# Paul and Christianity



## 1gr8bldr (Apr 27, 2018)

Ky55  posted this video, "Did Paul invent Christianity" post 626, in the "Is my dad in heaven" thread. I would like to discuss it. I found it to be spot on for the first 54 minutes. To an athiest, I ask, does this battle that Paul faced with the Jews validate the books as legit. You can't create this stuff. Point is, do you believe that Pauls writings are legit, that he wholeheartedly faught this battle? Christians say the NT is about Jesus teaching us how to live. They are only right to the degree of about 10%. Most of the NT is the conflict of Paul trying to keep Judaism and his view of Christianity from merging. Law and grace. To validate my claim of 10%, Jesus's teachings, the gospels merge Jesus's teachings to "convict" that the laws were not being kept, with those to live by faith. Confusing them as teachings of Jesus "for us to live by". If so then, there should be lots of eyes plucked out, hands cut off, etc. Most of Jesus's recorded so called teachings were not to believers but at unbelievers. Most, Most of the NT consist of the battle that Paul faced in trying to convert the Gentiles, to give them confidence, to convince them not to subcumb to the pressure from those mixing the Gospel with Judiasm. Devout Jews whom converted would by nature have a hard time walking away from their traditions, this we understand. But they were trying to force these on the Gentile believers. At the 54 mark, the idea that Paul believed Jesus to be devine.... that's from his own mistranslation. It's not so.... and we can look into that.  He later implies that Christianity fell off due to several different things. He left out that the division among the two sides, having no clear truth would also hurt the spread.... as it does today. I enjoyed the video, agreed with it for the bulk of it. The implication that Luke did not know what he writes of, the dating of the writings, the conflict of the two sides, etc. One thing he failed to clarify..... that Paul's use "of believe" is that Paul means to believe that Jesus is the Messiah. Nothing more, nothing implied. The Messiah that the Jews were waiting on. And no, I don't think Paul invented Christianity. He only pointed to Jesus as the fulfillment of the coming expectation of the Messiah. Anyone else watch it? Want to comment on it.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Apr 27, 2018)

1gr8bldr said:


> Ky55  posted this video, "Did Paul invent Christianity" post 626, in the "Is my dad in heaven" thread. I would like to discuss it. I found it to be spot on for the first 54 minutes. To an athiest, I ask, does this battle that Paul faced with the Jews validate the books as legit. You can't create this stuff. Point is, do you believe that Pauls writings are legit, that he wholeheartedly faught this battle? Christians say the NT is about Jesus teaching us how to live. They are only right to the degree of about 10%. Most of the NT is the conflict of Paul trying to keep Judaism and his view of Christianity from merging. Law and grace. To validate my claim of 10%, Jesus's teachings, the gospels merge Jesus's teachings to "convict" that the laws were not being kept, with those to live by faith. Confusing them as teachings of Jesus "for us to live by". If so then, there should be lots of eyes plucked out, hands cut off, etc. Most of Jesus's recorded so called teachings were not to believers but at unbelievers. Most, Most of the NT consist of the battle that Paul faced in trying to convert the Gentiles, to give them confidence, to convince them not to subcumb to the pressure from those mixing the Gospel with Judiasm. Devout Jews whom converted would by nature have a hard time walking away from their traditions, this we understand. But they were trying to force these on the Gentile believers. At the 54 mark, the idea that Paul believed Jesus to be devine.... that's from his own mistranslation. It's not so.... and we can look into that.  He later implies that Christianity fell off due to several different things. He left out that the division among the two sides, having no clear truth would also hurt the spread.... as it does today. I enjoyed the video, agreed with it for the bulk of it. The implication that Luke did not know what he writes of, the dating of the writings, the conflict of the two sides, etc. One thing he failed to clarify..... that Paul's use "of believe" is that Paul means to believe that Jesus is the Messiah. Nothing more, nothing implied. The Messiah that the Jews were waiting on. And no, I don't think Paul invented Christianity. He only pointed to Jesus as the fulfillment of the coming expectation of the Messiah. Anyone else watch it? Want to comment on it.


 
You are going to make a great atheist some day. 10%


----------



## bullethead (Apr 27, 2018)

SemperFiDawg said:


> You are going to make a great atheist some day. 10%



Said with 0% of facts to back up the assertion.

Show him where he may be wrong.


----------



## atlashunter (Apr 27, 2018)

Haven’t watched the video but Paul was in direct conflict with what Jesus says in Matthew. Jesus was preaching to the choir. They were all Jews. Paul on the other hand was selling to a different market and the pitch is a lot easier to make when it doesn’t mandate genital mutilation.


----------



## Day trip (Apr 27, 2018)

The term Christianity originated in Antioch with disciples of Paul and Barnabas. It was originally a derogatory term that became embraced very much like “gangsta” and other similar terms that I won’t mention here.  It  started as more of an insult and was embraced as a symbol of unity.  “Why yes, we are Christians”.  So yes, Paul was partially responsible for the beginning of Christianity, for good or for bad. 

Jesus never put himself or his teachings in a box other than the way, the truth and the life which by our own choice is accessible to everybody.


