# Paul’s conversion



## stringmusic (Apr 26, 2021)

Why do you think Paul converted? 

Why do you think he chose to go from Roman citizenship to being put in prison?


----------



## Israel (Apr 26, 2021)

"When it pleased God to reveal His Son in me..."


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Apr 26, 2021)

stringmusic said:


> Why do you think Paul converted?
> 
> Why do you think he chose to go from Roman citizenship to being put in prison?



String???    String???  It that really you?



> Why do you think he chose to go from Roman citizenship to being put in prison?



Just off the top of my head: seeing a crucified Jesus,  alive, in all his Heavenly splendor, and speaking personally to him, conversing back and forth with him.  That will get a persons attention.  Put things in perspective, so-to-speak.


----------



## Danuwoa (Apr 26, 2021)

Good conversation, String.  Paul saw something that turned his world upside down.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 26, 2021)

Heatstroke makes for good visions.
http://paulproblem.faithweb.com/infighting_paul_james_peter.htm


----------



## bullethead (Apr 26, 2021)

The Jews rejected Paul after he failed to carry out his deeds to persecute the followers of Jesus. Paul's "come to Jesus moment" may very well have taken place (IE:he invented it) after he new he was in a bad way with the Jews in order to appeal to the Gentiles. More inspiration to teach the Gentiles his way about Jesus was because he did not get along with James and Peter and the way they kept Judaism traditions intertwined within the Jerusalem Church.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 26, 2021)

Scroll down to Pauline Christians, it gives some insight to the answers you are asking String.  The whole page is informative also.
https://www.badnewsaboutchristianity.com/bb0_paul.htm


----------



## Spotlite (Apr 26, 2021)

Israel said:


> "When it pleased God to reveal His Son in me..."





Danuwoa said:


> Good conversation, String.  Paul saw something that turned his world upside down.


Yup. God was the one who revealed Jesus to Paul. He was not converted by the preaching of any other teacher. Second, after Paul's conversion, he was not trained by the apostles. He went off by himself and learned about Christ from Christ.

Galatians 2:11–14 describes a difficult moment, when Paul was forced to confront another apostle for hypocritical behavior. Though Peter has declared his agreement that salvation is by faith in Christ and not the law, he seems hesitant to live out that truth if disapproving people are watching him. Peter's choice to step away from eating with Gentiles leads all the Jewish people in the room to do the same. For the sake of the true gospel, Paul opposes Peter to his face, calling out his hypocrisy. Peter had been ''living like a Gentile,'' by eating with them. How could he force any Gentile, then, to live under the law?

Paul's point to his accusers was that he was a full apostle, by God's own calling and grace, and not because of any close association with the apostles in and around Jerusalem. 

In the previous verses, Paul also showed he was preaching the same gospel truth as the other apostles. In fact, Peter, James, and John had given to him and Barnabas their full approval.


----------



## Mr Bya Lungshot (Apr 26, 2021)

Amen


----------



## Israel (Apr 27, 2021)

"In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye..." Paul testified to the believer's change.

The work of God begins and ends in same fashion, and in all progression the same...in the love of the One appearing to the loving of the one appeared to. The turning of dark (and what is darkened) to light.

Interesting that Paul had no testimony of such encounters with God prior to his testimony of Christ's intervention on the road. No "when I was a child, young or older man in my pursuits as a Jew...God once spoke to me" or "showed such and such."

Yet once Christ appeared in cast of light he understood. And... both backward and forward. In that light he saw the progression of himself, of man, of all men. 

He was able to write "I was alive once apart from the law, but when the commandment came sin revived, and I died..." He understood the workings of things in man ordained of God to man's knowing so that in identity with, and in Adam (as all men's natural father) they could (each man) learn of God's working..._from ground up. _Each fashioned first of clay the dust of the earth. Into _the which heart of_...Jesus descended.

This is both experiential _and experimental. _Jesus describes the experiment, but neither dares us nor challenges us to it. It is what is _all of necessary to knowing._

If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself.

Paul, being chosen by manifestly relentless pursuit of the Pursuer

"it is hard to kick against the goads..."

was no less then, appointed to it, such relentlessness. He knew this drive, this motivation, this doggedness to know the grace and mercy of God revealed in and through Jesus Christ alone...was a gift despite the places it took him, the things he suffered, the things he appeared to lose in pursuit...which all came to be counted as nothing. And so much so that he was not shy in speaking of things that, even if hard to understand...or even receive that:

and *if* in *any* thing ye be *otherwise minded*, *God shall reveal* even this unto you.

Being robbed of any will or desire to persuade by his own cleverness left him in total reliance upon He who was persuading him.

He had learned that Jesus Christ alone took him to the One He had promised, even as He had promised; to show..."I will show you whom you should fear..."

And, in being made as a spectacle, as the offscourings, the scum of the earth and even as a man (and men) sentenced to death (1 Cor 4:9-13)

He understood how the appearance of such debasement worked toward life.

Knowing the terror of the Lord we persuade men.


----------



## stringmusic (Apr 27, 2021)

SemperFiDawg said:


> String???    String???  It that really you?


Lol, yes sir it is. Don’t come around much anymore but for some reason I’ve had this question on my mind for some of the A/A’s in here. Hope y’all are doing well!




> Just off the top of my head: seeing a crucified Jesus,  alive, in all his Heavenly splendor, and speaking personally to him, conversing back and forth with him.  That will get a persons attention.  Put things in perspective, so-to-speak.


Yea I’d figure that’s what most Christians would conclude after reading Gods words through Paul’s writings. Figure I’d throw the question out there in this forum to gets some thoughts on it.


----------



## stringmusic (Apr 27, 2021)

bullethead said:


> The Jews rejected Paul after he failed to carry out his deeds to persecute the followers of Jesus. Paul's "come to Jesus moment" may very well have taken place (IE:he invented it) after he new he was in a bad way with the Jews in order to appeal to the Gentiles. More inspiration to teach the Gentiles his way about Jesus was because he did not get along with James and Peter and the way they kept Judaism traditions intertwined within the Jerusalem Church.


Where did you get this information from? Is it your personal theory? 

I’m honestly just looking for how the A/A’s see such a life changing event for someone like Paul, who by worldly standards “had it all” and chose to follow Jesus instead. 

