maestroferddi: Oga I may have to exit this interchange if you continue slouching behind. Paul quoted Epimenides: how? Can you build a watertight case? The Bible was written by men under divine inspiration. There were no need to seek authentication from unreliable human narratives. You can do better than to default to wild assumptions and extrapolation by providing conclusive proofs.

In Titus Chapter 1 Paul says:

12One of themselves, a prophet of their own, said, Cretans are always liars, evil beasts, idle gluttons.

I've pointed out that the Cretan Prophet he was quoting is Epimenides, who said this:


They fashioned a tomb for thee, O holy and high one
The Cretans, always liars, evil beasts, idle bellies!
But thou art not dead: thou livest and abidest forever,
For in thee we live and move and have our being.
— Epimenides, Cretica

A Cretan Prophet called Epimenides wrote a poem called the Cretica. Paul quotes a line verbatim from the poem and furthermore affirms that it comes from a Cretan prophet. I don't know how much more watertight you need. Although I suspect you will still say that it is not proof enough.

PastorAIO:

So we are now doing english lessons!!

Contradiction refers to two statements that negate each other. There is conflict in the middle east. There isn't a contradiction in the middle east, there is a conflict. These two words are very different. Stop squirming.

There is nothing neutral about polemics, or conflict. They both mean 'negative' things. I don't disagree with you, and there is no fast one that I'm pulling. Paul's letter to the galatians was polemical. if you see that as negative that is your problem. The fact is that it was polemical and it addressed a conflict that was going on in the church in Galatia. I'm not trying to be 'neutral', I'm stating facts. Can you deal with them?

I notice in all your 'English lesson' that you've failed to answer any of my questions. If you know you can't answer it then just take your leave from this thread. Otherwise answer. Let me repeat these ones:


As regards the 'most effective methodology to achieve maximum results', what exactly are the results that you think that Paul is aiming for? And do you really support a 'by any means necessary' approach? What about lying and stealing? if they are the most effective methods to achieve your aims then would it be alright to employ them?

My man give it up. You have been found out! You said Luke's theology and that of Paul in Galatians were conflicting. You did say both Paul and Luke cannot both be correct. When I painstakingly demonstrated the full import of your assertions, you derisively branded my effort an English lesson and then surreptitiously smuggled in a belated face-saving reference to the church in Galatia . Tell me you are kidding me!

Meanwhile check out the addendum in my last post. Was omitted when my device ran out of power..

maestroferddi: Oga I may have to exit this interchange if you continue slouching behind. Paul quoted Epimenides: how? Can you build a watertight case? The Bible was written by men under divine inspiration. There were no need to seek authentication from unreliable human narratives. You can do better than to default to wild assumptions and extrapolation by providing conclusive proofs.

Do you actually know what error I pointed out Luke made? Here you are now querying Paul's quotation of Epimenides, I refer you to the reply of PastorAIO I couldn't have put it better. Honestly I think you missed your true calling, have you tried the "Has Jesus got a belly-button" thread? Seems they must be searching for comedians over there.

maestroferddi: My man give it up. You have been found out! [b]You said Luke's theology and that of Paul in Galatians were conflicting. [/b ]You did say both Paul and Luke cannot both be correct. When I painstakingly demonstrated the full import of your assertions, you derisively branded my effort an English lesson and then surreptitiously smuggled in a belated face-saving reference to the church in Galatia . Tell me you are kidding me!

Meanwhile check out the addendum in my last post. Was omitted when my device ran out of power..

Give what up exactly! And still you haven't answered any of the questions I've asked.

Are you now hallucinating? Where did I say that Luke's theology and that of Paul in Galatians were conflicting? Are you actually reading this thread?

You presented an english lesson to demonstrate that Conflict means contradiction which is a total load of rubbish and shows that perhaps you don't even understand english too well, or are being disingenuous. All the while you did that you were hoping that you could avoid the actual issue under discussion and the questions I asked. Further more , as if to expose yourself, you then accused me of playing musical chairs and shifting the goalposts which of course we all now know is your psychological projections which is a natural reaction to being under pressure.

PastorAIO:

In Titus Chapter 1 Paul says:

12One of themselves, a prophet of their own, said, Cretans are always liars, evil beasts, idle gluttons.

I've pointed out that the Cretan Prophet he was quoting is Epimenides, who said this:


They fashioned a tomb for thee, O holy and high one
The Cretans, always liars, evil beasts, idle bellies!
But thou art not dead: thou livest and abidest forever,
For in thee we live and move and have our being.
— Epimenides, Cretica

A Cretan Prophet called Epimenides wrote a poem called the Cretica. Paul quotes a line verbatim from the poem and furthermore affirms that it comes from a Cretan prophet. I don't know how much more watertight you need. Although I suspect you will still say that it is not proof enough.

