In the letter to Titus Paul quotes a very interesting phrase made by the greek philosopher Epimenides. Why did he quote it?


10For there are many unruly men, vain talkers and deceivers, specially they of the circumcision, 11whose mouths must be stopped; men who overthrow whole houses, teaching things which they ought not, for filthy lucre's sake. 12One of themselves, a prophet of their own, said, Cretans are always liars, evil beasts, idle gluttons. 13This testimony is true. For which cause reprove them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith, 14not giving heed to Jewish fables, and commandments of men who turn away from the truth. Titus Shaptar 1

That phrase all 'Cretans are liars' is known as Epimenides paradox. It is said by a Cretan. So if all Cretans are liars then the person who said it must be lying. So is the phrase True or not. If it's true then it's not true. Paul says it's true.

If you read that passage as a mere paradoxical joke then you might miss something else that Paul might be hinting at.

You see that phrase comes from a poem that is actually referring to the death and resurrection of the Greek God Zeus. Certain people from Crete denied that Zeus resurrected and in protest the poet called them all Liars.

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


O Zeus, some say that thou wert born on the hills of Ida;
Others, O Zeus, say in Arcadia;
Did these or those, O Father lie? -- “Cretans are ever liars.”
Yea, a tomb, O Lord, for thee the Cretans builded;
But thou didst not die, for thou art for ever.
— Callimachus, Hymn I to Zeus

There are a lot of things that Paul says that would make sense automatically to a greek pagan. He quotes them a lot.

The question for me is whether the teachings are of any spiritual value. I say that they are, so therefore I am less prepared to dismiss Paul's teachings as falsehoods. However I would agree that there little continuity between what Jesus taught and what Paul taught.

I hope I've been able to make a worthwhile contribution to this thread.

^^^
and for any closely following Titus has three chapters in it,
so PastorAIO means Titus 1:10-14
- incidentally the context of those verses is about "Correcting False Teachers"

BabaGnoni: ^^^
and for any closely following Titus has three chapters in it,
so PastorAIO means Titus 1:10-14

Thank you, o ja re

PastorAIO:

Thank you, o ja re

You're welcome, ko tọpe, a ndupẹ ara ẹni

PastorAIO: In the letter to Titus Paul quotes a very interesting phrase made by the greek philosopher Epimenides.
Why did he quote it?

10For there are many unruly men, vain talkers and deceivers, specially they of the circumcision, 11whose mouths must be stopped; men who overthrow whole houses, teaching things which they ought not, for filthy lucre's sake. 12One of themselves, a prophet of their own, said, Cretans are always liars, evil beasts, idle gluttons. 13This testimony is true. For which cause reprove them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith, 14not giving heed to Jewish fables, and commandments of men who turn away from the truth. Titus Shaptar 1

That phrase all 'Cretans are liars' is known as Epimenides paradox. It is said by a Cretan. So if all Cretans are liars then the person who said it must be lying. So is the phrase True or not. If it's true then it's not true. Paul says it's true.

If you read that passage as a mere paradoxical joke then you might miss something else that Paul might be hinting at.

You see that phrase comes from a poem that is actually referring to the death and resurrection of the Greek God Zeus. Certain people from Crete denied that Zeus resurrected and in protest the poet called them all Liars.

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


O Zeus, some say that thou wert born on the hills of Ida;
Others, O Zeus, say in Arcadia;
Did these or those, O Father lie? -- “Cretans are ever liars.”
Yea, a tomb, O Lord, for thee the Cretans builded;
But thou didst not die, for thou art for ever.
— Callimachus, Hymn I to Zeus

There are a lot of things that Paul says that would make sense automatically to a greek pagan. He quotes them a lot.

The question for me is whether the teachings are of any spiritual value. I say that they are, so therefore I am less prepared to dismiss Paul's teachings as falsehoods. However I would agree that there little continuity between what Jesus taught and what Paul taught.

I hope I've been able to make a worthwhile contribution to this thread.

You have made a worthwhile contribution to this thread, including OP, my good friend Sarassin, and not leaving out omonuan

People need to recognise or understand that Paul has a peculiar style of writing, an ensemble of connotations, balanced sentences, periodic sentence, situation and purpose etc etc
1 Corinthians 14:34 is a good verse that stirs controversy out of not understanding Paul's style of writing

Whilst it is inevitable to attack Paul’s teachings, it is not my intention to state that Paul was a teacher of falsehoods, we should not equate the falsehoods of Paul with his Christology. From my point of view Paul’s teachings were one of several competing for relevance at the turn of the first century, there were any number of them, from the Valentinians to the Ebionites, from the Cerinthians to the Marcionites, none the worse for the wear.

The big issue of course is that by a quirk of fate, Pauline Christology is now the dominant creed, it is therefore pertinent to take a cold-blooded, no holds barred look at the antecedents of Paul. At the very minimum it is fair to say Paul had a predilection for lying, misrepresentation, embellishment and self-aggrandisement. The question is, what if any are the effects of the above character flaws in Paul…on Christianity?

And why, in the name of all that is good do Christians abandon the words of the progenitor of Christianity who actually died for their sins…they claim…,in favour of a self-confessed liar who never actually met Jesus?

PastorAIO: In the letter to Titus Paul quotes a very interesting phrase made by the greek philosopher Epimenides. Why did he quote it?