Btw, you still headed to Wisconsin to kill some birds this year? Me and my dad are flying out this Saturday to try to kill some Rio’s in Kansas, really excited about it!


----------



## stringmusic (Apr 27, 2021)

bullethead said:


> Scroll down to Pauline Christians, it gives some insight to the answers you are asking String.  The whole page is informative also.
> https://www.badnewsaboutchristianity.com/bb0_paul.htm


I would surely expect to see something written like this on a website called “badnewsaboutchristianity”


> he generally comes over as a trouble-making, complaining, self-seeking misogynist who was clearly out of step with the 12 apostles. Of the many Christians regarded as trouble-makers, the one who caused most trouble was undoubtedly Paul. After his conversion he seems to have developed the knack of creating vast amounts of bad feeling.


This is simply not true and the opinion of an agnostic/atheist on the internet, which is not surprising at all. Reading this in the first paragraph doesn’t give me much hope for the rest of the article. Maybe you could highlight or quote the part you think gives the best answer to why Paul went from murdering Christians to becoming one?


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Apr 27, 2021)

stringmusic said:


> Figure I’d throw the question out there in this forum to gets some thoughts on it.





> Heatstroke makes for good visions.



As you can see, you haven't missed a thing.  BTW. good to see you Brother.  I hope you and your loved ones are blessed daily as I am.


----------



## stringmusic (Apr 27, 2021)

SemperFiDawg said:


> As you can see, you haven't missed a thing.  BTW. good to see you Brother.  I hope you and your loved ones are blessed daily as I am.


Lol, I just skipped over that one. 

Yes we are!


----------



## bullethead (Apr 27, 2021)

stringmusic said:


> Where did you get this information from? Is it your personal theory?
> 
> I’m honestly just looking for how the A/A’s see such a life changing event for someone like Paul, who by worldly standards “had it all” and chose to follow Jesus instead.
> 
> Btw, you still headed to Wisconsin to kill some birds this year? Me and my dad are flying out this Saturday to try to kill some Rio’s in Kansas, really excited about it!


No WI for me this spring.
Best of luck to you in Kansas. Let me know how you and your Father do.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 27, 2021)

stringmusic said:


> I would surely expect to see something written like this on a website called “badnewsaboutchristianity”
> 
> This is simply not true and the opinion of an agnostic/atheist on the internet, which is not surprising at all. Reading this in the first paragraph doesn’t give me much hope for the rest of the article. Maybe you could highlight or quote the part you think gives the best answer to why Paul went from murdering Christians to becoming one?


Where did you expect to find stories that go against what you claim?
"This is simply not true" What is that based off of?
If you only read the "Pro" that backs up your beliefs you are only getting one side of the story that is equally as biased as the "Con".
I post these so they are read in their entirety so that the reader can take in the full amount of information that includes information as to why rather than cherry pick a few key points and then I have to go back to the article and post what was already written and would be answered had it been read.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 27, 2021)

SemperFiDawg said:


> As you can see, you haven't missed a thing.  BTW. good to see you Brother.  I hope you and your loved ones are blessed daily as I am.


No, no conversions in here SFD. You will hear things that you do not agree with. I am a-ok with listening to your counter to it if you can include some evidence that backs it up.
If you listen to Paul's own account he had a vision in a hot desert that nobody else saw or heard. Could be heat stroke.
John Smith had a vision. David Koresh had a vision. Many claim to have visions saying that Jesus visited them. If there is something that is more believable about Paul's and you can give examples about please do.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Apr 27, 2021)

bullethead said:


> No, no conversions in here SFD. You will hear things that you do not agree with. I am a-ok with listening to your counter to it if you can include some evidence that backs it up.



I've long since given up on discussing truth with anyone who has no regard for it, be it politics, religion, weather, etc.  The most impenetrable object in existence is a closed mind, so I will pass on your offer and you can foist up the "See!  No evidence." banner, because in truth, no amount of evidence CAN penetrate a closed mind.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 27, 2021)

SemperFiDawg said:


> I've long since given up on discussing truth with anyone who has no regard for it, be it politics, religion, weather, etc.  The most impenetrable object in existence is a closed mind, so I will pass on your offer and you can foist up the "See!  No evidence." banner.


Sfd you have never ever even given a solid try. The answer above has been your go to answer for the entire time that we have crossed paths in here. Your "truth" is solely what you believe to be true with zero facts or evidence to back it up. Anyone who disagrees with you is automatically shunned for discussion.
You have never even held a lengthy conversation in here with anyone where you even tried to make a statement and then backed that statement up. All you've ever done when pressed to present "your side" is bow out as if it is beneath you. As if you hold the key to all knowledge but typing that out it is too taxing all the while you are typing and excuse to bail out in a way that you think is noble.
You have a non believer in front of you. You claim to know the truth.  You are in a forum where you can lay out all your knowledge and bedazzle the non believers that are in here. Well, go for it.
I'll agree with you that nothing has changed as your participation is the same as it ever was. You've already given your vague pot shot, this is usually where you make it more personal then bail.

If you have something I'll listen. Enlighten me.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Apr 27, 2021)

bullethead said:


> Enlighten me.



You already are, and you despise it.  Why else spend ANY energy what-so-ever denying it, to the point of not allowing any comment however innocuous, to go undenied.  I’m guessing you don’t exert this much effort combatting the idea of Wisps.  The entire “Doth protest too loudly” gives your true “enlightenment” away as brightly as a signal flare at midnight.  It’s a sad pathology, but something only you and you alone can remedy.


----------



## stringmusic (Apr 27, 2021)

bullethead said:


> Where did you expect to find stories that go against what you claim?


I’m not claiming anything, I just asked a question.


> "This is simply not true" What is that based off of?


I base it off of what is written in the New Testament. What the article states in that paragraph is simply not true, and it’s the first paragraph so I’m gonna go out on a limb and say he bases the rest of the article on that false premise. 


> If you only read the "Pro" that backs up your beliefs you are only getting one side of the story that is equally as biased as the "Con".
> I post these so they are read in their entirety so that the reader can take in the full amount of information that includes information as to why rather than cherry pick a few key points and then I have to go back to the article and post what was already written and would be answered had it been read.


Again, I’m not claiming anything. I just asked a question about what A/A’s think about Paul conversion. 