There we go again. Putting things in proper perspectives. You seem to be bogged down by this fixation on a Zeus and his worshippers.

Let's go.

Let's assume that the poetry as presented by you was actually made by Epimenides.
Now Paul stated that A PROPHET from Crete had earlier made the statements.
Now the questions we need to ask is whether it is possible for the Cretans to be guilty of the charges as made. Irrespective of the assertion that Cretans were demonised in the manner above by their denial of Zeus' immortality, is it possible for Cretans to be sinners or to indulging in the ills enumerated? Please note that all itemised ills were one and the same: SINS.

Now is possible for another Cretan prophet to be inspired by God to pass the same verdict on Crete even when Epimenides has earlier said same as part of obeisance to Zeus? I think the answer is a clear YES: Callymachus, another poet has even made this same observation. Now remember a certain Balaam that was operating as a non-Israelite prophet and was even being hired by heathens. Consider also the possibility that Balaam couldn't have been the only of such prophets outside Israel. Remember also that Epimenides whilst a Cretan by inference excluded himself from among the sinful Cretans or else his assertion/statement will become invalid.


The above case therefore throws up the possibility of, at least, ONE HONEST Cretan at a particular point in time.

Now is it possible for there to be ANOTHER God-inspired HONEST Cretan prophet to whom Paul could possibly been alluding to.

I think it is, after all Callymachus was also a Cretan who did not co-exist with Epimenides.

Now if Paul got to Crete and learnt by revelation that Cretans were sinful as foretold by our God-inspired Prophet above, then it amounts to reason that he can state the FACTS as he did.

FRONT-LOADED:
- Epiminedes writes a poem ostensibly to Zeus outlining the ills of Cretans.
- Epimenides is an honest Cretan
- Cretans actually commit outlined sins.
-Callymachus confirmed prophecy
- God inspires another Cretan prophet.
- Cretan God-inspired prophet passes same verdict on Cretans.
- Paul learns by divine revelation of inspired prophet and his prophecy.
- Cretan God-inspired prophet is unknown to recorded history.
- Paul instructs Titus as per received revelation.

Verdict: Nothing Like Syncretism or direct reference to Epimenides or Zeus.

PastorAIO:

Give what up exactly! And still you haven't answered any of the questions I've asked.

Are you know hallucinating? Where did I say that Luke's theology and that of Paul in Galatians were conflicting? Are you actually reading this thread?

You presented an english lesson to demonstrate that Conflict means contradiction which is a total load of rubbish and shows that perhaps you don't even understand english too well, or are being disingenuous. All the while you did that you were hoping that you could avoid the actual issue under discussion and the questions I asked. Further more , as if to expose yourself, you then accused me of playing musical chairs and shifting the goalposts which of course we all now know is your psychological projections which is a natural reaction to being under pressure.

When people begin to throw insults, it shows one thing: they are looking for a cheap cop-out.

You would be deluding yourself if you think you can get me worked up. It might interest you to know that I hardly lose my sense of balance. I have been addressing the issues-both objective and whimsical-you are raising.

I forwarded your comment where you said there was a conflict between the teaching of the Pre-Paul/Jerusalem Church and Paul's theology in Galatians. Granted I mixed up things by inadvertently writing the Luke's teaching in lieu of the Jerusalem church, the fact remains that you did state there conflict.

You did not retract same but have chosen to keep vacillating.

I am ever ready for you when you are ready to engage in constructive reasoning.

As for now, you have come a cropper or how else does one explain the veritable case of a patent blind argument. You said 'conflicting' cannot be synonymous with 'contradictory'. The last time I checked, you were neither a lexicographer nor was there any dictionary bearing your name as the author as to furnish you with the leeway to trifle with definitions.

Sarassin:

Do you actually know what error I pointed out Luke made? Here you are now querying Paul's quotation of Epimenides, I refer you to the reply of PastorAIO I couldn't have put it better. Honestly I think you missed your true calling, have you tried the "Has Jesus got a belly-button" thread? Seems they must be searching for comedians over there.

I don't stoop so low...

PastorAIO:

Like what? Where is the extraneous issue? What is the issue at hand for you?



Why would an Ifa worshipper, a Hindu etc by wrong? Why a resounding no? Please explain.

Who is not Grievously ignorant of God? Are we not all looking through a glass, darkly? Did Paul ever claim absolute knowledge? Or did he say 'whether there be knowledge it will vanish away'?