10For there are many unruly men, vain talkers and deceivers, specially they of the circumcision, 11whose mouths must be stopped; men who overthrow whole houses, teaching things which they ought not, for filthy lucre's sake. 12One of themselves, a prophet of their own, said, Cretans are always liars, evil beasts, idle gluttons. 13This testimony is true. For which cause reprove them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith, 14not giving heed to Jewish fables, and commandments of men who turn away from the truth. Titus Shaptar 1

That phrase all 'Cretans are liars' is known as Epimenides paradox. It is said by a Cretan. So if all Cretans are liars then the person who said it must be lying. So is the phrase True or not. If it's true then it's not true. Paul says it's true.

If you read that passage as a mere paradoxical joke then you might miss something else that Paul might be hinting at.

You see that phrase comes from a poem that is actually referring to the death and resurrection of the Greek God Zeus. Certain people from Crete denied that Zeus resurrected and in protest the poet called them all Liars.

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


O Zeus, some say that thou wert born on the hills of Ida;
Others, O Zeus, say in Arcadia;
Did these or those, O Father lie? -- “Cretans are ever liars.”
Yea, a tomb, O Lord, for thee the Cretans builded;
But thou didst not die, for thou art for ever.
— Callimachus, Hymn I to Zeus

There are a lot of things that Paul says that would make sense automatically to a greek pagan. He quotes them a lot.

The question for me is whether the teachings are of any spiritual value. I say that they are, so therefore I am less prepared to dismiss Paul's teachings as falsehoods. However I would agree that there little continuity between what Jesus taught and what Paul taught.

I hope I've been able to make a worthwhile contribution to this thread.

Absolutely impressed !

striktlymi: If Paul taught and preached falsehood, don't you think the other Apostles who were present in Paul's time would have objected to his teachings?

Many apostles did not believe Paul's Teachings.

In Acts 9:26, it says "But when Saul had come to Jerusalem he tried to join the disciples; but they were all afraid of him and did not believe that he was a disciple". Oh and then in Acts 15:12-13 the apostle James attended one of Paul's blasphemous sermons, simply because the Lord wanted him to see what a liar Paul was.

It reads, "The whole assembly became silent as they listened to Barnabas and Paul telling about the signs and wonders God had done among the Gentiles through them. When they finished, James spoke up. “Brothers,” he said, “listen to me."

Notice how James says, "Brothers, listen to me". James was trying to tell them something Simon (another true apostle) said, because James knew what a liar Paul and Barnabas were, he was telling the crowds to listen to him and not Paul and Barnabas.He went on to discredit Paul's Teachings including the doctrine that the law has been abolished.

James 2:14-26 called the author of the doctrine of the fact (which is Paul) that we are saved by faith only “o vain man” in v.20?

2nd Peter 3:15-16 affirms that Paul's writings are confusing, then why did the Holy Spirit write confusing things through Paul? How is this compatible with Paul's own teaching that God is not the author of Confusion? 1 Corinthians 14:33

Paul claimed to have encountered Jesus in the desert on the road to Damascus. Jesus said in Matthew 24:26 that when someone claims to see him in the desert we shouldn't believe him. Should we take the advice of Jesus or should we believe Paul?

Paul in Galatians 1 emphasizes his knowledge comes directly from Jesus and not from man. Jesus says in Matthew 24:26 if someone claims to see him in the secret chambers, we should not believe him. Who was telling the truth Paul or Christ?

omonuan:

Many apostles did not believe Paul's Teachings.

In Acts 9:26, it says "But when Saul had come to Jerusalem he tried to join the disciples; but they were all afraid of him and did not believe that he was a disciple". Oh and then in Acts 15:12-13 the apostle James attended one of Paul's blasphemous sermons, simply because the Lord wanted him to see what a liar Paul was.

It reads, "The whole assembly became silent as they listened to Barnabas and Paul telling about the signs and wonders God had done among the Gentiles through them. When they finished, James spoke up. “Brothers,” he said, “listen to me."

Notice how James says, "Brothers, listen to me". James was trying to tell them something Simon (another true apostle) said, because James knew what a liar Paul and Barnabas were, he was telling the crowds to listen to him and not Paul and Barnabas.He went on to discredit Paul's Teachings including the doctrine that the law has been abolished.

James 2:14-26 called the author of the doctrine of the fact (which is Paul) that we are saved by faith only “o vain man” in v.20?

2nd Peter 3:15-16 affirms that Paul's writings are confusing, then why did the Holy Spirit write confusing things through Paul? How is this compatible with Paul's own teaching that God is not the author of Confusion. 1 Corinthians 14:33

Paul claimed to have encountered Jesus in the desert on the road to Damascus.
Jesus said in Matthew 24:26 that when someone claims to see him in the desert we shouldn't believe him.
Should we take the advice of Jesus or should we believe Paul?

Paul in Galatians 1 emphasizes his knowledge comes directly from Jesus and not from man.

Jesus says in Matthew 24:26 if someone claims to see him in the secret chambers,
we should not believe him. Who was telling the truth Paul or Christ?

C'mon now omonuan, you're trying to take too much of an opportunity and going too far with Matthew 24:26
Ah-ha, why take unnecessary risks, when all knows the context of that verse and what that verse was all about
- it had nothing to do with a Pauline desert experience
Besides, wasn't Paul in company of others when he heard Jesus
Cease pulling a fast one or misrepresenting scripture(s) to gain point(s)
- readers are not bible wet behind the ears

omonuan:

Many apostles did not believe Paul's Teachings.

In Acts 9:26, it says "But when Saul had come to Jerusalem he tried to join the disciples; but they were all afraid of him and did not believe that he was a disciple". Oh and then in Acts 15:12-13 the apostle James attended one of Paul's blasphemous sermons, simply because the Lord wanted him to see what a liar Paul was.

