring out a sinner and destroy his flesh so his spirit may be saved on the Last Day'? Why are these teachings unique to him, doctrine which many believed(and still believe) God wrote and therefore cannot be wrong? People died. People DIED. Human beings like you and me. Horrifically. If you knew the details of what happened to them over nineteen centuries you will lose sleep for a hundred years. For all kinds of 'sin': 'Heretics' and 'witches' and social revolutionaries (the 'sin' of fighting a government 'God' put there).The Church interpreted 'Destroy the flesh so his spirit may be saved' as kill them without spilling their blood so
their spirit (souls) may be saved.  You tried to deride my research and say I'm calling him bad because I disagree with him. Take a tambourine and go dance in the streets because you agree with Paul. Rejoice over all the countless men, women, children and infants (as young as a year old) that were burned and suffered cruel, insanely wicked, unnecessary deaths over his doctrines. Boogie over Paul-doctrine-based apartheid theology that Christians themselves condemned as false (the Kairos Document) and be happy for those who perished under it while you probably sat somewhere cosily sipping Fanta.

Post whatever you wish because half a dozen of my arguments have been erased. But I did mention I'm a Christian and you're an atheist. I'm the one with a stake in what's true and false in the bible and my religion, not you. What did you imagine my reservations about Paul were about? If his invented doctrines and fake 'God-channeling' were harmless, do you imagine I'd care? Jesus warned his disciples of a wolf in sheep's clothing. Those that reviewed all the evidence and believe Paul faked a conversion to infilterate the church and destroy it from within, do you suppose them daft? I may re-post my lost posts, but I'm done with pointless arguments.

  Na waa o. see me see trouble o.  WHy u wan hang Paul by force o. Wetin baba Paul do u o. E ma gbami lo wo false prosecutor o. 

Mad_Max:

You put the part where Peter declared HE was the one sent to the Gentiles in bold, a fact no one challenged at that meeting, in case you didn't notice. That's good. I hope you read that. ACTS 21:21 described Paul preaching a false doctrine that Jews were not to follow the law and the apostles confronting him about it. Matthew 5:17, the sermon on the mount, confirms Christ taught them no such thing. The meeting you highlighted was about gentile believers. The elders sent letters to the GENTILES that they were not to follow the law, or did you conveniently miss 'gentile brethren' in your verse 23?

I have maintained that Acts is not a historical document. I just pointed that out to show u that even Acts does not support this conspiracy theory of yours. You accused me of avoiding Paul, when all i was trying to do was to create a context in which we could see how valid your claims are. But I decided to play by your own rules, because people are reading and it is important they do not get misinformed. Your arguments are based on your own personal faith and beliefs. The texts you site as historical, and have been using to support your arguments, are NOT accurate historical accounts. Now, Let's pretend they were. They still do not support what you claim. Let me show you. 


This is acts 21: 21 where, according to you, Paul was CONFRONTED, about his "false teachings"

Mad_Max:

ACTS 21:21 described Paul preaching a false doctrine that Jews were not to follow the law and the apostles confronting him about it. Matthew 5:17, the sermon on the mount, confirms Christ taught them no such thing. The meeting you highlighted was about gentile believers. The elders sent letters to the GENTILES that they were not to follow the law, or did you conveniently miss 'gentile brethren' in your verse 23? But the erroneous teaching they confronted Paul about in Acts 21:21 is still in the bible.

Paul Visits James

17When we had come to Jerusalem,(U) the brothers received us gladly. 18On the following day Paul went in with us to(V) James, and all(W) the elders were present. 19After greeting them,(X) he related one by one(Y) the things that God had done among the Gentiles through his(Z) ministry. 20And when they heard it, they(AA) glorified God. And they said to him, "[b]You see, brother, how many thousands there are among the Jews of those who have believed. They are all(AB) zealous for the law, 21and they have been told about you that you teach all(AC) the Jews who are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses,(AD) telling them(AE) not to circumcise their children or(AF) walk according to(AG) our customs. 22What then is to be done? [/b]They will certainly hear that you have come. 23Do therefore what we tell you. We have four men(AH) who are under a vow; 24take these men and(AI) purify yourself along with them and pay their expenses,(AJ) so that they may shave their heads. Thus all will know that there is nothing in what they have been told about you, but that you yourself also live in observance of the law. 25But as for the Gentiles who have believed,(AK) we have sent a letter with our judgment that they should abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols, and from blood, and from what has been strangled,[c] and from sexual immorality." 26Then Paul took the men, and the next day(AL) he purified himself along with them and(AM) went into the temple, giving notice when the days of purification would be fulfilled and(AN) the offering presented for each one of them.