That we cannot know God absolutely is attested to in many religions and cultures. In Egypt they worshipped Amun as 'The Hidden One'. In Rabbinical traditions they still insist that God is beyond our grasp.

The rest of your arguments are based on sheer speculations. How do I know that someone else didn't say those phrases before epimenides? I don't know. And neither do you? But if you want to base your argument on what we don't know rather than on the information available to us then that is your choice. I'm not down with wild speculations. At least not on this matter. Many on another topic if you get me in the right mood then we can speculate on what we don't actually know until the cows come home.

There are so many basic/assumptions lacking.

Was Paul presupposing the possibility of another means of God aside the Jesus he was preaching?
Acts4:12: "Neither is there salvation in any other. For there is no there name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved."

Do you suppose that Paul and an Ifa priest stand on the same footing before God.

We keep discovering the graces of God but the ultimate/sole mediator/intercessor is Jesus Christ as per Christian teaching/doctrine.

Paul was not making wild conjectures but by divine inspiration was teaching on the sole legitimate way to access God.

God revealed Himself as the Tetragrammanton or Yahweh to the Jews. His identity has never been speculative.
That an Egyptian god was referred to as a "hidden one " does not make the god the eponymous Almighty God.

Well, you should show consistency. It is either we are not making speculations or we are not making them at all. We can't have it both ways. It was you that ran away with the speculation/assumption that Paul was quoting Epimenides while, in fact, there are a gamut of possibilities. Please note that Paul did not state he was quoting the poet.

My job was to provide counterpoints to destroy your subjective case. Since you are not coming from the standpoint of certainty or absoluteness, it then becomes apposite to confront you with the other side of the coin.

PastorAIO:


As regards the 'most effective methodology to achieve maximum results', what exactly are the results that you think that Paul is aiming for? And do you really support a 'by any means necessary' approach? What about lying and stealing? if they are the most effective methods to achieve your aims then would it be alright to employ them?

There are a lot of mix-up. Paul's message to the Galatians was never to substitute or challenge the Jerusalem Church.
Instead, his argument centered on eliminating the corruptive influence of Judaisers who have infiltrated the church. These Judaisers were Jewish Christian who accepted Christ but were still enyoked by Jewish law-centric practices. If you have instances where Paul was substituting teachings/theology of the Jerusalem with his own, please let us know.

I don't think the question of whether Paul could deploy extra-scriptural means to win his audience arises at all. Paul was an inspired teacher and therefore was merely providing deeper insight to what the salvation message entails. At least the insight he was providing was non-existent till he got to Galatia and other churches.

Unless we are trying to eliminate the possibility that Paul was inspired.

Sarassin:

Aplogies if you feel engaged in musical chairs, I do think you have rather jumbled-up issues yourself, a cursory glance at my post should reveal the following, I stated Paul preaches that the death of Jesus brings about atonement of sins in his own writings whilst Luke, preaches forgiveness. Not the other way round as you have expressed.

The keyword is "different" not contradictory as you imply I say. It all depends on if you believe there is a difference in doctrines of "atonement" and "forgiveness", if you don’t then no matter.

My view is that the apostles themselves do not necessarily preach the atonement doctrine in their evangelism, there is no real doctrine of atonement to be found in Acts. It is all about forgiveness and this pre-dates Jesus’ death. For instance; Here are Luke’s words;

Luke 24:47 : “and repentance for the forgiveness of sins will be preached in his name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem”

Luke 3:3 : "He went into all the country around the Jordan, preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins".

Acts 13:38 (Luke quoting Paul) “Therefore, my friends, I want you to know that through Jesus the forgiveness of sins is proclaimed to you.

And to show you it is not an isolated doctrine, here is Luke quoting Peter;

Acts 2:38 Peter replied, “Repent and be baptised, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit”.

Paul on the other hand uses the language of righteousness and sacrifice and to my knowledge professes forgiveness only once in the Ephesians, his overall doctrine is clear;

2 Corinthians 5: “For our sake God made him who knew no sin to be sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God”
Paul evidently means the word “sin” here to stand for “sin-offering,” as it does in Leviticus 4:24

Further testimony of Paul’s doctrine.

Colossians 1:22 “But now he has reconciled you by Christ’s physical body through death to present you holy in his sight, without blemish and free from accusation”

Ephesians 2:15-16 “by setting aside in his flesh the law with its commands and regulations. His purpose was to create in himself one new humanity out of the two, thus making peace, and in one body to reconcile both of them to God through the cross, by which he put to death their hostility”

The parable of the two debtors amplifies the theological differences between the doctrines of atonement and repentance/forgiveness.