It reads, "The whole assembly became silent as they listened to Barnabas and Paul telling about the signs and wonders God had done among the Gentiles through them. When they finished, James spoke up. “Brothers,” he said, “listen to me."

Notice how James says, "Brothers, listen to me". James was trying to tell them something Simon (another true apostle) said, because James knew what a liar Paul and Barnabas were, he was telling the crowds to listen to him and not Paul and Barnabas.He went on to discredit Paul's Teachings including the doctrine that the law has been abolished.

James 2:14-26 called the author of the doctrine of the fact (which is Paul) that we are saved by faith only “o vain man” in v.20?

2nd Peter 3:15-16 affirms that Paul's writings are confusing, then why did the Holy Spirit write confusing things through Paul? How is this compatible with Paul's own teaching that God is not the author of Confusion. 1 Corinthians 14:33

Paul claimed to have encountered Jesus in the desert on the road to Damascus. Jesus said in Matthew 24:26 that when someone claims to see him in the desert we shouldn't believe him. Should we take the advice of Jesus or should we believe Paul?

Paul in Galatians 1 emphasizes his knowledge comes directly from Jesus and not from man. Jesus says in Matthew 24:26 if someone claims to see him in the secret chambers, we should not believe him. Who was telling the truth Paul or Christ?

Guy sorry but I won't waste my time addressing your post because you are very behind in your research. For starters, you don't know why the disciples were afraid of Saul. It shows you don't know how Saul became Paul. If you don't know something as basic as this then the discussion will be almost fruitless.

PastorAIO: This thread is very long. I've been reading it with interest cos it contains many points that I've been trying to make over the last few years. However I would not go to the extreme that Sarassin has gone to. I do not think that Paul's teachings were absolute falsehood. I think that they contrast with the teachings of Jesus, but they are not always in stark contradiction. I think it is important to understand where Paul is coming from.
This whole thing about Paul Lying, I think definitely there is the problem of consistency in a lot of biblical accounts. Paul's story is inconsistent with the story in Acts. Acts contradicts itself and it contradicts Paul. Instead of going through a long thing with too many examples I think it is less time consuming to just put up one strong point and argue that point.
For example, instead of putting up a lot of issues that could easily be dismissed as mere speculations I would put up a single incident where the accounts in two part differ remarkably.
Personally I would go for the accounts of Paul's conversion and his early days as a christian. Then Ask questions as to what actually happened historically.
The Book of Acts tells it thus:
8 And Saul arose from the earth; and when his eyes were opened, he saw no man: but they led him by the hand, and brought him into Damascus. 9 And he was three days without sight, and neither did eat nor drink.
10 And there was a certain disciple at Damascus, named Ananias; and to him said the Lord in a vision, Ananias. And he said, Behold, I am here, Lord. 11 And the Lord said unto him, Arise, and go into the street which is called Straight, and enquire in the house of Judas for one called Saul, of Tarsus: for, behold, he prayeth, 12 and hath seen in a vision a man named Ananias coming in, and putting his hand on him, that he might receive his sight. 13 Then Ananias answered, Lord, I have heard by many of this man, how much evil he hath done to thy saints at Jerusalem: 14 and here he hath authority from the chief priests to bind all that call on thy name. 15 But the Lord said unto him, Go thy way: for he is a chosen vessel unto me, to bear my name before the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel: 16 for I will shew him how great things he must suffer for my name’s sake.
17 And Ananias went his way, and entered into the house; and putting his hands on him said, Brother Saul, the Lord, even Jesus, that appeared unto thee in the way as thou camest, hath sent me, that thou mightest receive thy sight, and be filled with the Holy Ghost. 18 And immediately there fell from his eyes as it had been scales: and he received sight forthwith, and arose, and was baptized. 19 And when he had received meat, he was strengthened. Then was Saul certain days with the disciples which were at Damascus.

20 And straightway he preached Christ in the synagogues, that he is the Son of God

23 And after that many days were fulfilled, the Jews took counsel to kill him: 24 but their laying await was known of Saul. And they watched the gates day and night to kill him. 25 Then the disciples took him by night, and let him down by the wall in a basket. 26 And when Saul was come to Jerusalem, he assayed to join himself to the disciples: but they were all afraid of him, and believed not that he was a disciple. 27 But Barnabas took him, and brought him to the apostles, and declared unto them how he had seen the Lord in the way, and that he had spoken to him, and how he had preached boldly at Damascus in the name of Jesus. 28 And he was with them coming in and going out at Jerusalem.
Paul is brought in to the family of christians in Damascus and then introduced to the apostles in Jerusalem where he is welcomed. But what is Paul's own account of what happened?
Galatians 1:15 But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother’s womb, and called me by his grace, 16 To reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen; immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood: 17 Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me; but I went into Arabia, and returned again unto Damascus. 18 Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days.
In galatians Paul is obviously trying to declare that the apostles in Jerusalem have no authority over him and so he denies even conferring with them after his conversion.
The question to ask therefore is: What happened to Paul after the Road of Damascus Conversion? Did he go to Jerusalem to be accepted by those 'which were apostles before me', Or did he go straight to the Arabian desert and confer with no one?
It is obvious that the writer of Acts is trying to place Paul in the context of the Church of Jerusalem, yet Paul himself is trying to remove himself from this context and deny it's authority over him.
Me personally, I would stick on this issue and hammer it over and over again. Otherwise the argument will just go all over the place and 10 pages later there'll be no progress, just a lot of yabis.
I'll be right back on the next post.....