What we have to read about Paul’s  conversion is his writing about it in the New Testament, anything outside of that is simply speculation/opinion, which is fine from your point of view but I’d have to ask why someone would believe someone else’s opinion on a matter some 2000 years later as oppose to the actual first hand writing of Paul himself.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 27, 2021)

SemperFiDawg said:


> You already are, and you despise it.  Why else spend ANY energy what-so-ever denying it, to the point of not allowing any comment however innocuous, to go undenied.  I’m guessing you don’t exert this much effort combatting the idea of Wisps.  The entire “Doth protest too loudly” gives your true “enlightenment” away as brightly as a signal flare at midnight.  It’s a sad pathology, but something only you and you alone can remedy.


I am honest and would let you know if you are even close with your long distance diagnosis doc, but you aren't in the same league let alone ballpark.
Nice diversion. Didn't work.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 27, 2021)

stringmusic said:


> I’m not claiming anything, I just asked a question.
> 
> I base it off of what is written in the New Testament. What the article states in that paragraph is simply not true, and it’s the first paragraph so I’m gonna go out on a limb and say he bases the rest of the article on that false premise.
> 
> ...


You are claiming that what was said about Paul isn't true. So yes you did make a claim.
If you study the history of the early church, the Jerusalem Church you will see that a lot of what is written in that article is backed up in that history.
At the end of the article it lists the sources.
Do you know anything about the Early Jerusalem Church? Have you read the sources and checked their research? Did you know there were splits in the early church which already formed other denominations because they could not agree on doctrine?
I am not 100% sure but I would bet that is a NO for both and I will also bet that your knowledge starts and stops with what is written in the NT.

I don't have a great analogy but I've been a licensed Barber for 25 years. I've studied Barbering. I've studied the history of Barbering. I've practiced Barbering.  I've made a living by Barbering and because you got a set of clippers at Walmart you are now telling me that I am not doing it right because you read the instructions that came with the clippers. You are doing the same to the author and the sources he listed and used to gather his information. You claim that he is just opining because he is an atheist. That you know better because you read the NT.

Check the sources. Check their credibility. Learn the history of your own religion. Learn Pro and Con. And then you can state and back up the claim whether or not someone is wrong.


----------



## gordon 2 (Apr 27, 2021)

Paul  a sensitive young man and a young Pharisee  when he converted most likely was ripe to the tug of Christianity because he could parcel out were the Pharisees were missing the mark. And that mark was loving God as the central point of faith. Like many smarting young people who consciously judge the world of their elders as hypocritical and peopled with egotist and lovers of anything but God yet operating under the banner of the name of God-- the strait ahead pull of Christianity, with its plain real love of God, driven by an indwelling love for all humans, (as opposed to the fault pas of loving one's kin, kind  and countryman only in the name of God) was not a bridge to far for Paul. ( In the name of God Pharisees were real killers! Murderers! They were fanatical.)

Christianity suited Paul well. The old suit that had trained him to walk in knowledge was just not fitting him. Much of what Paul says in his letters is what the Pharisees declared as important, only they did not practice what they preached. With Christ Paul could practice what they preached with a clear conscious. Christians were gentile compared to the Romans and the Pharisees--- and that is the kind of guy Paul was.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 27, 2021)

gordon 2 said:


> Paul  a sensitive young man and a young Pharisee  when he converted most likely was ripe to the tug of Christianity because he could parcel out were the Pharisees were missing the mark. And that mark was loving God as the central point of faith. Like many smarting young people who consciously judge the world of their elders as hypocritical and peopled with egotist and lovers of anything but God yet operating under the banner of the name of God-- the strait ahead pull of Christianity, with its plain real love of God, driven by an indwelling love for all humans, (as opposed to the fault pas of loving one's kin, kind  and countryman in the name of God only) was not a bridge to far for Paul.
> 
> Christianity suited Paul well. The old suit that had trained him to walk in knowledge was just not fitting him. Much of what Paul says in his letters is what the Pharisees declared as important, only they did not practice what they preached. With Christ Paul could practice what they preached with a clear conscious.


String, is this opinion more "correct" because you agree with it or is it still just opinion?


----------



## gordon 2 (Apr 27, 2021)

bullethead said:


> String, is this opinion more "correct" because you agree with it or is it still just opinion?




Alot of folk forget that the Pharisees ( other than being bible believing) had a social movement going... and plainly for someone who had his mind trained to be or become a saint and who took it seriously the movement sucked on many levels. Same deal with Jesus.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 27, 2021)

gordon 2 said:


> Alot of folk forget that the Pharisees ( other than being bible believing) had a social movement going... and plainly for someone who had his mind trained to be or become a saint and who took it seriously the movement sucked on many levels. Same deal with Jesus.


History shows that the powers that be within most if not all religions have had social movements going non stop in one way or another.
The Pope announced that he thinks a One World Government is a good idea. Their motives are not always religious but they rarely pass up anything that benefits them.


----------



## Spotlite (Apr 27, 2021)

bullethead said:


> You are claiming that what was said about Paul isn't true. So yes you did make a claim.
> If you study the history of the early church, the Jerusalem Church you will see that a lot of what is written in that article is backed up in that history.
> At the end of the article it lists the sources.
> Do you know anything about the Early Jerusalem Church? Have you read the sources and checked their research? Did you know there were splits in the early church which already formed other denominations because they could not agree on doctrine?
> ...


While culture is a searchable “history”, individuals are subject to not follow culture.

The thing about the Bible as we know it, it’s teaching that Jesus came to end certain Jewish “cultural” laws and traditions.

The pros and cons about any individual are initially taken from the only thing written about them. What searchable history outside of religious writings do we have on Paul?

The cons assume Paul follows Jewish culture. The pros expected Paul not to.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 27, 2021)

Spotlite said:


> While culture is a searchable “history”, individuals are subject to not follow culture.
> 
> The thing about the Bible as we know it, it’s teaching that Jesus came to end certain Jewish “cultural” laws and traditions.
> 
> ...