As you can see in the highlighted red fonts, they are discussing JEWS that are concerned Paul teaches JEWS to abandon Torah. James is sending people with Paul, to show the JEWS that have this concern they have been mistaken, and that even Paul was still committed to Torah (in Green).  But that as for the Gentiles, they were to do blah blah blah you know the rest.

What are you going to come up with next? 

Mad_Max:

People died. People DIED. Human beings like you and me. Horrifically. If you knew the details of what happened to them over nineteen centuries you will lose sleep for a hundred years. Terrible things have been done because of someone's teaching. You tried to deride my research and say I'm calling him bad because I disagree with him. Take a tambourine and go dance in the streets because you agree with Paul. Rejoice over all the countless men, women, children and infants (as young as a year old) that were burned and suffered cruel, insanely wicked, unnecessary deaths over his doctrines. Boogie over Paul-doctrine-based apartheid theology that Christians themselves condemned and be happy for those who perished under it while you probably sat somewhere cosily sipping Fanta.

haha. cut da crap. We all know the history and how horrible it is. Trying to pin it on Paul is, IMO, silly, at best. If u want to discuss how the idea of heresies came about in Christianity, and the power struggles that led to persecutions, we can discuss that elsewhere. But this appeal to pity, and the horror of the middle ages, is opata.

You guys are like a bad couple. Breaking up and making up. I'll try to post the essentials of my questions later. Your piece was good but I knew that already. I meant Jewish culture in relation to the average man is secretive. Most of what we discuss here is not in a Smithsonian vault but it is not common knowledge

vescucci:

You guys are like a bad couple. Breaking up and making up. I'll try to post the essentials of my questions later. Your piece was good but I knew that already. I meant Jewish culture in relation to the average man is secretive. Most of what we discuss here is not in a Smithsonian vault but it is not common knowledge

haha. I don't know what u know, or what u don't. I just commented on what I remember from your post.

Judaism is not secretive IMO.  It just isn't as accessible mainly, IMO, because most people won't go and learn Hebrew just because they want to learn about a religion. But there is info online, in libraries, pretty much all over the place for anyone that wants to know, or they can just ask a Jew. I've discussed Judaism with several religious Jews before and they have been pretty open. Some of the perceived secrecy may have to do with a possible  lack of trust after 19 centuries of anti-semtism.

I'm not even sure what exactly u mean by "Jewish culture"  . . .  I'm sure, now, that u know Jewish culture is not monolithic. . . Judaism is a Jewish religion but most Jews do not even practice it. In Israel only about 30% practice the traditional religion.  Most of the others are secularists and observe the festivals but as "National identity" type thing not really as religious holy days.  ABout 20 % are not observant at all

Vesc, watch that please. I mentioned one of the scholars who verified the accuracy of Acts: Donald Guthrie, who had a Ph.D from the University of London since the 1940s, was the world's foremost expert in the New Testament, who spent decades with dozens of other scholars on pioneering work in bible research, and whom every single bible scholar after him quotes in their research and in their books till this day. Not only were the narratives in Acts verified by findings in archeology, Greek historians record some of the events Luke mentioned in their own histories. There's also the fact that Luke records Phillip preaching to an Ethiopian. Independent historians record an eunuch preaching to his countrymen and his imported teaching spreading quickly among them. Frumentious revived it four centuries later, converting one of their emperors. Ethiopia is the world's oldest Christian nation, and has its own bible. Another verification of Acts. It's interesting to note they were converted by Phillip, not Paul, and Ethiopia never had a history of 'destroying the flesh of sinners' or burning 'heretics'.

Though he had no trouble quoting from it just now to mount a 'defence', Krayola insists Acts is not accurate and Paul is actually 'the reliable historian'. What history did Paul record? He offers none. He says Paul is boastful and proud and brags endlessly because that is the scholarship style in antiquity. Paul was 'rude' because his (imaginary) 'opponents' were 'rude'. Krayola's evidence for all these and the scholars who verified it? None. He's 'finishing a religious degree'. All the argurments posted over the last couple of days has been erased, so he's acting like they never existed. Trash an argument like the Gentile/Jew/ Jewish law above and he ignores it and produces another out of the air. Not because he's really interested in what's true in a religion he doesn't believe in, but for the sake of extending his thread. He labels things 'silly IMO' and 'conspiracy theory' as if merely calling it so makes it so. Talk and talk and talk, but no proof or evidence ever. If someone is completely ignorant of biblical text, textual analysis and history, cannot state his sources and is incapable of linking cause, however distant and shortsighted, with effect but produces one bad argument after another all in aid of defending the indefensible, what is to be done? Absolutely nothing.