Simple comprehension sir. Even the aspects you emboldened give you away. After Paul's encounter with Jesus he went to damascus and met with THE DISCIPLES THAT WERE THERE. The account doesn't say he met with the "Apostles". For example, Ananias was one of such disciples that he met there.

After Paul received the Holy Spirit he began preaching the gospel to people he could see in the Synagogues in damascus- mostly Jews. The account clearly states that after MANY DAYS the Jews then sought to kill him so he was aided out of damascus. Between verse 25 to 26 was the time it took Paul to travel to Jerusalem where Barnabas helped introduce him to the APOSTLES as well as other DISCIPLES. So when Paul said "none of them added to his message" in Galatians he was right because he had already started preaching his gospel of grace in Damascus before he ever met the APOSTLES in Jerusalem. Remember this took a long time to happen. So don't confuse yourself.

I will do justice to other aspects you posted when I am afforded the time.

@ striktlymi. Okay! Is it that I am really behind on my research or is it that you do not like what my research found about your hero Paul? I think is more like the latter. The bible is my watchword and show me where I misquoted the Bible please. Do not throw you hands up yet. This is a thread for learning about Paul. If I erred in any biblical quotation point it out. Dont cop out yet.

It was clearly stated in Acts 9:26 that when Paul came to Jerusalem, he tried to join the disciples, but they were all afraid of him, not believing that he really was a disciple. They were afraid of him not because they thought he was a monster as you assumed but because they did not believe he was a disciple. This makes sense because you have to be a disciple to join the association of disciples. Paul was not a disciple.

I have more insight into Biblical Paul using his track record on the bible and at intervals, I will post them. As I stated before, anyone that wants Paul's position to be put in contexts needs to understand that it gets worse for him when you put it in context. Even Paul himself says that God is not the author of confusion. Therefore, he would not have inspired Paul to write in confusion.

2 Timothy 3:16: "All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness,"

The Bible says what it means and means what it says. It states that “scripture cannot be broken” (John 10:35) and “Your [God’s] word is truth” (John 17:17). If we are to believe that the Bible is unbreakable truth, then we must believe that lie means lie and truth means truth.

mbaemeka:

Simple comprehension sir. Even the aspects you emboldened give you away. After Paul's encounter with Jesus he went to damascus and met with THE DISCIPLES THAT WERE THERE. The account doesn't say he met with the "Apostles". For example, Ananias was one of such disciples that he met there.

After Paul received the Holy Spirit he began preaching the gospel to people he could see in the Synagogues in damascus- mostly Jews. The account clearly states that after MANY DAYS the Jews then sought to kill him so he was aided out of damascus. Between verse 25 to 26 was the time it took Paul to travel to Jerusalem where Barnabas helped introduce him to the APOSTLES as well as other DISCIPLES. So when Paul said "none of them added to his message" in Galatians he was right because he had already started preaching his gospel of grace in Damascus before he ever met the APOSTLES in Jerusalem. Remember this took a long time to happen. So don't confuse yourself.

I will do justice to other aspects you posted when I am afforded the time.

Simple comprehension sir! I didn't say anything about meeting apostles in Damascus. I plainly asked the question where there was discrepancy. I'll ask the question again:

The question to ask therefore is: What happened to Paul after the Road of Damascus Conversion? Did he go to Jerusalem to be accepted by those 'which were apostles before me', Or did he go straight to the Arabian desert and confer with no one?

Please can you answer the question.

PastorAIO: In the letter to Titus Paul quotes a very interesting phrase made by the greek philosopher Epimenides. Why did he quote it?
10For there are many unruly men, vain talkers and deceivers, specially they of the circumcision, 11whose mouths must be stopped; men who overthrow whole houses, teaching things which they ought not, for filthy lucre's sake. 12One of themselves, a prophet of their own, said, Cretans are always liars, evil beasts, idle gluttons. 13This testimony is true. For which cause reprove them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith, 14not giving heed to Jewish fables, and commandments of men who turn away from the truth. Titus Shaptar 1
That phrase all 'Cretans are liars' is known as Epimenides paradox. It is said by a Cretan. So if all Cretans are liars then the person who said it must be lying. So is the phrase True or not. If it's true then it's not true. Paul says it's true.
If you read that passage as a mere paradoxical joke then you might miss something else that Paul might be hinting at.
You see that phrase comes from a poem that is actually referring to the death and resurrection of the Greek God Zeus. Certain people from Crete denied that Zeus resurrected and in protest the poet called them all Liars.
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

O Zeus, some say that thou wert born on the hills of Ida;
Others, O Zeus, say in Arcadia;
Did these or those, O Father lie? -- “Cretans are ever liars.”
Yea, a tomb, O Lord, for thee the Cretans builded;
But thou didst not die, for thou art for ever.
— Callimachus, Hymn I to Zeus
There are a lot of things that Paul says that would make sense automatically to a greek pagan. He quotes them a lot.
The question for me is whether the teachings are of any spiritual value. I say that they are, so therefore I am less prepared to dismiss Paul's teachings as falsehoods. However I would agree that there little continuity between what Jesus taught and what Paul taught.
I hope I've been able to make a worthwhile contribution to this thread.

Case dismissed then. BTW, Jesus' teachings were largely to a Jewish crowd and he employed Jewish teachings to pass his message. Paul's was to Gentiles and would have been amiss to use the same "Jewish teachings" to pass his truths- the very truths he got from "Jesus himself". In Paul's own words- I was everything to everyone so that by every means I could win some.