My question here is: What is the grouse with the doctrines of atonement and forgiveness/repentance provided both have the redemptive work of Jesus on the cross as the central theme? Does one negate the other? If no, what then are you trying to point out?

maestroferddi: My question here is: What is the grouse with the doctrines of atonement and forgiveness/repentance provided both have the redemptive work of Jesus on the cross as the central theme? Does one negate the other? If no, what then are you trying to point out?

First off, I have no grouse with the doctrines of atonement against that of forgiveness. Both are parallel means to a common end, but to quote a famous writer...."and never the twain shall meet"

The issue is where does Paul’s teaching end and Luke’s begin? There is no record of Luke being endowed to preach a doctrine, he was not an apostle, not even a self-styled one like Paul. More to the point what exactly did Paul teach ? and who’s doctrine do Christians presently ascribe to, and is this doctrine actually inspired by God, how do you reconcile the doctrine of atonement and forgiveness as presented in the NT fraudulently portrayed as the doctrine of one man when it clearly isn’t?

Sarassin:

First off, I have no grouse with the doctrines of atonement against that of forgiveness. Both are parallel means to a common end, but to quote a famous writer...."and never the twain shall meet"

The issue is where does Paul’s teaching end and Luke’s begin? There is no record of Luke being endowed to preach a doctrine, he was not an apostle, not even a self-styled one like Paul. More to the point what exactly did Paul teach ? and who’s doctrine do Christians presently ascribe to, and is this doctrine actually inspired by God, how do you reconcile the doctrine of atonement and forgiveness as presented in the NT fraudulently portrayed as the doctrine of one man when it clearly isn’t?

Good. From your antithetical/contradictory comment above, it shows you are gradually conceding defeat as your contraption of specious arguments have been pulled down with a thud by compelling facts and reasons proffered.

Quoted below is you in your element:
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
First off, I have no grouse with the doctrines of atonement against that of forgiveness. Both are parallel means to a common end, but to quote a famous writer...."and never the twain shall meet"
Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

But sort out this latest attempt at double-speak, I am afraid I have to once again invoke the finality of the dictionary to establish matters:

Oxford Advance Learners Dictionary -8th Edition, pg 1608:

Twain(number) <old use> = two.

<Idiomatic>never the twain shall meet: (saying) = used to say that two things are so different they cannot exist together.

Now who is deceiving who? One believe in atonement and forgiveness and yet they cannot co-exist. I will delve into another interchange with you on the foregoing but note that atonement required a propitiation as a necessity for forgiveness. Let us know if you have a problem the preceding clause.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
The issue is where does Paul’s teaching end and Luke’s begin? There is no record of Luke being endowed to preach a doctrine, he was not an apostle, not even a self-styled one like Paul. More to the point what exactly did Paul teach ? and who’s doctrine do Christians presently ascribe to, and is this doctrine actually inspired by God, how do you reconcile the doctrine of atonement and forgiveness as presented in the NT fraudulently portrayed as the doctrine of one man when it clearly isn’t?
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Without wasting much time on the above, first of all, you are not a christian so I don't see why it should be your business whose doctrines Christians ascribe to. You may have to face the fact that christian theologians and bible scholars spanning over a millennium and a half who have been studying Pauline theology were unanimous in accepting the correlation of Pauline theology with the central salvation message.
Till you proof any contradiction existing between Pauline teaching and what is thought elsewhere in the New Testament, you attempts would remain what they are: beating the air!

maestroferddi: Good. From your antithetical/contradictory comment above, it shows you are gradually conceding defeat as your contraption of specious arguments have been pulled with a thud by compelling facts and reasons proffered.

Quoted below is you in your element:
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
First off, I have no grouse with the doctrines of atonement against that of forgiveness. Both are parallel means to a common end, but to quote a famous writer...."and never the twain shall meet"
Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

But sort out this latest attempt at double-speak, I am afraid I have to once again invoke the finality of the dictionary to establish matters:

Oxford Advance Learners Dictionary -8th Edition, pg 1608:

Twainnumber) <old use> = two.

<Idiomatic>never the twain shall meet: (saying) = used to say that two things are so different they cannot exist together.