No Spotlite that is not correct, the Cons say that Paul did not follow Jewish Culture and that is why James and Peter did not get along with Paul.
Paul wanted to and did take certain Jewish rituals away from the Jerusalem Church and added his own that catered to non Jewish pagans. In essence starting his own branch geared towards Gentiles.
The information is out there. Seek it. Read it.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incident_at_Antioch


----------



## bullethead (Apr 27, 2021)

https://www.bibleodyssey.org/en/people/related-articles/james-and-paul

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pauline_Christianity


----------



## Spotlite (Apr 27, 2021)

bullethead said:


> No Spotlite that is not correct, the Cons say that Paul did not follow Jewish Culture and that is why James and Peter did not get along with Paul.
> Paul wanted to and did take certain Jewish rituals away from the Jerusalem Church and added his own that catered to non Jewish pagans. In essence starting his own branch geared towards Gentiles.
> The information is out there. Seek it. Read it.
> 
> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incident_at_Antioch


Gotcha. I misread that just a little.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 27, 2021)

Spotlite said:


> The thing about the Bible as we know it, it’s teaching that Jesus came to end certain Jewish “cultural” laws and traditions.


Now pieces of the puzzle are coming together.
James and Peter wanted Christianity to stay more Jewish.
Paul wanted it to expand.
James and Peter butted heads with Paul about it.
James and Peter end up dying before Paul.
Jesus states that he did not come to end the teachings in the OT/Torah.
Paul...having free run to tell his way.. "teaches" in the Bible that Jesus did come to change Jewish culture which oddly lined up with his wants and not James or Peter's .


----------



## gemcgrew (Apr 27, 2021)

stringmusic said:


> Why do you think Paul converted?
> 
> Why do you think he chose to go from Roman citizenship to being put in prison?


I don't think he had a choice in the matter.


----------



## Spotlite (Apr 27, 2021)

gemcgrew said:


> I don't think he had a choice in the matter.


Based on recent discussions, ironically, that’s a good answer.


----------



## gordon 2 (Apr 27, 2021)

There is no knowledge that is worth knowing as much as there is a spirit worth having. Much knowledge will give cause and regret, but there is a spirit who's only cause is life. Do not hope to be enlightened as much as your hope is to live. Much knowledge can be given, but the giving of life is rare.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 28, 2021)

gordon 2 said:


> There is no knowledge that is worth knowing as much as there is a spirit worth having. Much knowledge will give cause and regret, but there is a spirit who's only cause is life. Do not hope to be enlightened as much as your hope is to live. Much knowledge can be given, but the giving of life is rare.


This sounds a lot like "Run around the garden care free and don't ask questions. If you eat from that tree you'll get the answers to the things that do not make sense and that will ruin this believe blindly thing for me"


----------



## Israel (Apr 28, 2021)

It's always interesting in how much a thing that finds absolute grounds for refutation upon any appearance of hearsay, resorts so easily to it for its own purpose. Of course I can't accuse for having had it revealed in and to myself adequately undercuts any place of my own judgments.

And although this makes no case _for anything_ in particular it merely _shows me_ what grounds are forbidden for the acceptance of one thing appealing and/or acceptable and the rejecting of another found either repugnant and/or unacceptable. One thing on certain ground asserted as false, while on those same grounds another is embraced as true. That is a very unequal balance.

But not every man hates it.

As to "Jewish culture"/traditions and those matters of its appearance, acceptance or embrace, any Jew who would take pride in them is already undercut by the prophets without one word necessary from the New Testament. Read them. Read what the Jews may of themselves claim to have preserved that indict the Jew no less than the nations, and even more so for their having been entrusted with the Oracles of God. Read them.

Read how God deals with a people who exalt themselves with claim of what "they have" and have been given and seek to take their stand upon their own special-ness for being entrusted so. (It could even sound too familiar to the christian as to be uncomfortable)

It is no wonder then that Jesus, in the telling of Lazarus and the rich man has Abraham saying "They have Moses and the prophets, let them hear them..." to the man hoping for some miraculous intervention to sway his brothers from his own end. That even one "returning from the dead" would not be enough if they are unable to see the righteousness of God through the writings as already enough to convict and affect them.

I am no less guilty though, in any charge I might level. Yes such knowledge leaves any man without excuse before God. What have I _not used_ to exalt myself? I am entirely without excuse in any claim I might make to seeing the righteousness of God, or claim to know it that exempts me from full inspection to holding it, and to it, in all truth. Here a miss, any miss, is as good as a mile.

A lying lawyer does not find favor for knowing all the law and yet found in perjury. It gives him no license to break it in all his knowledge, in fact it only further inculpates him! The more he might make any claim of knowing in such pride is the very thing that condemns him...for if he knows it...why doesn't he then behave in all accord with it? The "lawyer" of all...should know well the penalty for perjury if he makes any claim of knowing. Here, the ignorance he eschewed in his pride of knowing cannot now be resorted to for excuse.

No wonder Paul says "Wretched man that I am!"

He sees the "trap"...but only because he is in it. It is inescapable for himself in every way...for if, in even thinking he may find the way out for himself, such knowledge is no less than his cleverness to which he is also made subject in pride. Yes, firmly, irretrievably (to himself) trapped. The more he might try to set himself free, the deeper the jaws work themselves in grip.

Make whatever claim is necessary and allowed of God in regards to Jesus, Paul and even all "other men" whether they be found calling themselves christian or even not. It is of no consequence to any claim they are not "trustworthy".

Laugh as allowed in thinking He who made the ear does not hear.

What can make a man hear...and especially, that himself?



> I am honest and would let you know if you are even close with your long distance diagnosis doc, but you aren't in the same league let alone ballpark.
> Nice diversion. Didn't work.


----------



## Spotlite (Apr 28, 2021)

bullethead said:


> Now pieces of the puzzle are coming together.
> James and Peter wanted Christianity to stay more Jewish.
> Paul wanted it to expand.
> James and Peter butted heads with Paul about it.
> ...


I pointed this out in post 8.

The “incident at Antioch” - Paul pointed out Peter”s hypocrisy. “You eat with the Gentiles when the Jews aren’t watching” and “after you’ve eaten with the Gentiles, how can you force Jewish law on them”


“Peter has declared his agreement that salvation is by faith in Christ and not the law, he seems hesitant to live out that truth if disapproving people are watching him”

“Peter's choice to step away from eating with Gentiles leads all the Jewish people in the room to do the same. For the sake of the true gospel, Paul opposes Peter to his face, calling out his hypocrisy. Peter had been ''living like a Gentile,'' by eating with them. How could he force any Gentile, then, to live under the law?”