----------



## ky55 (Apr 27, 2018)

atlashunter said:


> Haven’t watched the video but Paul was in direct conflict with what Jesus says in Matthew. Jesus was preaching to the choir. They were all Jews. Paul on the other hand was selling to a different market and the pitch is a lot easier to make when it doesn’t mandate genital mutilation.



The “no genital mutilation” thing was a really good reason by itself,
but I’d bet a lot of folks converted and signed on just for the shellfish and bacon.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Apr 27, 2018)

SemperFiDawg said:


> You are going to make a great atheist some day. 10%


We only have the 4 gospels of what Jesus said, and much of that overlaps...... and of that, much of it is directed at those he is trying to convict on how they are not living up to the point of the law. Leaving only a small percent on how to live as a Christian..... and thus I have always said there is a reason for that. Because more instruction leads to less relying on the Spirit of the New Covenant. Ok... I may be off on the 10%...... maybe 12%


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Apr 27, 2018)

Jesus was a Jew. Lived as a Jew. Christianity is founded on the platform of Judaism. They were waiting expectantly for "the Kingdom of God" . The coming reign of the Messiah. The term "Son of God" and Messiah is interchangeable. If the term Messiah were used in scripture more often in place of Son of God, it would carry a more messianic/ Jewish feel to it.


----------



## ky55 (Apr 28, 2018)

Here’s some more discussion on Paul from Ehrman:

https://youtu.be/gTtaNWEC_a0

Sorry I can’t embed it from my phone. I’ll try tomorrow from the laptop.


----------



## WaltL1 (Apr 28, 2018)

ky55 said:


> Here’s some more discussion on Paul from Ehrman:
> 
> https://youtu.be/gTtaNWEC_a0
> 
> Sorry I can’t embed it from my phone. I’ll try tomorrow from the laptop.


----------



## WaltL1 (Apr 28, 2018)

Based on Bart's explanation above it would appear not much has changed.
There were the Jewish beliefs.
A dude comes along interprets the situation differently and sets out to promote/create a new "denomination".
Fast forward to `40,000 different denominations.....


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Apr 28, 2018)

ky55 said:


> Here’s some more discussion on Paul from Ehrman:
> 
> https://youtu.be/gTtaNWEC_a0
> 
> Sorry I can’t embed it from my phone. I’ll try tomorrow from the laptop.


For the most part, I agree with this video. Some minor differences, but not so much that Paul invented Christianity. He was bad wrong about 1 corinthians. LOL, I have actually tried to make my case to Erhman on this before, but he was not buying it. Not face to face but online. However, I am right. Paul's use of "A man has his fathers wife", and sexual things going on in the church was merely a picture he was painting that they would have known the meaning of. LOL, Paul got to creative.... and it was over the heads of later generations. Interesting stuff. I will explain only if someone is interested.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Apr 30, 2018)

bullethead said:


> Said with 0% of facts to back up the assertion.
> 
> Show him where he may be wrong.



I didn’t notice any “facts” in the original assertion so can I just counter with absurd assertions also?   No, THIS kind of silliness speaks for itself.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Apr 30, 2018)

Yep.  Knew OP reeked of Bart.  Have fun following his circular reasoning right into the abyss.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Apr 30, 2018)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Yep.  Knew OP reeked of Bart.  Have fun following his circular reasoning right into the abyss.





SemperFiDawg said:


> I didn’t notice an “facts” in the original assertion so can I just counter with absurd assertions also?   No, THIS kind of silliness speaks for itself.


This is a discussion forum..... Lots of people don't agree, however, those that want to respond  usually do offer up some sort of rebuttal.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (May 1, 2018)

1gr8bldr said:


> This is a discussion forum..... Lots of people don't agree, however, those that want to respond  usually do offer up some sort of rebuttal.



Like I said.  Your post doesn’t rise to the level necessitating a rebuttal.  Just because a few squirrels nibble on it doesn’t mean it’s even a nut, that’s just what squirrels do.


----------



## WaltL1 (May 1, 2018)

1gr8bldr said:


> This is a discussion forum..... Lots of people don't agree, however, those that want to respond  usually do offer up some sort of rebuttal.


He's not interested in discussion. 
He just likes to feebly jab and then run and go hide and pat himself on the back over what he perceives to be a knock out


----------



## ambush80 (May 1, 2018)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Like I said.  Your post doesn’t rise to the level necessitating a rebuttal.  Just because a few squirrels nibble on it doesn’t mean it’s even a nut, that’s just what squirrels do.



Wow.  You need a good dose of secular, humanist rationality so you can learn to better examine your beliefs.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (May 1, 2018)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Like I said.  Your post doesn’t rise to the level necessitating a rebuttal.  Just because a few squirrels nibble on it doesn’t mean it’s even a nut, that’s just what squirrels do.


Sure it does. What kind of discussion this forum would be if we all went around responding like this.


----------



## ambush80 (May 1, 2018)

1gr8bldr said:


> Sure it does. What kind of discussion this forum would be if we all went around responding like this.



As Walt pointed out, he doesn't want to discuss.  He used to try and wasn't very good at it.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (May 1, 2018)

ambush80 said:


> Wow.  You need a good dose of secular, humanist rationality.



Secular humanist rationality is an oxymoron 'a la clearly confused.