Huh?

I still think Judaism is exclusive. Would you say it was as easy as pie for a Somali to become a Jew. Forget academic abstractions and rhetorics that will outline the processes but the truth is the Jewish nation has no interest in proselytizing. Learning hebrew? Many many people learn arabic to become muslims. Hebrew is very similar to arabic so it's not like it's easier or harder. I'm not even interested in these problem cuz you've asserted my point which is that Jews right from the onset (and moreso in contemporary times) are first a people (a nation or nationality) and then proponents of a religion

I think I misunderstood your post. U said "secretive" so I thought maybe u meAnt as is secret society.  If one wants to convert to Judaism it is possible, but generally theY don't actively seek converts. Part of the conversion process is them discouraging the person seeking conversion. And I meant most people won't want to learn Hebrew just because they are curious. Unless maybe serious scholars I think few people learn Arabic just so they can study the Quran. To study Torah I think u have to understand the Hebrew texts.

The other matter I wanted to get your views on is to what extent the persona of Jesus has been coloured by his gradual europeanizing and desemitizing over the centuries that Christianity before the last century could be said to be a white man's religion. I also wanted to read your views on how popular Jewish messianic expectations and later Greco-roman mythology played their parts in distorting most of his message.

Speaking on Jesus' message, I wanted to know where the line is drawn between actual truth and the apostles honest overzealousness. I gave an example of this with the selective and probably dubious quoting of Hosea chapter 11 verse 1 to buttress a point in Matthew chapter 2 that the writer was making. How do we know many other of such 'as it was written' claims are not mere coincidences or fabrications?

I think that's that. Krayola. I'd like to get your contact info. I need your help getting some material in some areas.

I know a couple just like you two. Just love to fight. I wish you both will just settle down and make up. A person is a person and doesn't change. A person's view might. I don't subscribe to any religion anymore but I don't think religions happen by accident. It's the essential truths that I seek to distill minus all the cultural/national/mythical/fictitious regalia they have been clothed with. Your debate is really moot because in my opinion, you both have as much evidence (or lack of it) for your views as the other party. I've really been surprised by some things you both have said here. Half information is dangerous and moreso when you're being implictly haughty about it. Please let's be civil or let's abandon this.

I am surprised krayola is still in this "debate"

Mad_Max:


Though he had no trouble quoting from it just now to mount a 'defence', Krayola insists Acts is not accurate and Paul is actually 'the reliable historian'. What history did Paul record? He offers none. He says Paul is boastful and proud and brags endlessly because that is the scholarship style in antiquity. Paul was 'rude' because his (imaginary) 'opponents' were 'rude'. Krayola's evidence for all these and the scholars who verified it? None. He's 'finishing a religious degree'. All the argurments posted over the last couple of days has been erased, so he's acting like they never existed. Trash an argument like the Gentile/Jew/ Jewish law above and he ignores it and produces another out of the air. Not because he's really interested in what's true in a religion he doesn't believe in, but for the sake of extending his thread. He labels things 'silly IMO' and 'conspiracy theory' as if merely calling it so makes it so. Talk and talk and talk, but no proof or evidence ever. If someone is completely ignorant of biblical text, textual analysis and history, cannot state his sources and is incapable of linking cause, however distant and shortsighted, with effect but produces one bad argument after another all in aid of defending the indefensible, what is to be done? Absolutely nothing.

Damn!! Na me do all these things? This one na life without parole nah. . .


It's ok. U win. Paul is the anti-Christ, a true wolf in sheep's clothing.

vescucci:


I think that's that. Krayola. I'd like to get your contact info. I need your help getting some material in some areas.

daromp@live.com

noetic16:

I am surprised krayola is still in this "debate"

Na devil push me. He hasn't stopped yet.

Lol. I'm pleased to see the end of this jare. I'll mail you presently

Krayola:

Damn!!  Na me do all these things?   This one na life without parole nah. . . 

