₦airaland Forum

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

It's going to be the most awesome movie of 2010. Nolan doesn't know how to disappoint. I can't wait.

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

You shattered my innuendos? I didn't notice.

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

John Callis was simply fantastic. I wanted to personally hand him every acting award on the planet. The woman president whose character changed subtly over the entire series was good too. And Saul was like a schizo, one in the Resistance, one on the ship. And the Commander. I wouldn't mind him commanding me. Dualla was the only weak acting link. But eye candy for men, I take it. I didn't mind since Helo was there for us wimmin. I laughed outright at the CGI when I first began, but soon got caught up in the story. For me: BG isn't perfect sci-fi, none is, but it's the best. The mystery you dislike is a plus for me, and one of the reasons I love LOST.

Spikie I enjoyed Up in the Air o. It 's one of those rare movies where all the leads are simply marvellous. I mentioned it would get Oscar nominations. It had to. But it's not in As Good As It Gets' league. Jack Nicholson simply owned that role, and earned that Best Actor Oscar.
Poor woman. Try to kill yourself at 30? And with a son? What on earth could have happened? Could it be the boyfriend? Some people do kill themselves over another person. I heard Kate Hudson drove Owen Wilson to suicide.

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

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

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

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

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

noetic16:
I am surprised krayola is still in this "debate"

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

Na wah. Not likely to be recovered if it was restored from its last back-up point. Spikie I recall you saying, watch something Sunset. I saw Up in the Air because I read your review and it sounded like something I'd like. No review of the sunset thingie. Besides, you never saw As Good As It Gets, though it's twice as funny and witty as Up in the Air, scoring seven Oscar nominations and winning three or so. Dirt-digging on Obinna and Vesc,hey?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Vesc,
I was kidding about the biting o!

One of the reasons I dislike the religious section. Some of them don't attack your argument, they attack you. They won't tolerate anything that diverges from their views or their cherished beliefs. Never mind there are thousands of divergent beliefs and most of us inherited them from the religion we happened to be born into, or from our parents. They believe a thing, so of course, that's how it must be. Their way is the way and their religion is the religion, and God is obligated to run the universe and judge creation according to their cherished beliefs.We all protect what we cherish. I understand it but I don't have to like it.

Will you stop with the noetic thing already? Spikie has bitten you again, abi? Or you've bitten Spikie. Something.

toba:
Madam. Did Paul ever taught anything other than Jesus christ?

Toba, I'm sorry, can I just beg off here? I'm a little tired of the subject. I've stated a few of my objections  and a few instances of where his teaching and his conduct departs from Christ's and those of the apostles. That will just have to do. Paul studied under a highly respected Jewish theological scholar, Gamaliel, and was a Pharisee, so he already had a background in theology and much material to draw from. Christ makes references to the OT in his teaching, so of course some of their teaching will seem to agree. The differences between Paul's teachings and Christ's are so many, they can comprise a book on the subject. I won't go into it. I find things out for my own edification, not to prove anything. The rest anyone can find out for themselves and come to their own conclusions. Anyone can 'preach Christ'. Christ said not everyone who says Lord, Lord is His and will be welcomed by Him or enter His kingdom. I merely gave an opinion. Please don't ever go merely by what people say. You have God and God's spirit and that is enough.

@e36991
I see lol. I very rarely watch television.

Yeah. I know. Two-thirds of the NT is full of his teachings. They overshadow other authors and books about what Christ and the apostles taught. There aren't many other places to quote from. That's just what was selected by the Church. It has nothing to do with his 'importance'. Who's TBN? This doesn't stop you from enjoying the man's teaching na. Or being full of faith.

I'm sorry. I thought all the authors in the NT, apart from Hebrews, have been determined. I had no idea it was inaccurate. Who wrote what books in the NT?

Paul's letters are the most reliable sources into the development of early Christianity. I thought it was Luke who wrote Acts, which said more about that than all Paul's letters put together. And what has the development of early Christianity to do with the topic of your thread? I mentioned a text addition above. Mark 16:9-end. What was added to Paul's letters, and who added it?

Hmmmm. I didn't quote Paul saying someone should be kicked out of a church. I quoted him saying he should be handed over to Satan, and his flesh destroyed so his spirit may be saved. Pretty much what all the later stake burning was based upon. 'Sinners' and 'heretics' were taken to the stake and burned based on that doctrine. Many of the cleric sincerely believed they were saving these sinners and heretics's souls by burning their flesh. Most of them weren't acting out of malice but doctrinal belief based on a teaching of Paul's. The power of the Church was vast and absolute. They crowned Kings. They were not to be challenged or questioned. 'Heretics and 'sinners' weren't only those with contrary religious views, they were 'witches' and social revolutionaries as well. We live in times of religious freedom, so it might be hard to comprehend the horror under which people lived in those times. But the horror and the burnings were real, and went on and on for centuries.What is far-fetched about it? It's in your history books. Anyone with even an inkling of Church history can confim or debunk it. First you say the allegations against Paul were good reasons to doubt, 'IMO'. Then they're unsubstantiated. Make up your mind, will you?

You opened a thread asking for opinions. I gave mine. Simply give yours. As for the link, hmmm, I don't care to give it. I'm not the topic of your thread.

V3 no vex lol. They won't do it again.

vescucci:
Sigh. I'm bored of this thread. Lol, Max. I'm just trying to make excuses for you na.