----------



## ambush80 (May 1, 2018)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Secular humanist rationality is an oxymoron 'a la clearly confused.



I'd like to have a discussion with you.  Here's what Humanists say they are:

https://americanhumanist.org/what-is-humanism/definition-of-humanism/

What part sounds irrational or confused to you?


----------



## SemperFiDawg (May 1, 2018)

ambush80 said:


> As Walt pointed out, he doesn't want to discuss.  He used to try and wasn't very good at it.



Close.  I did for the most part give up.  I learned you can't discuss the truth with those who hold truth and morality are relative.  Now I just post here and there to point out the obvious absurdities of atheism, which is easy.


----------



## ambush80 (May 1, 2018)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Close.  I did for the most part give up.  I learned you can't discuss the truth with those who hold truth and morality are relative.  Now I just post here and there to point out the obvious absurdities of atheism, which is easy.



But you don't point anything out.  You just say that it's absurd.  You don't give any examples to examine.  For example, If I say that Christianity is absurd I will bring up a specific supernatural claim like the resurrection and explain why I think belief in a resurrection is absurd.  Why don't you do it like that?


----------



## SemperFiDawg (May 1, 2018)

ambush80 said:


> I'd like to have a discussion with you. What part sounds irrational or confused to you?



The part where a person who believes in absolute truth discusses any relevant matter with one who holds truth and morality are relative.


----------



## ambush80 (May 1, 2018)

SemperFiDawg said:


> The part where a person who believes in absolute truth discusses any relevant matter with one who holds truth and morality is relative.



You didn't read it, did you?  If you did you would know that they don't talk about absolute truth.  Why do you say things that aren't true?


----------



## 1gr8bldr (May 1, 2018)

I did the math and a little google research. 22% of the NT that does not overlap in the same story is the words of Jesus . Of this 22%....... how much of it is directed at the Pharisees, etc, or arguments with the hard core Jews, etc. I stand firm on my statement in the op that only 10% is words of Jesus on how to live as a Christian. Waiting on SemperfiDawg to say "no it ain't"


----------



## bullethead (May 1, 2018)

1gr8bldr said:


> I did the math and a little google research. 22% of the NT that does not overlap in the same story is the words of Jesus . Of this 22%....... how much of it is directed at the Pharisees, etc, or arguments with the hard core Jews, etc. I stand firm on my statement in the op that only 10% is words of Jesus on how to live as a Christian. Waiting on SemperfiDawg to say "no it ain't"



If you are lucky, he will also include a little sumptin-sumptin in regards to your morals also.


----------



## Artfuldodger (May 2, 2018)

I might add that many new Christians will struggle with the same issue of works vs grace that Paul did. Maybe even election as Saul experienced  vs one who is looking or seeking salvation.

We read these testimonies of people whose life has gone astray. In most of these accounts, it's something that happens beyond their involvement that leads them to God or Jesus. They aren't seeking, God leads them by a set of unexplained events.

Beyond that initial calling as that new Christian progresses, he suddenly wonders what role he plays or played in his salvation.

Maybe he reads James and compares that to Paul. I will admit that Paul is different. It's like his epistles don't fit the writings of the other apostles.

Even Paul questions his own thoughts a lot. His struggle between works and grace. It's so different that one can and will question.

I myself question the things Paul did. I can identify with him. I can see why people question his apostleship. I wonder or question how God can call someone like Paul who wasn't seeking.

Something related to teaching to the Gentiles was revealed to Paul. A mystery or secret. A change perhaps or an age of grace as some call it. Something different. The way Saul was called. His revelation. His mission. 

Initially I myself doubted his calling. It made it appear that God had initially presented salvation to the Jews first and then to the Gentiles.  That their rejection brought salvation to the gentiles as well. This presented the dilemma that God's plan had changed.

This is another struggle within Christianity. That Jesus came to the Jew first and then the Gentile. That the Jew's rejection allowed  salvation to be offered to the Gentiles.

This concept is a big part of what Paul was about. He said it was his revelation from God.  So we as believers who were taught God doesn't change suddenly had to believe that he did. We also had to follow Paul with other belief concepts that showed other changes as well.

Paul was almost like a rogue, another Jesus, another concept, another apostle, another revelation, 

I really can't see where a Christian who is seeking the truth, wouldn't question Saul's election.


----------



## Artfuldodger (May 2, 2018)

SemperFiDawg said:


> You are going to make a great atheist some day. 10%



If builder will, with his search for the truth, he already would be. 
Perhaps with that thought process, you will make a great Christian one day.

Have you ever questioned grace vs works, election vs freewill, James vs Paul, or has the Holy Spirit enlightened you to the truth through divine intervention?

Again, what has builder presented that has showed he has a problem believing that Jesus died for his sins?


----------



## Israel (May 2, 2018)

Artfuldodger said:


> I might add that many new Christians will struggle with the same issue of works vs grace that Paul did. Maybe even election as Saul experienced  vs one who is looking or seeking salvation.
> 
> We read these testimonies of people whose life has gone astray. In most of these accounts, it's something that happens beyond their involvement that leads them to God or Jesus. They aren't seeking, God leads them by a set of unexplained events.
> 
> ...