Which one didn't you do there? Point to it na. You're right: Paul had no idea his letters would become scripture. Granted; he was short-sighted and couldn't see the future. But the office of prophet/God's oracle no longer existed among believers, since they now had the promised Holy Spirit for guidance. When someone is telling believers to kill each other for sinning, pretending 'the lord' was now directly speaking through him and issuing new 'commandments' (alone of all the apostles), and that they were to disregard all other teaching except his, precisely what social good and moral upliftment was he aiming for?  This and a lot of other things about Paul is a serious issue for many Christians worldwide but you're an atheist and haven't a stake in it and it shows. Let's be done.

The 'different kinds of Jews were expecting different Messiah' comment; You brought it up two days ago and we've already been over that. Jews were expecting the Messiah and still are. Jews who followed The Way, as following Christ was called then, believed The Messiah had already come. They had a 'Holy Spirit' which the other Jews didn't have and worshipped/met in each other's homes. Since both camps believed fundamentally different things, you cannot lump them together just because it's convenient for your argument to do so . We've been over this already.

You're right. There are books in the bible whose authors are unknown, and some are just a guess. This is especially common with the OT books due to its age. Most of the originals of the NT scrolls have been lost, but a great deal of headway had been made in identifying who wrote what and didn't write what, and who might have written what and when, and who added what to what and when. You rarely get a definite date from these scholars, some of them differing by decades. An original fragment from the actual scroll bearing the Gospel of Matthew was dated in 1994 to the year 58 or 60 by Carsten Thiede, who worked on dating and translating some of the Dead Sea Scrolls. That means an eyewitness most likely wrote Matthew. A common form of writing then was orally dictating letters to the equivalent of 'secretaries'.  You posted an excerpt from Luke where they were sending letters to the gentiles. I state the scholars from whom I get my facts. It would be easier if you simply stated yours and stopped referring me to your class notes as the authoritative source on the bible.

You call the the NT 'faith' documents, but that is precisely the point you yourself are missing here. It would have been useful if you could've impressed that intellectual argument on people who faithfully followed what it said and did terrible things for centuries because of what's in it. This isn't about who wrote the gospels or when they dated to. It's about what people believed and still believe to be true in the letters of Paul, and the things they did and are still doing because of it. I notice you never once forward the absurd argument that he didn't write them. I quoted Blaise Pascal days ago: People never do evil so cheerfully and so completely as when they do it from religious conviction. But then, I'm done butting solid scholars and actual research with the infallible authority of your class notes.

noetic16:

I am surprised krayola is still in this "debate"

He reasons and is well-mannered. You must be amazed.

Mad_Max:

He reasons and is well-mannered. You must be amazed.

Trust me, I am deeply amazed. . . . .that inspite of ur obvious ignorance, delusion and character assassination of Paul, any rational and reasoning person will still be engaging you in a "debate".

Go over the thread again . . . .every of ur innuendos has been shattered, deeply because u REFUSE to use ur head and think for urself, but rely foolishly on a bunch of opinionated researchers. You must be disappointed that u met more intelligent people on nairaland, who refuse to accept the fallacy of ur submissions.

I refer to your surprise and amazement that someone displayed qualities completely alien to you.

You shattered my innuendos? I didn't notice.

You're Prehistoric School. Let me say it in Neanderthish / Grunt-ese so you finally understand.:Getti. Somma. Manners.

@ madmax. Thank you for ur deep insight, and your time. I'm guilty of all charges, and have no clue what credible scholarship means. I have not provided any scholarly sources to back up my arguments, and my class notes are nonsensical, at best. I'm sorry your posts got deleted. Mine got deleted too but they were just my unsubstantiated opinions not backed up with anything so boo hoo to me. I'm guilty. Case closed. you win.

vescucci:
I think that's that. Krayola. I'd like to get your contact info. I need your help getting some material in some areas.

I know a couple just like you two. Just love to fight. I wish you both will just settle down and make up. A person is a person and doesn't change. A person's view might. I don't subscribe to any religion anymore but I don't think religions happen by accident. It's the essential truths that I seek to distill minus all the cultural/national/mythical/fictitious regalia they have been clothed with. Your debate is really moot because in my opinion, you both have as much evidence (or lack of it) for your views as the other party. I've really been surprised by some things you both have said here. Half information is dangerous and moreso when you're being implictly haughty about it. Please let's be civil or let's abandon this.

 Alas! we come to the realization that the this thread for the most part, is pure conjecture .

All that exists out there in Religious studies is for the most part based on "the best estimate" "the likely probability" "the most educated guess" etc etc and for every "the bible has been tampered with expert" you can find an equal and opposite "the bible is trustworthy expert".