PastorAIO:

Simple comprehension sir! I didn't say anything about meeting apostles in Damascus. I plainly asked the question where there was discrepancy. I'll ask the question again:


Please can you answer the question.

Paul on getting converted on his way passed through Arabia (which is very much en route to Damascus) before getting to Damascus. In that Journey and after getting healed by Ananias Paul began preaching the revelations he got from Jesus to everyone he could see in Damascus. The revelations were that the gentiles had access to salvation through grace by having faith In Jesus. This offended the Jews who planned to kill him. Paul then escaped to Jerusalem where he then met and conferred with the "Apostles". He didn't go to the Apostles after being converted.

Hope this answers you.

mbaemeka:

Paul on getting converted on his way passed through Arabia (which is very much en route to Damascus) before getting to Damascus. In that Journey and after getting healed by Ananias Paul began preaching the revelations he got from Jesus to everyone he could see in Damascus. The revelations were that the gentiles had access to salvation through grace by having faith In Jesus. This offended the Jews who planned to kill him. Paul then escaped to Jerusalem where he then met and conferred with the "Apostles". He didn't go to the Apostles after being converted.

Hope this answers you.

If I pretend not to laugh it could be construed as insulting or condescending so I'll blurt it out. My guy, Damascus is in Syria which is north of palestine. Arabia is South of Palestine. You cannot pass through arabia on your way to Damascus from Jerusalem. I'll be honest with you I am laughing right here, I'm sorry. You said that without batting an eyelid!

Secondly Paul said that he was in Arabia for 3 years. Was he blind all those 3 years? Remember it was Ananias in Damascus that baptized Paul. Was Paul therefore in Arabia unbaptized for three years and blind?

Conclusion, you have not reconciled the discrepancy in the story. Do you want to have another go?

mbaemeka:

Case dismissed then. BTW, Jesus' teachings were largely to a Jewish crowd and he employed Jewish teachings to pass his message. Paul's was to Gentiles and would have been amiss to use the same "Jewish teachings" to pass his truths- the very truths he got from "Jesus himself". In Paul's own words- I was everything to everyone so that by every means I could win some.

The point that I think that you are raising is a very important point. Paul didn't use Jewish teachings to convert Gentiles. In fact he taught the gospel in the terminology of Greek religion, using phrases and quotes from Greek prophets and poets. This can be similar to what the missionaries in africa did when they called Esu Satan and they called Eledumare the Christian. But in the end are you really teaching christianity if you are couching it in the terms of another religion or culture and distorting both cultures and religions at the same time. Why Can't Satan just be Satan? Why do they have to conflate it with Esu?

Paul tried to pull this stunt of in Athens but got laughed out of the city. He saw a shrine to a God called the Unknown God and would you believe what he did? He claimed that the God that he is preaching is that Unknown God that the Athenians were worshipping. Can you imagine what the jews would have thought of him going to a foreign land and equating a shrine he saw there with the God of Israel?

By being all things to all people you end up conflating everything.

The questions that many Christians should answer: is Paul more credible than Christ? If Paul's teaching is in conflict with that of Jesus (which many are) should we take Paul or Jesus at his word?

Paul and the Law:

Romans 3:28
[28] For we hold that a man is justified by faith apart from works of law.

Romans 7:4
[4] Likewise, my brethren, you have died to the law through the body of Christ, so that you may belong to another, to him who has been raised from the dead in order that we may bear fruit for God.

1 Corinthians 10:25
[25] Eat whatever is sold in the meat market without raising any question on the ground of conscience.

Jesus and the law:

Contrary to what Paul taught, Jesus stated that he came to fulfill the Law and not abolish it. He further states that whoever takes the least bit out of the Law will be "the least" in the Kingdom of Heaven. Since Paul took the "whole" law out, according to Jesus' criteria, Paul is the "least" of the "least"! Consider these words of Jesus:

Matthew 5:17-20:

[17] "Think not that I have come to abolish the law and the prophets; I have come not to abolish them but to fulfil them.
[18] For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the law until all is accomplished.

[19] Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but he who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
[20] For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. "

Jesus made it clear in the Sermon on the Mount that the entire Law of Moses would remain absolutely inviolate — not one dot or iota (jot or tittle) would be abrogated until “heaven and earth shall pass away” and “ALL THINGS” have been fulfilled. (Matt 5:17-19).

Paul, in direct opposition to Jesus, proclaimed that Christians were “no longer under the Law” (Romans 3:19-21 and Romans 6:14), even though heaven and earth had not yet passed away and many things, including all the End Times prophecies, had not been fulfilled yet.

The law or not the law, that is the question! Christ is for the law and Paul is not. The conundrum is who do you believe? The self acclaimed liar or the messiah?

PastorAIO:
If I pretend not to laugh it could be construed as insulting or condescending so I'll blurt it out. My guy, Damascus is in Syria which is north of palestine. Arabia is South of Palestine. You cannot pass through arabia on your way to Damascus from Jerusalem. I'll be honest with you I am laughing right here, I'm sorry. You said that without batting an eyelid!
Secondly Paul said that he was in Arabia for 3 years. Was he blind all those 3 years? Remember it was Ananias in Damascus that baptized Paul. Was Paul therefore in Arabia unbaptized for three years and blind?
Conclusion, you have not reconciled the discrepancy in the story. Do you want to have another go?

I'd let you have your laughs. Done? The scripture you posted said Arabian desert. Please bear it in mind.