I very much appreciate what you have written. You've set a table "out from" yourself that shows (to me at least, if no other) that your eating, and mulling, and seeking to digest toward an integration in yourself, is not at all vain. Toward a unity, a consistency, that food is now...being made into what presents it.

The "what" that has been taken in in eating, is plain by the "what" that is presented. 

This is far more than a vomitting, it is you yourself showing your struggle with the things taken in that is neither to be confused with a child opening its mouth to show what it is eating...but that has not yet become part and parcel of its being. The child...has not yet...swallowed. 

"I ate the little scroll and it was sweet in my mouth _but turned my belly sour_".

To me, you're speaking a bit like Peter. No? Who wrote...

And account that the longsuffering of our Lord _is salvation_; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; _in which are some things hard to be understood_, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

What is Peter's touchstone there? Is it not:

"And account that the longsuffering of our Lord_ is_ salvation"? That, he confesses, Paul has written of. (We need not touch the specifics of how Peter came to know this...as indeed...a touchstone, how Peter, of himself, then in himself...was made aware...of such patience...and forbearing _toward _him...was made known as salvation. Even such a man who had at one time not only "advised" the Lord...but corrected Him...before His brothers )

(I would say) Obviously the plainness of this thing to Peter, the thing "ringing a bell" in Peter, (written plainly by Paul, or through Paul) is so very clear to him as a truth (if not some sum of it) that he is able to go on to say "this is heavenly food" (scripture) EVEN if some of what is written is hard to understand. 

Why might Peter say this? Is it not his own admission and concession to "even though I can declare it true food, I am also understanding, some of this (his) stuff is hard to digest..." 
Nevertheless, just cause it's hard...doesn't make it any less healthy, it's real food. It is...scripture...inspired of God.

I think Peter, no less than you and I, no less than any other (Paul himself surely included) found the true food is always requiring...and even in its being taken in, by requirement, a change. The food itself...makes the change _toward_ its digestibility, toward... what can digest it.

Do I muddy the waters if I say, as we all know...Paul was a once Pharisee (though a thing he later accounted of no value) but quite plainly acknowledged...as being sent to the gentiles? 

Even had we not Paul's own admissions of desire to go to "his brothers after the flesh"...he was nevertheless sent to "others"...but not such others as we might casually accept...specifically to "others" that a Pharisee (and how much more a "great Pharisee"...) would, _naturally_, find odious and repugnant. 

Does anyone see the wisdom of God in this foolishness? Does anyone see this working of God in a man that "to himself" is quite one thing...being sent specifically, (and under command) to those who, _naturally_, he not only deems as _unlike _himself...but all that is below, beneath, (would it be a stretch to say..."contemptible"?) to his _once natural_ understanding? (and I have little doubt that even in this, Paul's exaltation of such "Jewishness" left him to delight in his superiority to even his "brother" but _lesser_ Jews. He was consenting to Stephen's death...might he have convinced himself "it's among these lessser guys, these guys so much less devoted...and probably in some sense..."ignorant and gullible"...that this fellow Jesus could sway") Yes, _I am_ convinced Paul was "once" this way.

How better to break man's hierarchy in mind...than to send a man, once convinced, so very convinced of a superiority, and devoted to it, and in it...that he sought to excel...not merely "a Jew"...but even as a Jew...to the very apex of it, attainable...to him. Smart? Who would deny? Devout? Studied? Diligent? Impeccably formed...to it?

Yet...something definitely _changed_:

If anyone else thinks he has grounds for confidence in the flesh, I have more: circumcised on the eighth day, of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin; a Hebrew of Hebrews; as to the Law, a Pharisee; as to zeal, persecuting the church; as to righteousness under the Law, faultless...

Yes...Paul _had_ impressive credentials in the things a man _might_ think "pertain" to the God who is true God, of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

So, what did this man find? He found God working in many mighty ways, miracles, fruit production, gathering, amongst those he would have surely once deemed "so far from God"...as to be unreachable...yet here they were, before him (Paul) and in his sight, plainly manifesting the reaching of God (to all he once thought unreachable) through the gospel he carried. Do you think this might have convinced him further of the power of this thing (the gospel) that he had been given...and chosen to carry?

Who then...wouldn't marvel...wonder, be so enraptured, completely "caught" in that wonder as to provoke the deepest pursuit of all its truth....all its wonder...even (if a man could be permitted)...all the understanding and knowledge to which it would lead? 

Yes, Paul became a "dog with a bone" in it, as relentlessly pursuing to depths and heights as grace would allow...to search this "thing" out. 

And he would have us (I am persuaded) as God would have us...so caught. Despite all the struggles found in the receiving into ourselves of something so foreign to (previous) mind...despite all the enduring...even in manifest experience (facing wild animals!)...that this glory would be made so real to us to outshine all things of "former glory" (yes...even to one such as Paul...Moses Rabenu)...that _this_ is would be shamelessly declared...again, and again.

And what did Paul find...commend us to seek, and find, encourage us to seek, and find? Was it a mere thing? Was it a mere knowledge? Was it a mere understanding..._of things_? Was it even an "adequate" presentation? 

None of which is to be despised...each having its place in glory.

What did Paul find? And therefore struggle so mightily to present (yet not Paul...but through the grace of God in him)? 