Now who is deceiving who? One believe in atonement and forgiveness and yet they cannot co-exist. I will delve into another interchange with you on the foregoing but note that atonement required a propitiation as a necessity for forgiveness. Let us know if you have a problem the preceding clause.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
The issue is where does Paul’s teaching end and Luke’s begin? There is no record of Luke being endowed to preach a doctrine, he was not an apostle, not even a self-styled one like Paul. More to the point what exactly did Paul teach ? and who’s doctrine do Christians presently ascribe to, and is this doctrine actually inspired by God, how do you reconcile the doctrine of atonement and forgiveness as presented in the NT fraudulently portrayed as the doctrine of one man when it clearly isn’t?
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Without wasting much time on the above, first of all, you are not a christian so I don't see why it should be your business whose doctrines Christians ascribe to. You may have to face the fact that christian theologians and bible scholars spanning over a millennium and a half who have been studying Pauline theology were unanimous in accepting the correlation of Pauline theology with the central salvation message.
Till you proof any contradiction existing between Pauline teaching and what is thought elsewhere in the New Testament, you attempts would remain what they are: beating the air!

Well, Ok I accept you know how to use a dictionary, as for my arguments being pulled apart by your “thud of compelling facts and thought” Excuse me while I laugh. You pulled out the Oxford dictionary to define a self-evident word to what purpose ?

I think there is a problem with basic comprehension. My point is this, forget for one second that the doctrines of atonement/forgiveness are redemptive, both doctrines do not emanate from the same person as supposedly laid out in the NT, hence I used the term “never the twain shall meet”. Not once does Luke use or propagate the theology of atonement, but it is central to Paul, therefore the doctrine of Forgiveness/repentance, as it stands is not a doctrine of Paul the progenitor of Pauline Christianity reflecting orthodoxy today.

You asked me to prove there was a difference in doctrine, I did so with scripture as you requested, you cannot refute any of the quoted scriptures. Your final defence is to appeal to the “safety in crowd” rule, “Christian theologists are unanimous in accepting Pauline theology….” What a laugh, aren’t these the same dunder-heads who told the world for centuries that the earth was flat and labelled others “heretics” for stating the obvious that it was round ?

How does my not being a Christian detract from the glaring conflation of theologies in Christianity ? is it that I am not sufficiently indoctrinated to do an “internal harmonizing”?

Sarassin:

Well, Ok I accept you know how to use a dictionary, as for my arguments being pulled apart by your “thud of compelling facts and thought” Excuse me while I laugh. You pulled out the Oxford dictionary to define a self-evident word to what purpose ?

I think there is a problem with basic comprehension. My point is this, forget for one second that the doctrines of atonement/forgiveness are redemptive, both doctrines do not emanate from the same person as supposedly laid out in the NT, hence I used the term “never the twain shall meet”. Not once does Luke use or propagate the theology of atonement, but it is central to Paul, therefore the doctrine of Forgiveness/repentance, as it stands is not a doctrine of Paul the progenitor of Pauline Christianity reflecting orthodoxy today.

You asked me to prove there was a difference in doctrine, I did so with scripture as you requested, you cannot refute any of the quoted scriptures. Your final defence is to appeal to the “safety in crowd” rule, “Christian theologists are unanimous in accepting Pauline theology….” What a laugh, aren’t these the same dunder-heads who told the world for centuries that the earth was flat and labelled others “heretics” for stating the obvious that it was round ?

How does my not being a Christian detract from the glaring conflation of theologies in Christianity ? is it that I am not sufficiently indoctrinated to do an “internal harmonizing”?

Could you please go through the post of mine you are referring to here again? I don't think you are following the slant of my arguments.

You agreed the gospel could be preached via forgiveness and atonement streams. Next, you smuggled in a quotation/saying to imply that the two cannot co-exist together.
Please tell us why?

Are you saying the messages of atonement and forgiveness cannot be given concurrently?

The dictionary definition was called in for the benefit of unwary/unsuspecting readers. You should tell me why I shouldn't point out an obvious ambiguity.


You are not a Christian so how we believe that you understand what you are talking about?

maestroferddi: Could you please go through my you are referring to here again? I don't think you are following slant of my arguments.

You agreed the gospel could be preaching via forgiveness and atonement streams. Next, you smuggled in a quotation/saying to imply the two cannot co-exist together.
Please tell us why?

Are you saying the messages of atonement and forgiveness cannot be given concurrently?

The dictionary definition was called in for the benefit of unwary/unsuspecting readers. You should tell me why I shouldn't indicate an obvious ambiguity.


You are not a Christian so how we believe that you understand what you are talking about?

I believe you know full well what I stated.

Lets keep it simple;

We are agreed there is a difference in theological doctrine between the Acts of the Apostles by Luke as against Paul’s writings. We have established that by the scriptures I quoted which you did not refute.

I say, Paul preached Atonement.

I also say Luke preached forgiveness.

Both doctrines cannot meet….as the doctrine of one person, i.e Paul.