Arabia at the point of discourse included all the kingdom of Aretas from Damascus and Eastern Jordan. It even stretched into Edom that resided southwise. When Paul differentiates between Arabia and Damascus is to show that he wasn't in Damascus the whole 3 years. We don't know how long he spent in the Arabia aspect (north area) before going back to the Damascus. We know that altogether he spent 3 years at Arabia and Damascus meaning he received his revelations in the North of Arabia then he preached to people around there for a bit. After thence he went back to Damascus from whence he originally received his sight from. All this he did before going to Jerusalem to meet the Apostles.

In a nutshell, he met Jesus at the Arabian desert (still in old Arabia), went into the Damascus region of Arabia and received his sight, started preaching as he drifted towards North Arabia (densely populated), he received more revelations, came back to Damascus (hence the 'returned again' part in Galatians), confounded Jews (as a result), fled because they tried to kill him and headed to Jerusalem.

Satisfied?

PastorAIO:

The point that I think that you are raising is a very important point. Paul didn't use Jewish teachings to convert Gentiles. In fact he taught the gospel in the terminology of Greek religion, using phrases and quotes from Greek prophets and poets. This can be similar to what the missionaries in africa did when they called Esu Satan and they called Eledumare the Christian. But in the end are you really teaching christianity if you are couching it in the terms of another religion or culture and distorting both cultures and religions at the same time. Why Can't Satan just be Satan? Why do they have to conflate it with Esu?

Paul tried to pull this stunt of in Athens but got laughed out of the city. He saw a shrine to a God called the Unknown God and would you believe what he did? He claimed that the God that he is preaching is that Unknown God that the Athenians were worshipping. Can you imagine what the jews would have thought of him going to a foreign land and equating a shrine he saw there with the God of Israel?

By being all things to all people you end up conflating everything.

No new convert gets the full gist immediately so he wasn't entirely wrong for using some of their teachings to grab their attention. As one grows in the faith of course, some of the Athenians would have known that the God of Israel wasn't a shrine or an unknown God per se. I understand your point though about conflating ideas. That's why everyone is encouraged to grow. A pastor can preach saying "if you smoke you will go to hell". That statement could coerce one into accepting salvation. Obviously, as one grows in the faith you get to understand that such teaching may not have been word-based. I don't subscribe to such manner of teaching though.

mbaemeka:

I'd let you have your laughs. Done? The scripture you posted said Arabian desert. Please bear it in mind.

Arabia at the point of discourse included all the kingdom of Aretas from Damascus and Eastern Jordan. It even stretched into Edom that resided southwise. When Paul differentiates between Arabia and Damascus is to show that he wasn't in Damascus the whole 3 years. We don't know how long he spent in the Arabia aspect (north area) before going back to the Damascus. We know that altogether he spent 3 years at Arabia and Damascus meaning he received his revelations in the North of Arabia then he preached to people around there for a bit. After thence he went back to Damascus from whence he originally received his sight from. All this he did before going to Jerusalem to meet the Apostles.

In a nutshell, he met Jesus at the Arabian desert (still in old Arabia), went into the Damascus region of Arabia and received his sight, started preaching as he drifted towards North Arabia (densely populated), he received more revelations, came back to Damascus (hence the 'returned again' part in Galatians), confounded Jews (as a result), fled because they tried to kill him and headed to Jerusalem.

Satisfied?

No, I'm not quite satisfied. Can you provide evidence that Arabia included all the land from Damascus and Eastern Jordan? Where did you get that information from?

He said he spent 3 years in Arabia but Luke said in Acts that he only spent a few days with the disciples in Damascus before he went to Jerusalem. The two sources do not tally. 3 years is a big difference from a few days no matter how much anyone can try to spin it.

And straightway there fell from his eyes as it were scales, and he received his sight; and he arose and was baptized; 19and he took food and was strengthened. And he was certain days with the disciples that were at Damascus. 20And straightway in the synagogues he proclaimed Jesus, that he is the Son of God. 21And all that heard him were amazed, and said, Is not this he that in Jerusalem made havoc of them that called on this name? and he had come hither for this intent, that he might bring them bound before the chief priests. 22But Saul increased the more in strength, and confounded the Jews that dwelt at Damascus, proving that this is the Christ. 23And[b] when many days were fulfilled[/b], the Jews took counsel together to kill him: 24but their plot became known to Saul. And they watched the gates also day and night that they might kill him: 25but his disciples took him by night, and let him down through the wall, lowering him in a basket. 26And when he was come to Jerusalem, he assayed to join himself to the disciples: and they were all afraid of him, not believing that he was a disciple.

This story does not suggest that Paul went to any Arabia, even if the Arabia was just next door to Damascus. He was in Damascus for some certain days preaching and then he escaped and went to Jerusalem.

Paul's contradictions of the teachings of Jesus Christ are legion. However, the contradictions are not easy to discern and are easily overlooked or ignored by those who believe in him:

On the time of the coming of the Lord:

Paul says:Rom.13:12 "the night is far gone, the day is at hand."

Jesus says: Luke.21 [8] "Take heed that you are not led astray; for many will come in my name,
saying, . . . `The time is at hand!' Do not go after them."

On the source of the Truth and the true gospel:

Paul says:
1Cor.2:13 "And we impart this in words not taught by human wisdom but taught by the Spirit, interpreting spiritual truths to those who possess the Spirit." Gal.1[12] For I did not receive it from man, nor was I taught it, but it came through a revelation of Jesus Christ.

Jesus says:

John.17
[14] I have given them thy word;
[17] Sanctify them in the truth; thy word is truth.

On the God of the dead:

Paul says:

Rom.14
[9] For to this end Christ died and lived again, that he might be Lord both of the dead and of the living.