For I sought to know _nothing _among you, but Christ...and Him, crucified. And in that...Paul became a staunch (if not in our sight, staunchest) proponent (O! such a weak word I find!) of the resurrection...for to him and in him, and through him...it became manifest, time after time, after time. 

As he sought conformity in death...a life was simultaneously, inevitably...revealed. "What _need_ the resurrection...except to a _dying thing_?" (Do we yet doubt God very much attends to the dying of His saints?) Precious...in His sight. So precious...that He _must _will's himself to, does, reveal a thing there.

O! the ways of God, past finding out...even that this death...must be, (cannot ever not be) received...as gift!

And the grace found there...in _this_ man, (Jesus the Christ) once so despised of him (he breathed out threatenings and slaughters!), once found nothing more than a thing to be reviled, hung up as both warning and emblem of God's judgment, to be scorned by both God and man (cursed is everyone that hangs on a tree)...and left to itself.

He found this man...wouldn't, didn't, even purposed...in all of it that appeared "so very wrong"...that it was Paul who was not to be "left alone", abandoned, isolated to his own insanity and imprisoned in his own gehenna...and called to him, to call him out...of it.

Yeah, it made Paul seem, and often sound extreme, and to so many, extremely too too much. 

But whatever was an asset to me, I count as loss for the sake of Christ. More than that, I count all things as loss compared to the surpassing excellence of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whom I have lost all things. 

I consider them _rubbish_, ( refuse, dregs, dung) that I may gain Christ and be found in Him, not having my own righteousness from the Law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness from God on the basis of faith. I want to know Christ and the power of His resurrection and the fellowship of His sufferings, being conformed to Him in His death, so that I may somehow attain to the resurrection from the dead.

Yes...Paul saw something. And the seeing led to more seeing...and seeking...and more and more, and more.

And a panting man might be hard understood, unless one is running with him. But he was not ashamed to say "follow me as I follow"...run...run! with me. We will know each others words...and signals. For they come from the One we run to. For the love of Christ! Run...with me!

And know who gives the strength in that running...the prize itself, Himself, has in Him all the power to give strength...to run. The light will attract...all that has ever been given to perceive...even glimmer...of light. Brighter, and brighter...to the coming day.

Run past all tangles, and snares, and briers and brambles the "head" of all speed...carries us past them...as though they are (what they truly are)...nothing.

He made no mistake in this saying 

I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.


who loved ME, and gave himself FOR ME.


Having learned who the chiefest of sinners is (does Christ ever come to, or for...anything else?) he was not at all timid to declare this gospel to all men...even those...even specifically those who might yet wonder if they "fit the bill". But no man does this convinced...till he himself is convinced...who Christ came for. How fruitless it is to try and convince a man "he" needs Jesus should one not be convinced he himself...is the one who needs Jesus...the very most. This is a convincing only God can accomplish...made plain to that "herald" that it is only the work of God...that has even accomplished this in himself. Till then...it is always "others" that need a _cleaning up._


It's a very firm thing God teaches that changes a man. Even from "they need to know" to "I must know".


"I want to know Christ and the power of His resurrection"

Art, your struggles in these things, as I have in mine..."ring a bell." A bell I can't deny. You sound like a man who knows he needs God...to understand these things, and no less than that...God. Revealed through Jesus Christ. The _true_ One. The things "of Christ" only make perfect sense...in Christ...and of such sense that all other sense and knowing of "lesser" things...is shown plainly as they are...nothing. Nothing at all. _Just_ briars, _just_ brambles. Unable to hold a man at speed...yet marking him plainly that others may know..."those things obviously cannot hold...therefore, let us run!"

We eat what changes us. We eat what makes us bearable...of such change. And Who has in Himself, and through Himself given; made us _fit to eat_...what changes us. 

Even from faith to faith...and glory to glory.

Yes, we live and eat...where the One who now spreads out the table...was once spread out...upon it.
And nothing was found in Him except perfect health to life. Oh, make no mistake...he suffered inspection. Perfectly...by THE Perfect.

But about the Son He says: “Your throne, O God, will last forever and ever, and righteousness will be the scepter of Your kingdom. You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness; therefore God, Your God, has placed You above Your companions by anointing You with the oil of joy.”


And may this sink as far deeply into our hearing...as it _must_:

but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (May 2, 2018)

Artfuldodger said:


> Initially I myself doubted his calling. It made it appear that God had initially presented salvation to the Jews first and then to the Gentiles.  That their rejection brought salvation to the gentiles as well. This presented the dilemma that God's plan had changed.
> 
> This is another struggle within Christianity. That Jesus came to the Jew first and then the Gentile.


This portion of the post made me realize a big void in Bart's speech as well as my own thinking. Likely the single most reason that the Jews did not accept Jesus as the Messiah was the idea that he was not exclusive to the so called "chosen", including gentiles and including sinners....... Thinking out loud here....... and his strong talk..... and how he offended them....... this term comes to mind.... "The offense of the cross." hmmmm....... it was offensive to those whom thought they were living right, to be told that their father is the devil..... I'm not surprised that they rejected him. I'm not sure I believe all the claims of what Jesus supposedly said.  It would be like me going into a church...... a church that I don't agree with, and telling them that their father is the devil..... These people, this hypothetical  church, whether wrong or not... are trying to serve God. Wholeheartedly wanting to please God in all cases. Maybe wrong, but with good intentions. And then to tell them their father is the devil..... No, he did not say that. Can you imagine the rage you would have after living your entire life jumping through all the jewish hoops, having lived this your entire life, praying, all that comes with the Jewish life, wholeheartedly trying to serve God, and then some stranger says your father is the devil. EDIT, having lived the life of the law according to how God had said. If God has a new way, a change in our road map, you could explain or give us new direction without saying our father is the devil. Bear in mind the context. They were an audience because they were interested in whether he may be the coming, expected messiah.