My point Vesc? the same point I was trying to make few pages ago - you can search through all the religious texts in the world, and the subsequent exposition done on them by the most respected of scholars, research the latest expert findings, track which scrolls came from which newly unearthed caves, learn greek, learn aramaic, combine the two and decipher the true meanings behind biblical text etc etc etc . . .

  but I've found that its like trying to drill a hole in a rock quarry using a telescope. ^^^all of this, to me, is a chasing after the wind. How can my beliefs be based on the current best guess of some scholar? Knowledge, in the truest sense of the word, is an illusion and he who thinks he "knows" is under a self-induced spell. You made a comment a while back about "God gave us brains, I'm sure He expects us to use it". I agree 1000%. The problem with that approach is that Spiritual truths are not intellectually apprehended - but moreso in spirit and in truth. Your brain will not help you find God, your heart and spirit - searching in truth - is what will. I think this above all else is where the "academic champions" falter most.

oh and this is not to smack on our resident expert Krayola at all. Infact I do enjoy a lot of his posts and insight. Its always good to see things from a different angle and I'm just trying to show things from mine. Cheers!

Hide under ironical self-deprecating comments all you like. But yeah, it's boo hoo to you jere. They teach you something in your class and that is the truth for all time. 'My teacher taught me and I wrote it down.' All history and all those who made New Testament research their life's work must give way to your class notes. Go and stand at the receiving end of that sort of thing and you'll boo-hoo harder. He's got a great head on his shoulders. Astrophysics, Experimental Psychology, Mathematics, and all of science is there. See him hauling butt to 'Religious Studies' out of laziness. Atheist o.

Max no vex now. Krayola you too. You know spirited debates are the the norm about here, and rare about here is two people ever agreeing on a subject matter. Make una no let am sour your taste ehn . . .

I was sort of teasing the guy there jere. Whoever heard of an atheist studying a discipline devoted to something that doesn't exist? But he's smart and fun to hang out with. Ei-yahh. JS. I have heard.

haha. I no vex o.  Na uncle Paul I dey feel sorry for.


@ Jeseoul. Scholars guess, and put a big "NOTICE" so we know they are guessing. Credible scholars will be the 1st to tell u they don't know. That is why one should be careful when people draw conclusions about individual's characters and motives, based on few verses from letters written two thousand years ago. Like I said, no credible scholarship will lead one to such superficial conclusions. 

Scholarship, for the most part. tries to recreate the context. . . without context we have nothing. Picking a passage from here and there is ok for faith debates, theology. For historical study, u need tonnes more to get anything reliable.

^ & ^^

Krayola:

@ Jeseoul. Scholars guess, and put a big "NOTICE" so we know they are guessing.

   Do they really Kray? it is rarely the case - in my casual experience - that a scholar would go out of his way to put a big sign on his decades of study that "this is just a guess". I remember remarking to Max once a while back that a lot of this "historical" stuff, are really opinions paraded as facts.

And I appreciate this line -

Credible scholars will be the 1st to tell u they don't know.

Which would mean credible scholars are few and far between 

That is why one should be careful when people draw conclusions about individual's characters and motives, based on few verses from letters written two thousand years ago. Like I said, no credible scholarship will lead one to such superficial conclusions.

My caution is the same but of a different persuation -
-The scholar gives you an "educated" guess
-The average person gives you an experiential guess
       - The common denominator - they're all guessing
My bone of contention? why should anyone be basing or deriving their beliefs of "guesses"? whether educated or not? For purely academic reasons, that is certainly fine. And that's where you're coming from Krayola and hence fine. However, for far grander issues of faith and spirituality and God - guesses, especially someone elses, will and must not suffice for the seeker.
 

Scholarship, for the most part. tries to recreate the context. . . without context we have nothing. Picking a passage from here and there is ok for faith debates, theology. For historical study, u need tonnes more to get anything reliable.

I like this quote. Scholarship does definitely have its merits, it gives us a glimpse into the life and times of an era. Where it falls short, is giving us a glimpse into God or matters of the spirit.

Hi JeSoul. Please play peacemaker small. I'm getting tired and I used to wonder why they always come back no matter how conclusive and I'm-done-ish their last posts sound. Max don confess sha. She enjoys his company. Let's go to movies, J. Abi na sports? I'm not cut out for all this. Imagine o. The war mongers have not even come here yet o.

On a side note, J. I can't entirely trust my soul or spirit or whatever. That thing probably has vagaries like an electron.