Therefore it is misleading to say the doctrines of atonement AND forgiveness are that of Paul.

It is largely irrelevant whether both doctrines can co-exist or not, one of the doctrines...is a false doctrine.

maestroferddi: There are a lot of mix-up. Paul's message to the Galatians was never to substitute or challenge the Jerusalem Church.
Instead, his argument centered on eliminating the corruptive influence of Judaisers who have infiltrated the church. These Judaisers were Jewish Christian who accepted Christ but were still enyoked by Jewish law-centric practices. If you have instances where Paul was substituting teachings/theology of the Jerusalem with his own, please let us know.

I don't think the question of whether Paul could deploy extra-scriptural means to win his audience arises at all. Paul was an inspired teacher and therefore was merely providing deeper insight to what the salvation message entails. At least the insight he was providing was non-existent till he got to Galatia and other churches.

Unless we are trying to eliminate the possibility that Paul was inspired.

None of the issues you are addressing above are in the post you are responding to. Maybe you didn't understand the post well. Let me repeat it ...

As regards the 'most effective methodology to achieve maximum results', what exactly are the results that you think that Paul is aiming for? And do you really support a 'by any means necessary' approach? What about lying and stealing? if they are the most effective methods to achieve your aims then would it be alright to employ them?

The questions were: 1) What are the results that you think Paul is aiming for?

2)Do you support a 'by any means necessary' approach to proselytizing?

maestroferddi: There are so many basic/assumptions lacking.

Was Paul presupposing the possibility of another means of God aside the Jesus he was preaching?
Acts4:12: "Neither is there salvation in any other. For there is no there name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved."

Do you suppose that Paul and an Ifa priest stand on the same footing before God.

We keep discovering the graces of God but the ultimate/sole mediator/intercessor is Jesus Christ as per Christian teaching/doctrine.

Paul was not making wild conjectures but by divine inspiration was teaching on the sole legitimate way to access God.

God revealed Himself as the Tetragrammanton or Yahweh to the Jews. His identity has never been speculative.
That an Egyptian god was referred to as a "hidden one " does not make the god the eponymous Almighty God.

Well, you should show consistency. It is either we are not making speculations or we are not making them at all. We can't have it both ways. It was you that ran away with the speculation/assumption that Paul was quoting Epimenides while, in fact, there are a gamut of possibilities. Please note that Paul did not state he was quoting the poet.

My job was to provide counterpoints to destroy your subjective case. Since you are not coming from the standpoint of certainty or absoluteness, it then becomes apposite to confront you with the other side of the coin.

Nothing here addresses what I said.

If you want to speculate baselessly why display such a lack of imagination. Why not start with Lizards from outer space that came to earth and genetically modified humans and made us worship them and these lizards are the ones that wrote the poem. And then they telepathically communicated it to Paul who then wrote it to Titus totally ignorant of the fact that the Lizards had also inspired Epimenides with the same poem centuries before.

mbaemeka:


If it gives you some respite to accept your own position of things then be my guest. I can very well read and understand texts in context. I see no statement or word that suggests Luke claiming that Paul met with any elders in Jerusalem before teaching. For anything, his message was primarily to the Gentiles while they were commissioned to preach to the Jews.

If you can site any of such allusions in Lukes writings please direct me to it forthwith. I am already getting the sense that when a man has made up his mind to hang his dog, any thread will do.

The issue for me is not whether Paul received teachings from the Jerusalem disciples, I am concerned mainly with the accuracy of what is portrayed;

"I did not confer with any human being nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me but I went away off to Arabia, and afterwards I returned to Damascus. Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas and I stayed with him fifteen days: but I did not see any of the other apostles except James the Lord's brother in what I am writing to You before God, I am not lying." (Galatians 1:16-20).

This emphatic statement that Paul is not lying should give us pause. He is completely clear. He did NOT consult with others after his conversion, did not see any other apostle for three years, and did not see any except Cephas(Peter) and Jesus' brother James.

This makes the accounts of Acts very interesting, for according to Acts 9, immediately after Paul's conversion he spent time in Damascus "with the disciples", and when he left the city he headed directly to Jerusalem, where he met with the apostles of Jesus (Acts 9:19-30).

On all counts Acts seems to be at odds with Paul. Did he spend time with the other apostles immediately (Acts) or not (Paul)?

Sarassin:


"I did not confer with any human being nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me but I went away off to Arabia, and afterwards I returned to Damascus. Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas and I stayed with him fifteen days: but I did not see any of the other apostles except James the Lord's brother in what I am writing to You before God, I am not lying." (Galatians 1:16-20).