----------



## Miguel Cervantes (May 2, 2018)

Why does nearly every single thread in the AAA forum have to do with something that they vehemently deny believing in? 

Don't true Atheist have anything else to talk about?


----------



## bullethead (May 2, 2018)

Miguel Cervantes said:


> Why does nearly every single thread in the AAA forum have to do with something that they vehemently deny believing in?
> 
> Don't true Atheist have anything else to talk about?


It's almost as bad as people in the political forum constantly whining about things that they don't believe in like, democrats, liberals and unions, but yet day after day....post after post....


----------



## Miguel Cervantes (May 2, 2018)

bullethead said:


> It's almost as bad as people in the political forum constantly whining about things that they don't believe in like, democrats, liberals and unions, but yet day after day....post after post....



Apples and Oranges, but nice attempt.


----------



## Israel (May 2, 2018)

Miguel Cervantes said:


> Why does nearly every single thread in the AAA forum have to do with something that they vehemently deny believing in?
> 
> Don't true Atheist have anything else to talk about?


 
Like myself...what else might a stumbling man have to say but "Ooops, I need some help _here_."

Even if it only comes out as a grunt, even seemingly unintelligible...too deep...to be uttered.


----------



## oldfella1962 (May 2, 2018)

1gr8bldr said:


> I did the math and a little google research. 22% of the NT that does not overlap in the same story is the words of Jesus . Of this 22%....... how much of it is directed at the Pharisees, etc, or arguments with the hard core Jews, etc. I stand firm on my statement in the op that only 10% is words of Jesus on how to live as a Christian. Waiting on SemperfiDawg to say "no it ain't"



Not trying to nit-pick but I'm amazed that there is any percentage of Jesus telling people how to live as a Christian when Christianity didn't exist yet! 

Correct me if I'm wrong but until Jesus was crucified and rose again there was only Judaism and perhaps the new concepts Jesus and his disciples were practicing.


----------



## WaltL1 (May 2, 2018)

Miguel Cervantes said:


> Why does nearly every single thread in the AAA forum have to do with something that they vehemently deny believing in?
> 
> Don't true Atheist have anything else to talk about?


Uhhh.. for the same reason that nearly every single thread in the Fishing forums are about fishing?


----------



## SemperFiDawg (May 2, 2018)

ambush80 said:


> You didn't read it, did you?  If you did you would know that they don't talk about absolute truth.  Why do you say things that aren't true?



Oh Brother.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (May 2, 2018)

WaltL1 said:


> Uhhh.. for the same reason that nearly every single thread in the Fishing forums are about fishing?



There’s a forum where people who don’t believe fish exist spend all day talking about fishing?  Who knew.


----------



## Israel (May 2, 2018)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Oh Brother.



I see that...as a very good start.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (May 2, 2018)

oldfella1962 said:


> Not trying to nit-pick but I'm amazed that there is any percentage of Jesus telling people how to live as a Christian when Christianity didn't exist yet!
> 
> Correct me if I'm wrong but until Jesus was crucified and rose again there was only Judaism and perhaps the new concepts Jesus and his disciples were practicing.



He’s already confused enough.  How dare you point out the obvious.


----------



## jmharris23 (May 2, 2018)

Miguel Cervantes said:


> Why does nearly every single thread in the AAA forum have to do with something that they vehemently deny believing in?
> 
> Don't true Atheist have anything else to talk about?



They are apologists in their own right. They make a defense for their rational worldview and the other side makes a defense for their faith based worldview. The circle just goes around and around.


----------



## Israel (May 2, 2018)

oldfella1962 said:


> Not trying to nit-pick but I'm amazed that there is any percentage of Jesus telling people how to live as a Christian when Christianity didn't exist yet!
> 
> Correct me if I'm wrong but until Jesus was crucified and rose again there was only Judaism and perhaps the new concepts Jesus and his disciples were practicing.



I am a little more convinced Jesus was simply "holding" them to what _they said_ they already believed...but were well on their way, through Him, to discover "we got this all wrong".

Breaking that thread of "God has given to us the law to show that we are special" to "Oh, this was all to bring us to the _all and only_ that would show the vanity of that...God Himself".


And so, that even all the _not knowing_,  and _even _complete misconstruing in the knowing, through the One speaking to them would be made plain. 

But something had to be allowed "opened up" to them to even begin to understand. Even how wrong...wrong can be. And still be forgiven. He was "opened up" for that.

And how very wrong he _allowed himself_ to appear. To being lifted on a pole. But nothing came out...but the sweet wine of mercy. Not a drop of vinegar. We all have to know...what's inside.
Whine...or wine.