As far as fulfilling / abolishing the law - 

Fulfill - The law against adultery could be interpreted as only about cheating on one’s spouse, but not about pornography. When Jesus declared that lust also was a violation of the commandment, he was clarifying the true intent of that law, so he was “fulfilling the Law”.

Abolish - The law against stealing could be interpreted as stealing material things. Condemning stealing a mans’ horse while condoning  cheating on your taxes would be “abolishing the Law”

Certain customs and traditions practiced by Jews for forgiveness / salvation / inclusion ended. Forgiveness and salvation itself didn’t end. You no longer take your goats and turtle doves as sacrificial offerings, your salvation comes through Jesus. You don’t have to be circumcised any longer to mark any covenants. When Jesus said it is finished, he wasn’t saying it’s abolished, he’s saying it’s fulfilled. It’s all through Jesus and it’s for all. 


If Paul invented a new religion, he had to cross his T’s and dot his i’s very closely because he took something from the Jews and offered it to everyone and did so in such a convincing manner that it leaves well educated scholars with much more learning / literature than what Paul could ever had access to, debating from both the pros and cons views.


----------



## hummerpoo (Apr 28, 2021)

Spotlite said:


> I pointed this out in post 8.
> 
> The “incident at Antioch” - Paul pointed out Peter”s hypocrisy. “You eat with the Gentiles when the Jews aren’t watching” and “after you’ve eaten with the Gentiles, how can you force Jewish law on them”
> 
> ...



A really good, and I believe the only proper, explanation of "Fulfill" and "Abolish".

Someone might want to research "The New Perspective on Paul", (it bears directly on this conversation).  If someone does so, be sure to go to several sources, beyond N.T. Wright, as his argument is a latecomer and outlier to the crux.  My view is that it is only a significant issue if Scripture is poorly understood from the get-go.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Apr 28, 2021)

Just an outside observation, and I realize the original question:



> Why do you think Paul converted?
> 
> Why do you think he chose to go from Roman citizenship to being put in prison?



was asking for an opinion, but I see believers reading INTO the account as much, or more than A/As are reading OUT of it.  Where does anyone get the liberty to do either?  The account IS as it is written.  Take it or leave it.  Just my two cents.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 28, 2021)

Spotlite said:


> I pointed this out in post 8.
> 
> The “incident at Antioch” - Paul pointed out Peter”s hypocrisy. “You eat with the Gentiles when the Jews aren’t watching” and “after you’ve eaten with the Gentiles, how can you force Jewish law on them”
> 
> ...


How did Paul know what Jesus meant and wanted regarding Fulfillment or Abolishment?  Paul wrote his stories before the Gospels seemingly his way and the authors of the Gospels followed his lead.
If you are of the mindset that James the brother of Jesus and Peter the rock which the church will be built on and both of which knew Jesus personally somehow had less of an understanding of what Jesus meant and wanted than some guy who was sending the early followers to their graves and then because he had a vision became knowledgeable of Jesus' wishes then you keep on trying to make those pieces fit.
You are in a spot where an alive Jesus told James and Peter one thing and a Dead Jesus (according to Paul) told Paul another. Take into account who decided which and what writings made it into the organized Bible and when.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 28, 2021)

Israel said:


> It's always interesting in how much a thing that finds absolute grounds for refutation upon any appearance of hearsay, resorts so easily to it for its own purpose. Of course I can't accuse for having had it revealed in and to myself adequately undercuts any place of my own judgments.
> 
> And although this makes no case _for anything_ in particular it merely _shows me_ what grounds are forbidden for the acceptance of one thing appealing and/or acceptable and the rejecting of another found either repugnant and/or unacceptable. One thing on certain ground asserted as false, while on those same grounds another is embraced as true. That is a very unequal balance.
> 
> ...


You quoted me and enlarged a portion of my quote.
For what purpose?


----------



## bullethead (Apr 28, 2021)

hummerpoo said:


> A really good, and I believe the only proper, explanation of "Fulfill" and "Abolish".
> 
> Someone might want to research "The New Perspective on Paul", (it bears directly on this conversation).  If someone does so, be sure to go to several sources, beyond N.T. Wright, as his argument is a latecomer and outlier to the crux.  My view is that it is only a significant issue if Scripture is poorly understood from the get-go.


The issue with scripture is not poorly understanding it. The issue is with the validity of the scripture itself.


----------



## hummerpoo (Apr 28, 2021)

bullethead said:


> The issue with scripture is not poorly understanding it. The issue is with the validity of the scripture itself.


Same Old Thing


----------



## hummerpoo (Apr 28, 2021)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Just an outside observation, and I realize the original question:
> 
> 
> 
> was asking for an opinion, but I see believers reading INTO the account as much, or more than A/As are reading OUT of it.  Where does anyone get the liberty to do either?  The account IS as it is written.  Take it or leave it.  Just my two cents.



Much better said than what I said in the Erhman thread about calling it Historical Criticism when you ignore the part of the History you don't like.


----------



## Spotlite (Apr 28, 2021)

bullethead said:


> How did Paul know what Jesus meant and wanted regarding Fulfillment or Abolishment?  Paul wrote his stories before the Gospels seemingly his way and the authors of the Gospels followed his lead.
> If you are of the mindset that James the brother of Jesus and Peter the rock which the church will be built on and both of which knew Jesus personally somehow had less of an understanding of what Jesus meant and wanted than some guy who was sending the early followers to their graves and then because he had a vision became knowledgeable of Jesus' wishes then you keep on trying to make those pieces fit.
> You are in a spot where an alive Jesus told James and Peter one thing and a Dead Jesus (according to Paul) told Paul another. Take into account who decided which and what writings made it into the organized Bible and when.


Some of the best preachers today are former “chiefest of sinners” Doubting Thomas believed because he saw. Blessed are those......

This thing works, it works in spirit as explained in the Bible. I don’t have to make the pieces fit. Someone’s unbelief doesn’t affect it or make it any less real. I know the argument of “what makes me think I got it right”, I’m not saying that at all, especially when I know I’m not alone. I will am say I’m not one that’s saying “this Jesus can’t be found”.

But, back to Peter and James, the only thing you know about them is what Paul wrote. Just because there was an “incident at Antioch” is no indication that either misunderstood what Jesus wanted. If anything, it reveals the human side of everyone “practicing what you preach”.