Jesus says:

Luke.20
[38] Now he is not God of the dead, but of the living;

On the sum of the commandments:
Paul says:
Rom.13[9] The commandments, "You shall not commit adultery, You shall not kill, You shall not steal, You shall not covet," and any other commandment, are summed up in this sentence, "You shall love your neighbor as yourself.

Jesus says:
Matt.22 [37] And he said to him, "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.
[38] This is the great and first commandment.
[39] And a second is like it, You shall love your neighbor as yourself.
[40] On these two commandments depend all the law and the prophets.

PastorAIO:
No, I'm not quite satisfied. Can you provide evidence that Arabia included all the land from Damascus and Eastern Jordan? Where did you get that information from?

2 Corinthians 11:32-33King James Version (KJV)
32 In Damascus the governor under Aretas the king kept the city of the damascenes with a garrison, desirous to apprehend me:

Aretas was in Damascus in Paul's day. That's the first aspect. Secondly, the capital of then Arabia was Petra. Petra was occupied by Nabataeans (at the north) that live in modern day Jordan. At their peak they extended from Dedan into Damascus (1 BC), meaning that Damascus had to be inside the whole of Arabia that also encompassed Jordan. http://www.ancient.eu.com/Arabia/

He said he spent 3 years in Arabia but Luke said in Acts that he only spent a few days with the disciples in Damascus before he went to Jerusalem. The two sources do not tally. 3 years is a big difference from a few days no matter how much anyone can try to spin it.

Luke said he spent certain days in Damascus with the disciples in verse 19. He did this till verse 22. Then he went into the northern (rural areas) of Arabia. This is where the Galatians 1:17 account happened. He spent "many days" here before returning again to Damascus.

17 Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me; but I went into Arabia, and returned again unto Damascus.

For him to 'return again' to Damascus it implies that he must have been there before going to Arabia which is what I said earlier.

When he returned to Damascus after many days and when he had to be helped out of Damascus due to the plot till he got to Jerusalem took about 3 years in total. That's why I said it is difficult to ascertain how the stay was apportioned between Arabia and Damascus. We know it took 3 years altogether. Then he got to Jerusalem. It adds up.

shdemidemi:

Christianity couldn't have started before the death, burial and resurrection of Christ. The bible says "if there was no fault with the old, there will be no need for a new'. For the new to kick start, a price had to be paid, the death of the testator had to be fulfilled.

The New Testament started from the book of Acts... Any professing Christian must identify with the death, burial and resurrection and its effect on the soul of the elects. If you decide to pitch your tent before the death of Jesus, you are not a Christian but a judaiser.

you are greatly blessed for dis.a lot of tinz one reads here can mek one denounce his/her faith.
Jesus Forever!Maranatha!

mbaemeka
Then he got to Jerusalem. It adds up.

Most certainly nothing adds up where Paul is concerned, here is the first contradiction;

"When many days had passed, the Jews plotted to kill him, but their plot became known to Saul. They were watching the gates day and night to kill him; but his disciples took him by night and let him down over the wall, lowering him in a basket". (Acts 9:23-25)

"At Damascus, the governor under King Aretas guarded the city of Damascus in order to seize me, but I was let down in a basket through a window in the wall, and escaped his hands". (II Corinthians 11: 32,33)

So, was it the Jews of Damascus from whom Paul fled, or was it from the governor under King Aretas? Further, did they lower him over the wall, or through a window in the wall?

In the accounts you have outlined. First, If Paul had to escape from Damascus either to save his life or to avoid arrest, and then spent time in Arabia, why would he have returned to Damascus where his life would again have been endangered? The reasonable answer is that there was no foray into Arabia, and no return to Damascus.

Here is Paul defending himself before Agrippa;

"Wherefore, O King Agrippa, I was not disobedient to the heavenly vision, but declared first to those at Damascus, then at Jerusalem and throughout all the country of Judea, and also to the Gentiles, that they should repent and turn to God and perform deeds worthy of their repentance" (Acts 26:19,20).

What is conspicuous by its absence is…a mention of Arabia….and a return to Damascus, and definitely we know he was unknown in Judea!

Sarassin:


So, we are to understand that Paul studies at the feet of Gamaliel, and then takes part in a vote in the Sanhedrin, as a Pharisee, part of a group led by Gamaliel and cast possibly the only dissenting vote of the Pharisees in concordance with the Saducees ? Surely it is far easier to accept that Paul was a Saduccee henchman.



It depends on who you believe actually. These are the words of Paul's apologist, Luke. Paul himself says no such thing.

Your Islamic/Ebionitic/judaisaic shallow fabrications and weak textual analysis are so easy to detect. I will call you out in due course as I go through the comments.

Sarassin: At this point it is fair to ask the question, does Paul get a bad rap ?

Afterall, Paul makes no claim to have studied under Gamaliel in Jerusalem. He wrote in educated Greek, he was at home with the Greek Septuagint, he knew next to nothing about Hebraic/Aramaic expressionism. Clearly it is Luke who wishes to portray Paul as having the very best of Jewish education. It explains Paul’s remarks that Jewish people in Judea who converted to worship Jesus did not know him or even what he looked like, he had likely never been to Jerusalem prior to his conversion.

Paul does not tell us where he came from, merely claiming to be an ‘Israelite’ of the stock of Abraham. It is again Luke who places him in Tarsus, a city we are reliably told by the Roman Geographer Strabo, was one of the “best three cities in the world for a person to develop his philosophical and rhetorical abilities” Luke may have wished to enhance Paul’s intellectual pedigree by making Paul a resident of a great philosophical center.