God's ways are very opposite. In one place wine changes to vinegar. In (_through_ Another) another whining may be changed to something else.

And we are so very very skilled till then at camouflaging complaint...and the very cleverest amongst us...are the most skilled. But, we must drink...what we serve...and it's a most excellent way to convince us a change of taste is not "in us" to manipulate...but must be sought. We may start as beggars seeking just one drop of sweetness...and find we are being prepared to be vats.


----------



## Artfuldodger (May 2, 2018)

Israel said:


> He made no mistake in this saying
> 
> I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.
> 
> ...



Not to quote your whole reply, but well written. Thanks


----------



## Miguel Cervantes (May 2, 2018)

WaltL1 said:


> Uhhh.. for the same reason that nearly every single thread in the Fishing forums are about fishing?



So you are claiming that Atheism is more Anti-Christianity than a true believe in no deities?


----------



## WaltL1 (May 2, 2018)

Miguel Cervantes said:


> So you are claiming that Atheism is more Anti-Christianity than a true believe in no deities?


Ambush posted this in another thread. Go to about 3:25


----------



## WaltL1 (May 2, 2018)

SemperFiDawg said:


> There’s a forum where people who don’t believe fish exist spend all day talking about fishing?  Who knew.


Don't be so simple.
In a fishing forum the subject is fishing.
In a AAA forum the subject is about belief vs. nonbelief.
Therefore that is whats talked about.


----------



## WaltL1 (May 2, 2018)

jmharris23 said:


> They are apologists in their own right. They make a defense for their rational worldview and the other side makes a defense for their faith based worldview. The circle just goes around and around.


Its a subject with no definitive answer. Going around and around is inevitable.
But lets not miss the fact that there can be a lot learned by the time you get back around to the starting point.


----------



## jmharris23 (May 2, 2018)

WaltL1 said:


> Its a subject with no definitive answer. Going around and around is inevitable.
> But lets not miss the fact that there can be a lot learned by the time you get back around to the starting point.




I agree.... I wasn't complaining about the circular route...just stating a fact.


----------



## Miguel Cervantes (May 2, 2018)

WaltL1 said:


> Don't be so simple.
> In a fishing forum the subject is fishing.
> In a AAA forum the subject is about belief vs. nonbelief.
> Therefore that is whats talked about.



I suppose the elephant in the room here is, in the Spiritual or Christian debate forums they frequently discuss / debate scripture, beliefs etc without entering the realm of Atheism et al. 

I never see the AAA forum discussing the boundaries / parameters / nuances of Atheism itself. I never see Atheism discussing, and often attacking other religions, only Christianity. 

I suppose when you don't believe in anything, there is really nothing to discuss without bringing in someone elses beliefs that you don't believe in to discuss. 

It makes Atheism seem quite silly when you spell it out like that.


----------



## WaltL1 (May 2, 2018)

jmharris23 said:


> I agree.... I wasn't complaining about the circular route...just stating a fact.


Ok gotcha 
And make mine a root beer, regular beer is nasty


----------



## WaltL1 (May 2, 2018)

Miguel Cervantes said:


> I suppose the elephant in the room here is, in the Spiritual or Christian debate forums they frequently discuss / debate scripture, beliefs etc without entering the realm of Atheism et al.
> 
> I never see the AAA forum discussing the boundaries / parameters / nuances of Atheism itself. I never see Atheism discussing, and often attacking other religions, only Christianity.
> 
> ...





> I never see Atheism discussing, and often attacking other religions, only Christianity.


Ive seen your other posts. I know you are a deeper thinker than this.
Atheist don't believe in the existence of gods. 
We are talking to Christians here.
Guess whos god we end up talking about?


> I never see the AAA forum discussing the boundaries / parameters / nuances of Atheism itself.


Atheists don't believe in the existence of gods. Any of them.
Not a whole lot of parameters, nuances or boundaries to discuss.


----------



## Miguel Cervantes (May 2, 2018)

WaltL1 said:


> Not a whole lot of parameters, nuances or boundaries to discuss.



Then how do Atheist feel about the 1st Church of Atheism?


----------



## WaltL1 (May 2, 2018)

Miguel Cervantes said:


> Then how do Atheist feel about the 1st Church of Atheism?


That's not a question about Atheism.
That's a question about how Atheist feel about other Atheist gathering together to discuss Atheism.
2 different subjects. 
On that subject you will probably get varying responses.


----------



## ambush80 (May 2, 2018)

WaltL1 said:


> Ambush posted this in another thread. Go to about 3:25



You should watch that interview he's referring to.  It's pretty funny.


----------



## Miguel Cervantes (May 2, 2018)

WaltL1 said:


> On that subject you will probably get varying responses.


Why so?


----------



## WaltL1 (May 2, 2018)

Miguel Cervantes said:


> Why so?


Because its not defined like Atheism is therefore you can apply your own personal nuances, parameters or boundaries you want to.


----------



## NCHillbilly (May 2, 2018)

What if somebody a few hundred years from now finds the writings of David Koresh and his believers or Ted Kazinsky and builds a religion around them? This could be the same scenario.


----------



## jmharris23 (May 2, 2018)

NCHillbilly said:


> What if somebody a few hundred years from now finds the writings of David Koresh and his believers or Ted Kazinsky and builds a religion around them? This could be the same scenario.