JeSoul:

^ & ^^
   Do they really Kray? it is rarely the case - in my casual experience - that a scholar would go out of his way to put a big sign on his decades of study that "this is just a guess". I remember remarking to Max once a while back that a lot of this "historical" stuff, are really opinions paraded as facts.

When they don't, run. That's why I said credible scholars. Not everyone with a Phd is credible. And a lot of the historical stuff about context is pretty solid. It is the particulars, the details. . who said what, where, when, what were the motives etc etc. Those are the things that have to be "guessed". It's a complicated process, and it's unfair to label all scholars as paraders of guesses as facts because that is inaccurate. Here is something I posted earlier

Messianism formed an important component of religious belief among all the groups in this period. The expectation of a messiah, an anointed scion of the Davidic royal house, took on strong eschatological overtones in the Greco-Roman period. This is in reaction to the political oppression suffered under the Greeks and the Romans, and in some cases to the takeover of the temple and the high priesthood by those deemed unworthy to control it. Messianic beliefs, like everything else in this period, were not uniform across groups; however, messianic expectations seem to be rampant. Josephus describes several messianic movements in this period; he mentions names such as Judas of Galilee, Simon bar Goriah, Theudas, and the Egyptian. In the second Jewish revolt in 132-135 CE, its leader, Simeon bar Kosiba (bar Kokhba) was hailed as messiah by no less a figure than Rabbi Akiba (Collins: 110-11). Therefore it is not surprising that according to the gospels some of Jesus' followers acclaimed him as messiah; such a belief would be neither unusual nor unique in the first century CE.

[21] I have attempted today to paint a picture of the world of Jesus and his disciples that reflects the variety of the multifaceted communities in which they lived and which they would have encountered. This picture constantly changes and expands as our knowledge base changes and expands; therefore no one source is adequate for portraying a realistic version of the life of Jesus.

Notice the highlighted. AN acknowledgment that findings are tentative. WHen scholars pick sides, make value judgements, and do not present their findings as tentative . .  put your "bullShit" detector on overdrive. Regardless of how many Phds the person has. We can't know for sure what happened 2000 years ago.

JeSoul:

And I appreciate this line -  Which would mean credible scholars are few and far between 

WHich is why one has to pick sources very carefully. If u don't know what u are doing u will start quoting any paper from a "scholar" as factual. U need a lot of background knowledge to tell what is what. Agreeing with the contents of a paper does not make it right.

JeSoul:

 My caution is the same but of a different persuation -
-The scholar gives you an "educated" guess
-The average person gives you an experiential guess
       - The common denominator - they're all guessing

Scholars do not just guess. They do a lot of painstaking research, and where they can not reach definite conclusions, the try to infer the most probable of scenarios. But that is with matters of specifics. WHen it comes to context, less guess work is involved. For example we don't guess that there were Liberal Pharisees in Galilee that preached a lot of the same stuff as Jesus. We know that for sure. WHat we don't know is whether Jesus agreed with them on every single matter. That would be a guess. U get what I'm trying to say? Few credible scholars will comment on whether Jesus actually rose from the dead. They will stop at "his believers were convinced he rose from the dead". They will neither affirm nor deny it. . . those would be faith statements, not history.

JeSoul:

My bone of contention? why should anyone be basing or deriving their beliefs of "guesses"? whether educated or not? For purely academic reasons, that is certainly fine. And that's where you're coming from Krayola and hence fine. However, for far grander issues of faith and spirituality and God - guesses, especially someone elses, will and must not suffice for the seeker.

What if a faith claim is based on historicity of a document that has been shown to be ahistorical?

JeSoul:

   I like this quote. Scholarship does definitely have its merits, it gives us a glimpse into the life and times of an era. Where it falls short, is giving us a glimpse into God or matters of the spirit.

I don't do theology. I avoid "spiritual" debates like the plague. I know that is not my territory.

I just love this -

Krayola:
WHen scholars pick sides, make value judgements, and do not present their findings as tentative . .  put your "bullShit" detector on overdrive. Regardless of how many Phds the person has. We can't know for sure what happened 2000 years ago.

    LOL       That word has made my day! lol

I certainly appreciate your point Krayola - the current academic understanding or general concensus concerning past times is constantly changing, evolving, and what these fellas do is try to make estimations based on the current body of evidence.

What if a faith claim is based on historicity of a document that has been shown to be ahistorical?

Such as?

I don't do theology. I avoid "spiritual" debates like the plague. I know that is not my territory.

Lol, I know Kray. I would imagine though that the audience (silent or participatory) do not consciously draw those distinctions as they read, I know I don't.