Edited to note: This was not intended to  credit Paul to writing the Books of James and Peter.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 28, 2021)

hummerpoo said:


> Much better said than what I said in the Erhman thread about calling it Historical Criticism when you ignore the part of the History you don't like.


So now wait...is the Bible a Historical book or not?
What parts of History outside of the Bible are you saying have been ignored?


----------



## bullethead (Apr 28, 2021)

hummerpoo said:


> Same Old Thing


Sure is.
Like all the Great Coaches say, Run it till they stop it.


----------



## stringmusic (Apr 28, 2021)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Just an outside observation, and I realize the original question:
> 
> 
> 
> was asking for an opinion, but I see believers reading INTO the account as much, or more than A/As are reading OUT of it.  Where does anyone get the liberty to do either?  The account IS as it is written.  Take it or leave it.  Just my two cents.


I thought it was a simple question, I should’ve known better lol.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 28, 2021)

Spotlite said:


> Some of the best preachers today are former “chiefest of sinners” Doubting Thomas believed because he saw. Blessed are those......
> 
> This thing works, it works in spirit as explained in the Bible. I don’t have to make the pieces fit. Someone’s unbelief doesn’t affect it or make it any less real. I know the argument of “what makes me think I got it right”, I’m not saying that at all, especially when I know I’m not alone. I will am say I’m not one that’s saying “this Jesus can’t be found”.
> 
> But, back to Peter and James, the only thing you know about them is what Paul wrote. Just because there was an “incident at Antioch” is no indication that either misunderstood what Jesus wanted. If anything, it reveals the human side of everyone “practicing what you preach”.


I was unaware that Paul was the author of James and Peter in the Bible. Are you going to stick with that?


----------



## bullethead (Apr 28, 2021)

stringmusic said:


> I thought it was a simple question, I should’ve known better lol.


It would seem simple to the people who do not know the history of their own religion and carry on like the information does not exist.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 28, 2021)

https://www.lifeway.com/en/articles/an-overview-of-james-bible-study-chandler


----------



## bullethead (Apr 28, 2021)

Some outside sources that wrote about James
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/James,_brother_of_Jesus


----------



## bullethead (Apr 28, 2021)

You guys stop in here asking questions like someone stopping at a gas station to ask for directions and then continue on the same route anyway because the directions take you away from the route you are already going. Why stop and ask if your immediate response is that the map is wrong without ever unfolding it?


----------



## Spotlite (Apr 28, 2021)

bullethead said:


> I was unaware that Paul was the author of James and Peter in the Bible. Are you going to stick with that?


Yes Sir - edited to add that I’m sticking to my comments in post 47, I never intended to address the statement concerning Paul writing Janes and Peter.
 They’re all 3 well worth researching. Just nothing out there on them other than “religious writings”, commentaries that are biased to either the believer / non believer.

Unfortunately the only history for them that’s written is the Bible and that takes us away from debating the question on where they really stood in debt to debating the validity of the Bible. Even if we discredited the Bible, we don’t know anymore about them than what’s written there.

And, to be fair, there are advocates for Paul stating there are 4 Paul’s.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 28, 2021)

Spotlite said:


> Yes Sir. They’re all 3 well worth researching. Just nothing out there on them other than “religious writings”, commentaries that are biased to either the believer / non believer.
> 
> Unfortunately the only history for them that’s written is the Bible and that takes us away from debating the question on where they really stood in debt to debating the validity of the Bible. Even if we discredited the Bible, we don’t know anymore about them than what’s written there.
> 
> And, to be fair, there are advocates for Paul stating there are 4 Paul’s.


Wait, are you saying that Paul was the author of James and Peter?


> But, back to Peter and James, the only thing you know about them is what Paul wrote



I gave you links to sources outside of the bible who mentions James


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Apr 28, 2021)

stringmusic said:


> I thought it was a simple question, I should’ve known better lol.



The believers aren’t happy because the question is too simple, and the unbelievers aren’t happy because the answer is too simple


----------



## Spotlite (Apr 28, 2021)

bullethead said:


> Wait, are you saying that Paul was the author of James and Peter?
> 
> 
> I gave you links to sources outside of the bible who mentions James


The Wikipedia sources list this as the “sources” - basically Bible stuff.

But no, I wasn’t very clear with my response. I was addressing specific statements questioning what Pater and James thought and the subject being discussed was taken from Galatians 2.

As far as the fulfillment and abolishing the Law - my response in post 38 never mentions who thought what. Those are my thoughts about what that means.

As far as your statement that you were unaware that Paul wrote James and Peter, I never eluded to who wrote any Books of the Bible so I didn’t pay attention to that. But your other question asking if I’m going to stick to that after quoting my entire post, there’s a lot of info there. I’m sticking to that post.

Sorry for the confusion.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 28, 2021)

Spotlite said:


> The Wikipedia sources list this as the “sources” - basically Bible stuff.
> 
> But no, I wasn’t very clear with my response. I was addressing specific statements questioning what Pater and James thought and the subject being discussed was taken from Galatians 2.
> 
> ...





> But, back to Peter and James, the only thing you know about them is what Paul wrote


----------



## bullethead (Apr 28, 2021)

SemperFiDawg said:


> The believers aren’t happy because the question is too simple, and the unbelievers aren’t happy because the answer is too simple


You are correct. Ya can't talk Marvel when using a DC comic book for reference.
According to what is written in the stories of the Bible Paul converted because he saw a vision of Jesus on the road to Damascus. 

If anyone here is wondering why there are more complex answers to the question you may be confused as which forum the question has been asked in.
If you wanted to hear all the answers that agree with you then it should have been posted a few floors up. It is THAT simple.


----------



## stringmusic (Apr 28, 2021)

bullethead said:


> You guys stop in here asking questions like someone stopping at a gas station to ask for directions and then continue on the same route anyway because the directions take you away from the route you are already going. Why stop and ask if your immediate response is that the map is wrong without ever unfolding it?


It’s more like stopping at a gas station to ask for directions and then getting a recipe for chicken salad.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 28, 2021)

stringmusic said:


> It’s more like stopping at a gas station to ask for directions and then getting a recipe for chicken salad.