400 years is a long time from the original events and would be hard to confirm the truth of it. The good news at least even one of the gospels  was written only some 40-60 years after Jesus death. So there’s a chance that there were some who could affirm the story Mark wrote. 

Bart Ehrman agrees that Mark was written early but doesn’t seem to think any eyewitnesses were around to confirm it. We would agree to disagree here. 

https://ehrmanblog.org/question-about-eyewitnesses-and-the-gospels/


----------



## Israel (May 2, 2018)

WaltL1 said:


> Its a subject with no definitive answer. Going around and around is inevitable.
> But lets not miss the fact that there can be a lot learned by the time you get back around to the starting point.


 

I think we could agree (is this me saying "so what you're saying is..."?) that in almost everything known...among men, by men, it all becomes "a wash"?

One says "I know this"...then another says "OK, but I know...that" (Not forgetting 10 billion flies)

Numbers add no "ooomph" to an argument, or position, do not further substantiate it...unless we are willing to agree it is all and only "about the numbers" especially if purported to be "about" truth...what is "true". But, for me,  any case where numbers are resorted to to add oomph...kind of (in, and by their resort)  already denies the singularity (if it be so?) of truth.

Even total agreement (if it could ever be reached) just among men...doesn't add or detract....does it? Doesn't it still...remain "a wash"?

I know there's so much more here in the assuming that must be established, really, before continuing. 

_Is_ truth transcendent? (we have not yet agreed) Not to what_ the _truth is... we haven't even agreed as to its fundamental nature. Or whether it even _has_ one.

Is it immune to the assault of, and being diminished by disagreement...and just _as equally_ neither buttressed nor bolstered by agreement?

It's a great presumption then (to go on) if not _rightly _explored...whether something of _that nature_, if "real" then...could be known. 

But there's a rub...do you see it? If the step by step pursuit includes the _agreement to transcendence_...how could what is "seeking" it...(if it is transcendent to "the itself")...ever even know it is making _right _exploration? How could "the itself"...know it is taking or making "legitimate steps"? Especially in pursuit?

And if in pursuit, isn't this also a de facto admission...if, or as truth is above...or therefore to be pursued it is therefore not mine (perhaps yet)...and...not "in me"? A man doesn't look for the keys he holds...or does he?


If that be so...if man can neither add to, nor detract from, truth precisely because it is "above" him, and that admission places him in plain _also admission_..."it is not in me"...another question forms. It also is a rub. 

If I agree..."it is not me, and not_ in me_ (for what else could _seeking it _ most plainly imply?) the rub is:

How will I know...if or when I find it? What in me (that I have already conceded is _not_ in me..._that is_ truth) would "respond" to let me know...this is it? 

I know gold first by color (because it is in me to know the color of gold...but only by experience  and learning of it)...and we would all readily admit to a time we knew nothing of it.

It was, if we could say it this way, a gift of learning what gold, at first, looks like. Where once we didn't care at all about it (of ourselves)...something came in, imparted by a someone to teach of its nature (color) and value. But if we are experienced "enough" we have also learned "all that glitters"...and so we may know of chemical assay, weight and substantiality..to aid...this thing _outside _concurs with what I know...inside, to at least...some semblance of saying "this is therefore gold".

But, might we still be wrong? Even...as to gold?

If I make no sense I will not continue. But I do think, especially in the matter of what we call "truth"...it's a thing slightly, if not very much removed, from the example of gold.

But then again...maybe not by much?


----------



## 1gr8bldr (May 2, 2018)

NCHillbilly said:


> What if somebody a few hundred years from now finds the writings of David Koresh and his believers or Ted Kazinsky and builds a religion around them? This could be the same scenario.


There is a  notable difference.... Being that those mentioned stand alone. The story of Jesus is sort of.... an amendment to another story, the OT


----------



## Israel (May 2, 2018)

1gr8bldr said:


> There is a  notable difference.... Being that those mentioned stand alone. The story of Jesus is sort of.... an amendment to another story, the OT


And it does (if believed) perfectly "bookend it"...in that sense...doesn't it?
A man came from dirt and received a breath. It was discovered he didn't know what he was at all doing through a painful evidence (all spoken plainly in the accounts) through men who _thought they knew_ what they were doing...all with more painful evidence.

"A people who tell on themselves"...warts and all. Pretty rare. Then the rarest of all appears...ordained to be, and the end of the "story". How freely he admits "of myself, I can do nothing"! So different than the man trying to do...and be "a" something. And by that, condemning all his own children to it. (God forbid I find fault with him, for I followed him as such a _willing_ sycophant! If I condemn him, I condemn my own self)

A man who says "I can do nothing of myself"...sent to undo completely, all that came subsequent to the man who found in _his will_ to be something...that he had to resort to illegitimacy in attempt...to be. Yeah. Oh, _how I know...that guy._

But probbly not as I ought, cause I have not done, and cannot "do any better".

And maybe this is such a needful thing "I don't even know it". Like the "older" less preferred batteries, I too, work too much by "memory"...and a fault is revealed that only a new and memory "less" battery is more sufficient to. Actually, only suited to.


----------