On all counts Acts seems to be at odds with Paul. Did he spend time with the other apostles immediately (Acts) or not (Paul)?

Further more in the same chapter of Galatians Paul says the following:


22And I was still unknown in person to the churches of Judea that are in Christ. 23They only were hearing it said, “He who used to persecute us is now preaching the faith he once tried to destroy.” 24And they glorified God because of me.

Compared with Acts 8:
3But Saul was ravaging the church, and entering house after house,

And:

26And when he had come to Jerusalem, he attempted to join the disciples. And they were all afraid of him, for they did not believe that he was a disciple. 27But Barnabas took him and brought him to the apostles and declared to them how on the road he had seen the Lord, who spoke to him, and how at Damascus he had preached boldly in the name of Jesus. 28 So he went in and out among them at Jerusalem , preaching boldly in the name of the Lord.


Naturally the question on everybody's lips should be, 'Did the christians in Jerusalem know Paul by sight not not?'. He said they didn't but the writer of Acts said he was moving around in and out among them. Or were they blind? Holy God please don't let us suffer from this kind of blindness that you will not recognise what is presented right before your eyes.

PastorAIO:


Further more in the same chapter of Galatians Paul says the following:


22And I was still unknown in person to the churches of Judea that are in Christ. 23They only were hearing it said, “He who used to persecute us is now preaching the faith he once tried to destroy.” 24And they glorified God because of me.

Compared with Acts 8:
3But Saul was ravaging the church, and entering house after house,

And:

26And when he had come to Jerusalem, he attempted to join the disciples. And they were all afraid of him, for they did not believe that he was a disciple. 27But Barnabas took him and brought him to the apostles and declared to them how on the road he had seen the Lord, who spoke to him, and how at Damascus he had preached boldly in the name of Jesus. 28 So he went in and out among them at Jerusalem , preaching boldly in the name of the Lord.


Naturally the question on everybody's lips should be, 'Did the christians in Jerusalem know Paul by sight not not?'. He said they didn't but the writer of Acts said he was moving around in and out among them. Or were they blind? Holy God please don't let us suffer from this kind of blindness that you will not recognise what is presented right before your eyes.

I would go with with the account of Paul to the Galatians. I think we can assume that Luke who wrote 40 or so years after Paul's letter to the Galatians simply "embellished" his story.

Sarassin:


I would go with with the account of Paul to the Galatians. I think we can assume that Luke who wrote 40 or so years after Paul's letter to the Galatians simply "embellished" his story.

you mean like, Luke tried to legitimise the Paul movement by connecting it with the christians in Jerusalem but in actually fact Paul was just doing his own thing.

PastorAIO:


you mean like, Luke tried to legitimise the Paul movement by connecting it with the christians in Jerusalem but in actually fact Paul was just doing his own thing.

Precisely, I believe Paul was mainly formulating his own theology based on a more esoteric Jesus, he doesn’t come across as having any real interest in the actual personage of Jesus. In fact, in three separate places, Paul refers to his theology as "my gospel" (Romans 2:16; 16:25; 2 Timothy 2:8 ) Perhaps to distinguish his message from that of the other Apostles or maybe out of sheer egotism. I think Luke tries very hard to harmonise Paul’s movements, and theology with the Jerusalem group, very often he gets it badly wrong.

Amongst other things, Paul is the first to talk about the resurrection of Jesus, the gospel writers would then have had to incorporate Easter stories into their accounts. But the resurrection story is more important to Paul than anyone else, for without it his Christology of atonement then becomes redundant.

where was i existing when this thread was created.. good work sarasin

contributions please

Wilgrea7:
where was i existing when this thread was created.. good work sarassin

Heavens only knows. Thank you.

And this all brings us neatly back to the words of the theologian Soren Kierkegaard who stated that

” .......Christianity had become degenerate at the hands of Paul. Paul made Christianity the religion of Paul, not of Christ, Paul threw the Christianity of Christ away, completely turning it upside down. Making it just the opposite of the original proclamation of Christ"
(Soren Kierkegaard, Theologian)

It is when we are able to piece together the accounts of Paul in a chronological and orderly sequence that we come to appreciate the enormous claims that he was making.

The central theme of the teachings of Jesus was the doctrine of forgiveness. Let us be clear, Jesus taught, practised and granted forgiveness during his lifetime (Luke 7:48-50) those who "believed in him" would have everlasting life per se, he did not have to die for the remission of the sins of his followers, in fact the idea that one would die for the sins of many was unheard of amongst Jews prior to the advent of Paul.