In Acts 22:25 we are informed by Luke that Paul is a ‘Roman citizen’ Paul himself never says anything of the sort, and in fact very few Jews were actually citizens of the empire. For one thing, being a citizen meant performing occasional sacrifices to the gods for the well-being of the state. Would a highly religious Jew such as Paul done so? It seems unlikely. Here again it may be that Luke is trying to stress just how prominent Paul was—a citizen of Rome, even—before his conversion.

The conclusions are there to be drawn.

...Conclusions underpinned by grievously poor understanding of historical considerations and insidious revisionism?

Sarassin:

There were huge objections to Paul’s teachings, most of the objections by other sects (read my previous quotations) preceded the NT which is largely revised to present a unified disposition. You can glean remnants of the objections to Paul’s teachings in the confrontation between Peter and Paul (Gal 2:11-13). But for the real action you have to look at the apocryphal books, a good one is the letter of Peter to James as a preface to the Clementine Homilies, I reproduce it here for you;

‘For some from among the Gentiles have rejected my lawful preaching and have preferred a lawless and absurd doctrine of the man who is my enemy. And indeed some have attempted, while I am still alive, to distort my word by interpretations of many sorts, as if I taught the dissolution of the law. . . . But that may God forbid! For to do such a thing means to act contrary to the law of God which was made to Moses and was confirmed by our Lord in its everlasting continuance. For he said, “The heaven and the earth will pass away, but not one jot or one tittle shall pass away from the law.” ‘(Letter of Peter to James, 2.3–5)

There was no way my hunches would have failed me here! At last you have come out of the closet to get your Islamic theology some badly needed authentication by stooping to an apocryphal writing. One would have expected that you, for the look of it, should have known better than to build an argument on an apocryphal narrative.

Sarassin:

First, the book 2 Peter is a forgery in the name of Peter. There is not the chance of a snow-ball in hell that Peter appended that book. Second, you are quoting from the harmonized version of Pauline Christianity. Contemporary accounts give us a clearer picture.

You see your life?

Sarassin:

Personally, I consider Luke the least reliable of all the gospel writers. The historicity of Luke’s depiction of Paul is a huge issue, The Acts describe Paul differently from how Paul describes himself, both factually and theologically. In other accounts Luke made mistakes, here is one;

In Acts 21:38, a Roman asks Paul if he was 'the Egyptian' who led a band of 'Sicarii' (Assassins) into the desert. We know that, In both 'The Jewish Wars' and 'Antiquities of the Jews', Josephus talks about Jewish nationalist rebels called “Sicarii” directly prior to talking about The Egyptian leading some followers to the Mount of Olives, it is easy to see that Luke used Josephus as a source and mistakenly thought that the Sicarii were followers of The Egyptian, there are others too.

You are not doing your homework at all. To impute subjectivity to Lukan writing, you must prove beyond reasonable doubt that he had direct collaboration with Josephus. It might interest you to note that Josephus was never a Christian so you should show us the connexion between his works and canonical writings of the New Testament apart from mere speculations and supposition. It is also very instructive to note that the histriography of Josephus played zero role in the translation of the Septuagint or the Latin Vulgate. It was merely alluded to by some of the church fathers in signposting the historicity of New Testament christianity.

Sarassin:
From actual historical accounts drawn from Panarion (Against heresies) by Epiphanius, here is what we can piece together;

The first followers of Jesus, under James and Peter, founded the Jerusalem Church after Jesus's death. They were called the Nazarenes, and in all their beliefs they were indistinguishable from the Pharisees, except that they believed in the resurrection of Jesus, and that Jesus was still the promised Messiah. They did not believe that Jesus was a divine person, but that, by a miracle from God, he had been brought back to life after his death on the cross, and would soon come back to complete his mission of overthrowing the Romans and setting up the Messianic kingdom.

The Nazarenes did not believe that Jesus had abrogated the Jewish religion, or Torah. Having known Jesus personally, they were aware that he had observed the Jewish religious law all his life and had never rebelled against it. The Nazarenes were themselves very observant of Jewish religious law. They practiced circumcision, did not eat the forbidden foods and showed great respect to the Temple. The Nazarenes did not regard themselves as belonging to a new religion; their religion was Judaism. They set up synagogues of their own, but they also attended non-Nazarene synagogues on occasion, and performed the same kind of worship in their own synagogues as was practiced by all observant Jews.

The Nazarenes became suspicious of Paul when they heard that he was preaching that Jesus was the founder of a new religion and that he had abrogated the Torah. After an attempt to reach an understanding with Paul, the Nazarenes (i.e. the Jerusalem Church under James and Peter) broke irrevocably with Paul and disowned him.

My Muslim friend, this malaria induced tale you are trying to concoct or quote is at variance with biblical accounts and established history. You are still catching at the straws of badly woven apocryphal narratives. Such a pathetic spectacle...

Sarassin:

I have no need to prove Luke wrong he does an admirable job of that himself. I have given you one instance of where he got his facts wrong but obviously because it is an obscure fact, Christians either are unaware of it or gloss over it.

Here is a glaring one. Compare Paul’s account of the Jerusalem Council as he records in his Letter to the Galatians, (Gal. 2) to the account of Luke as recorded in The Acts (Acts. 15)

Two completely differing accounts, Paul records it as a Private meeting, Luke says otherwise, both cannot be right, either Luke got his facts wrong or Paul was a liar. You tell me.

Could you flesh out your thesis here? Let us see the material difference between both accounts. You alleged that Paul lied. How exactly?