They nailed you to the thread?

Krayola:
@ Madmax. In which thread did u state your sources and why u think they are more credible than Paul? can u please provide a link? thanks

I've no idea what you mean by more credible than Paul. Biblical books were written, almost all the authors have been determined, what was added to their writings have been and are being sorted out. We have the main text and gist of what they DID write. I answered that question a few posts above. I stated how I determine what to believe elsewhere. I gave an opinion on Paul and stated exactly why. They weren't pulled out of thin air. I made no unsubstiantated allegations. I've been hoping someone would produce evidence to prove they're false so I could have something to celebrate. Honestly, I'd be overjoyed. Round and round in circles when the charges against him remain unanswered. It doesn't matter what he was, really. He is merely a man and simply irrelevant.He's not the foundation of faith, Christ is. You're making me repeat myself. Off I go.

Where's you, Spikie, you zany soul? Nothing to say about these gals and their 'smoke and mirrors'?
JK, that was all I could find massa. Resign yourself to fate. You're shackled to Fox.

Chai. Jk you have a serious problem lol. The girl simply does not go out without makeup. Obinna, that was the closest picture I could find of Oprah that actually showed her real face. That was 1985?!

Neal is a conservative Christian? That's very surprising. Anti-Paulists tend to be open-minded, 'heretical', 'false' Christians. Which way was Paul called, the way that keeps changing every time he tells it? Predestination? What's that? Ah. The ones Christ personally selected are the inner Caucus, and Paul laboured more than they. How do you know he laboured more? The NT is full of his writings, and says little about what all the chosen apostles did, the extent of their work. In the few that are included, the apostles aren't full of vain boasting about their work. They don't talk about themselves at all. I think Paul used the word 'I' over 900 times in his included writings.

Gwyneth Paltrow

I've never heard of Prof. Nell, but he sounds like someone to stay away from. A biased,as opposed to impartial scholars, with an ax to grind. Whatever he says will likely be slanted and sometimes ridiculous in an effort to buttress his claims.

vescucci:
MyJoe has got it on the head o. Absolutely. I find myself wondering as you wonder now about Max' relative endorsement of the other gospels. Maybe she's just a human being that has come to her own conclusions and it just so happens that Paul pops up anywhere she has a problem with the bible. Maybe she thinks there are mistakes and misleading or doctored information throughout the entire bible but she takes exception to Paul because she feels he's a self proclaimed prophet and the other apostles don't even call themselves that at all, so for a given misinformation, one will be error of judgement and the other will be deliberate propaganda. I hope I make sense.

I have no problem with anything Christ taught. Or his apostles for that matter. It's in harmony with who He is.Why should it be only the things Paul writes I'll 'have a problem with'? Why only him, why isn't contrary teaching spread throughout what ALL of them says? Why does no one else write ANYTHING contrary to ANYTHING Christ taught, only Paul? If you're going to say all the contrary doctrine were 'added' to his letters, prove it. I'll be happy to take a look. The other books were tampered with too. Why wasn't contrary teaching 'added' to the others, ONLY HIS? Who happened to add all these contrary teachings to his letters alone, and to what end? Nothing of the sort has been determined.

To what  controversies do Myjoe refer? What does 'score higher' mean? The books of the NT have been authenticated with a fair degree of accuracy. I think the only NT book whose author remains unknown is Hebrews. The additions are being sorted out. Everything from Mark 16:9 to the end is an addition. Most bible versions tell you this. These are the work of diligent scholars, going on for centuries. They do know what they're doing. Paul did write those letters, sometimes dictating it orally. Some of the  apostles wrote some, dictated some. ALL the apostles wrote gospels except Judas. Mary Madgalene, Joseph of Arimathea, many others. Where are their gospels in the bible? Some of the so-called Lost Books of the bible have been authenticated, like the Book of Jubilee, dated the BC 150 I think. Others have been proven to be false, like the Gospel of Judas, written 2-300 years after the death of Christ. These people didn't know methods would emerge to test the validity of their writings, to date them, and these things are often very easy for scholars to authenticate or disprove. It is the doctrines themselves, all those additions and other things that are the problem.

Scrolls keep being discovered all over the Middle East. These are extremely valuable because they weren't under Vatican control for over a thousand years and haven't been tampered with. These are originals. It doesn't mean they're accurate or that the proclaimed author actually wrote it, but they're scrolls in their orginal form, the actual original writings, not copies. They're valuable as sources of information about historical events, and as points of comparison between what's written in the bible at the same point in history. Recall there are different bibles with diverse numbers of books, from the Catholic and Protestant bibles to the Greek Orthodix and Ethiopian bible. The Vatican claims the originals of the bible have been lost. Honestly, their vault should be raided and all the scrolls hidden there, all the gospels of the others, brought out and examined. So much was written and so little released. And the Dead Sea scrolls, how many centuries do they want to take to translate that? Taken far too long. Though mostly OT, there are some interesting contemporary snippets.

Angelina Jolie. She still looks hot. Actually allows herself to be photograped.

avril lavine

The ugliest wanna-be beautiful woman on the planet, Victoria Beckham. I wouldn't give her to my dog. But then he's got better taste.

Ashawo. Was She in that movie?

NICOLE KIDMAN

kirsten dunst

Sharon Stone. At her age! Lovely

jessica biel

renee zellwegger

penelope cruz

Christina Applegate. Still lovely.

oprah.

julia roberts