Everything that I posted has to do with Paul. Are you suggesting it doesn't? Chicken salad is like knowledge both are good and good things will never hurt you. Eat your Chikky sammich while you read up on the history of your own religion.
You never bothered to answer my questions to you about whether or not you have ever researched the Jerusalem Church or it's founders so I can see why direct answers seem like recipes to you.
So what was your point of asking the question in here?
An ah-ha gotcha moment? Did you think there was only one answer?


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Apr 28, 2021)

stringmusic said:


> It’s more like stopping at a gas station to ask for directions and then getting a recipe for chicken salad.



LOL.  Well to be honest, and on the bright side,  aside from the the usual suspect it's a pretty good question and in the appropriate forum to get diverse views.  Maybe some of the more open minded, and less militant A/A's will chip in.  There's a few still around.....maybe.


----------



## Spotlite (Apr 28, 2021)

Interesting - 
1 Peter 3:15 "But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and _be_ ready always to _give_ an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear:"

It matters how we make that case for Christ. We must present it with gentleness and respect. Christians are not called on to condemn those who are curious about our hopefulness. Nor are we to be vindictive, vengeful, or insulting to those who disagree. Rather, we should explain our faith without harshness or dismissiveness.


----------



## Spotlite (Apr 28, 2021)

> But, back to Peter and James, the only thing you know about them is what Paul wrote


@bullethead in response to your note ^^^^^I unintentionally butchered that up. I was speaking specifically of Galatians since that was where the questions were being discussed.


----------



## Israel (Apr 29, 2021)

bullethead said:


> You quoted me and enlarged a portion of my quote.
> For what purpose?


What would be the limits of honesty (if there are any...or is it absolute?) for a man and how would he know if he were to the point he would declare it of himself? Before what standard would he present himself in able to say "I meet this" unwaveringly?

Would it mean "I have never lied"? Or, if one can concede he has, that now he is all free of it and no longer ever does?

Do you think these are just word games?

Have you ever been to court to give any testimony...or a deposition?
I'll assume you at least know the process before any testimony is given and how that one is presented an oath to swear or affirm (at the very least in the particular matter before the court) they will not, and are not lying; speaking only the truth, and no less, the whole of it.

Isn't it odd?

Or, have you never thought of the implications?

A man I know who was arrested for "disturbing the peace" by his street corner preaching (though no witnesses would confirm he impeded anyone, harassed anyone nor any confessed he put them in a even a state of fear by threat or disruption to their person or business) once interestingly pointed out that it was a Bible they originally presented for his swearing in when he testified.

But that same man, even though acquitted in that particular case, knows that the very thing to which no one confessed, and even in court denied, was the very thing upon which basis he was arrested.

They _were disturbed_ by what was given him to speak. (Or at very least his manner) But they couldn't or didn't admit it. Were _they the lying,_ or just ignorant?

That same man would be lying if he said what was given him to speak and the how of it, was not to him first, disturbing.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 29, 2021)

Israel said:


> What would be the limits of honesty (if there are any...or is it absolute?) for a man and how would he know if he were to the point he would declare it of himself? Before what standard would he present himself in able to say "I meet this" unwaveringly?
> 
> Would it mean "I have never lied"? Or, if one can concede he has, that now he is all free of it and no longer ever does?
> 
> ...


It meant that if SFD were even remotely close on anything in his assessment I would let him know.

You and SFD should lobby the moderators to make a forum for pretend psychologists where you two can offer diagnosis to the people that seek your help rather than you impose it when it is not asked for or wanted.

Street Corner/AAA threads, at least one holds you accountable.


----------



## Israel (Apr 29, 2021)

bullethead said:


> It meant that if SFD were even remotely close on anything in his assessment I would let him know.
> 
> You and SFD should lobby the moderators to make a forum for pretend psychologists where you two can offer diagnosis to the people that seek your help rather than you impose it when it is not asked for or wanted.
> 
> Street Corner/AAA threads, at least one holds you accountable.



Disturbed much?

I have no intent nor desire to lobby anyone...and who is the one telling others "what they should do"?

Dare I posit who you believe "at least one holds you accountable."?


----------



## bullethead (Apr 29, 2021)

Spotlite said:


> @bullethead in response to your note ^^^^^I unintentionally butchered that up. I was speaking specifically of Galatians since that was where the questions were being discussed.


Ok
They are both mentioned by contemporary sources outside of Bible more than Jesus is with seemingly no forgeries or later additions to bolster their existence.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 29, 2021)

Israel said:


> Disturbed much?
> 
> I have no intent nor desire to lobby anyone...and who is the one telling others "what they should do"?


My disturbed meter is pegged at 0.0

I suggested what you should do after you singled me out and you went off on some usual tangents about things that were not directed at you and do not concern you.  Don't start nuthin, Won't be nuthin.


----------



## Israel (Apr 29, 2021)

bullethead said:


> My disturbed meter is pegged at 0.0
> 
> I suggested what you should do after you singled me out and you went off on some usual tangents about things that were not directed at you and do not concern you.  Don't start nuthin, Won't be nuthin.


The matter of content and manner are never far from my necessity of consideration.

If I need more convincing of my natural bent toward being hostile and obnoxious of which I am yet unaware, it would surely be futile to resist upon whom God may choose to put that hat for revelation. Or that I have the power to continue in such resistance to my triumph.

But, thankfully the wonderful comfort of GEM's safe care of me yet ring in my ears (I know they were _given him), _for I hear a friend utter them. I believe I have been prayed for. I hear it.

_"Don't worry, you are not that important"._

Oh! the safety! Not important enough to ultimately effect to evil nor ill...than I am to the good. Just a thing affected by what is already established in eternity. I am affected as a canary in a coal mine immersed in what is, as a sign. I cannot curse what God has blessed, despite any utterance of mine. I can no more _make noxious air than fresh air._

All I can be is blown through. To life, or death. I am in all of that hopeless except for command heard that abolishes choice..."therefore, choose life".


Perhaps you think you may have better lesson about man in that he hates being told how things are...and what to do. Even in _what to choose_...that abolishes choice. Or the telling of what is forbidden him to say or do.
And perhaps _you even do._

Am I to fear what you imply is to "be" if something is started?



> Don't start nuthin, Won't be nuthin.



Do you "have something" on me to be unleashed that you presently hold in abeyance? Will you show me something fearful?

Perhaps you do, God only knows. But then, you would have to know what God knows.

Do you?

Then you know I have no ability to start anything.