As I have shown in previous posts on this thread through scriptural verses, Paul is alone in preaching the doctrine of ‘atonement’, why? Simply because Paul is the first to proclaim the ‘risen Jesus’ and not the gospel writers as is generally and erroneously thought, ‘atonement’ requires that a price is paid, forgiveness does not, there is a difference and Paul erudite as he was clearly understood this difference.

It is Paul’s doctrine that the death of Jesus was in atonement for the sins of his followers, whereas Jesus exacted no price for forgiveness of sins, that in itself is a doctrinal falsity.

Paul states that 'God...chose to reveal his Son to me….' (Galatians 1:16) what Christians fail to understand is that quite clearly and within context Paul is making the claim that he is himself the incarnation of the Son of God. He claimed a physical resemblance to Jesus, He is also claiming to be the first person in whom a miraculous merging has taken place. His 'revelation' is therefore more even than a revelation: it is a transformation and a deification of Paul himself as the supreme manifestation of the phenomenon of impregnation by God.

Paul most assuredly has a gregarious view of his own status evidenced by his claim on several occasions to "my Gospel" he asserted to have special marks or stigmata on his body, showing the depth of his self-identification with the sufferings of Jesus on the cross. (Galatians 6:17) Therefore the stigmata of Paul, whether self-inflicted or psychosomatically produced, made him, in his own eyes, the supreme embodiment of Jesus Christ. It is in this state of grand delusion that he becomes impelled to make his claims.

When Paul states that he encountered Jesus just as the the apostles encountered the resurrected Jesus, the threat is implicit, if the apostles state that it was not possible for him (Paul) to have such an encounter then it must also mean that their own encounters (the apostles) with Jesus were also spurious, it was "quid pro quo" and the apostles realised the gig was up and they hated his guts.

All in all, it is very easy to view Paul as a self-possessed and even self-hating Jewish/Gentile charlatan, like Simon Magus, who found and employed any means possible to rise to the top of his religious class in order to make a name for himself, that may well have played a significant part in Paul's thought process, but far more likely is it that he desired by any means possible to exact a kind of vengeance on the Jewish leaders of his time because of their absolute rejection of him by making an absolute mockery of their beliefs.

Oga Sarassin,

I would not be termed harsh if I call you a hypocrite, because the very rebuttal to the nonsense conclusion you deduced from only the first clause of Gal. 1:16 is contained in the remaining words of that same verse. If you claim that Paul was trying to imply that he was the incarnate Son of GOD, and given that Paul did preach "the Son of GOD" among the Gentiles(Gal. 1:16), did Paul preach himself among the Gentiles or did he preach Jesus?

"But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law, To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons. And because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father. Wherefore thou art no more a servant, but a son; and if a son, then an heir of God through Christ." Gal. 4:4-7

Sarassin, you claim that Paul was trying to convince people that he was the incarnate Son of GOD. Now tell me, did Paul claim to have anything to do with redeeming those who were under the Law? The word "we" in the passage above shows that Paul counts himself among those who received the adoption to sonship through the merits of Christ Jesus, the Son of GOD. Now, given your claim, how can the incarnate Son of GOD receive adoption to sonship(of GOD) through the merits of the Son of GOD?

Again, was the spirit of Paul sent into our hearts?

DoctorAlien:
Oga Sarassin,

I would not be termed harsh if I call you a hypocrite, because the very rebuttal to the nonsense conclusion you deduced from only the first clause of Gal. 1:16 is contained in the remaining words of that same verse. If you claim that Paul was trying to imply that he was the incarnate Son of GOD, and given that Paul did preach "the Son of GOD" among the Gentiles(Gal. 1:16), did Paul preach himself among the Gentiles or did he preach Jesus?

Despite your insultive language my conclusion stands firmly within the context of the entire thread and in light of what we know about Paul. A few disparate verses does not change that, sorry.

1. According to Paul, who is the Son of GOD?

"Seeing then that we have a great high priest, that is passed into the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our profession." Heb. 4:14

2. According to Paul, did the Son of GOD sin at all?

"For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin." Heb. 4:15

3. Did Paul see himself as a sinner?

"This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief." 1 Tim. 1:5

4. So, Did Paul see himself as the incarnate Son of GOD?

Common sense answers NO!

Sarassin, stop twisting clauses within Paul's epistles in a bid to teach lies.

Sarassin:


Despite your insultive language my conclusion stands firmly within the context of the entire thread and in light of what we know about Paul. A few disparate verses does not change that, sorry.

I'm sorry your conclusion holds no water in the face of the facts I gave above. I know it hurts so bad to see someone shatter your arguments with facts but I had to do it.