It is finished.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 29, 2021)

Israel said:


> The matter of content and manner are never far from my necessity of consideration.
> 
> If I need more convincing of my natural bent toward being hostile and obnoxious of which I am yet unaware, it would surely be futile to resist upon whom God may choose to put that hat for revelation. Or that I have the power to continue in such resistance to my triumph.
> 
> ...


Good couch session with yourself.


----------



## Israel (Apr 29, 2021)

I like reclining.

(But I had to be told to, to learn it)


----------



## gordon 2 (Apr 29, 2021)

Quote:*Why do you think he chose to go from Roman citizenship to being put in prison?*_ End quote._

If left to the Sanhedrin ( the Jewish court system) Paul was a dead duck. He deserved the fate of the Jew who frequented another God.

If left to the Roman court Paul had a fair chance to go free. The Romans were generally indifferent to the "Gods" of the people.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 29, 2021)

gordon 2 said:


> Quote:*Why do you think he chose to go from Roman citizenship to being put in prison?*_ End quote._
> 
> If left to the Sanhedrin ( the Jewish court system) Paul was a dead duck. He deserved the fate of the Jew who frequented another God.
> 
> If left to the Roman court Paul had a fair chance to go free. The Romans were generally indifferent to the "Gods" of the people.


Paul also did not do his job which he was assigned to do. It is very likely that he was in trouble with the Sanhedrin before he claimed to have found Jesus.
Yes, his story tells it differently but many people find a new religion while in trouble with their old one. It's a way to keep options open.


----------



## Spotlite (Apr 29, 2021)

Paul’s conversion is also symbolic indicating God revealing himself to one, and one turning their life around.

With the view that Paul only done this to escape trouble (and we know many claim to be outstanding Christians when the handcuffs are pulled out) but for the most part, it’s questioning the legitimacy of the serous ones and their  life changing experience.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 29, 2021)

bullethead said:


> Good couch session with yourself.





Israel said:


> The matter of content and manner are never far from my necessity of consideration.
> 
> If I need more convincing of my natural bent toward being hostile and obnoxious of which I am yet unaware, it would surely be futile to resist upon whom God may choose to put that hat for revelation. Or that I have the power to continue in such resistance to my triumph.


You interjected "hostile and obnoxious" in order to provide a platform for yourself to continue on.



Israel said:


> But, thankfully the wonderful comfort of GEM's safe care of me yet ring in my ears (I know they were _given him), _for I hear a friend utter them. I believe I have been prayed for. I hear it.


Whew, yes thankfully 



Israel said:


> _ "Don't worry, you are not that important"._



Again, why the need to quote something as if it has been said or even implied and answer it if not to open a gate that isn't there to insert  winded thoughts that are irrelevant?




Israel said:


> Oh! the safety! Not important enough to ultimately effect to evil nor ill...than I am to the good. Just a thing affected by what is already established in eternity. I am affected as a canary in a coal mine immersed in what is, as a sign. I cannot curse what God has blessed, despite any utterance of mine. I can no more _make noxious air than fresh air._
> 
> All I can be is blown through. To life, or death. I am in all of that hopeless except for command heard that abolishes choice..."therefore, choose life".


Example of what I mentioned prior




Israel said:


> Perhaps you think you may have better lesson about man in that he hates being told how things are...and what to do. Even in _what to choose_...that abolishes choice. Or the telling of what is forbidden him to say or do.
> And perhaps _you even do._


_
Perhaps there is no reason for your continued assertion and fake perhaps just to put your thoughts into bandwith._




Israel said:


> Am I to fear what you imply is to "be" if something is started?


I honestly do not know. All I did was make a reply as my something, which was all I meant.
If you quote me and call me out, I reply. It is that simple





Israel said:


> Do you "have something" on me to be unleashed that you presently hold in abeyance? Will you show me something fearful?


I'll let you to your own paranoia 



Israel said:


> Perhaps you do, God only knows. But then, you would have to know what God knows.


I will answer like you and cover all the bases while never really giving a coherent answer.
Perhaps or maybe not but it's possible unless it isn't. 



Israel said:


> Do you?


Ask him and ye shall not recieve



Israel said:


> Then you know I have no ability to start anything.


You quoting me for something that I said to someone else which had nothing to do with you and then you going on a rant about it says differently.



Israel said:


> It is finished.


Plagiarism


----------



## bullethead (Apr 29, 2021)

Spotlite said:


> Paul’s conversion is also symbolic indicating God revealing himself to one, and one turning their life around.
> 
> With the view that Paul only done this to escape trouble (and we know many claim to be outstanding Christians when the handcuffs are pulled out) but for the most part, it’s questioning the legitimacy of the serous ones and their  life changing experience.


Again,  some real people, some real places, some real events which are embellished to add miraculous godly interactions. No different than cultures all throughout history.
Watch out for the Krakken on your next fishing trip if you do not give Poseidon the respect he, the Ancient Greeks and the authors of such tales deserve.
Or
Take them for what they are and go about your business unconcerned and a non believer.

And, people do not lie.


----------



## Spotlite (Apr 29, 2021)

bullethead said:


> Again,  some real people, some real places, some real events which are embellished to add miraculous godly interactions. No different than cultures all throughout history.
> Watch out for the Krakken on your next fishing trip if you do not give Poseidon the respect he, the Ancient Greeks and the authors of such tales deserve.
> Or
> Take them for what they are and go about your business unconcerned and a non believer.


Well, that’s where some real and some aren't come into the picture.

There’s one characteristic I’ve never understood with some non believers and not aimed at anyone in particular on here, but be seen this in several comments. Remember I have an atheist cousin so for the sake of argument, I will use him.

Why is it that in order to be a believer, you must consider them all? (God / gods)

But yes, I do take them all for what they are, I go about my business unconcerned and not even leaving a small opportunity that any of them are out there except the one.

Why does there have to be a stipulation that they’re either all real / unreal?

I’ve asked on here before about the nonbelievers being 100% certain that the God of the Bible isn’t real. They say no. How certain are you that the rest aren’t?

The believer has no issue going unconcerned without even thinking about about any of the others he doesn’t believe exist.

I saw the edit portion “and people do not lie”. Every breathing person will lie at some point. Even if it’s to keep someone else out of trouble.

Romans - “For whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the scriptures might have hope.”

If a man can find hope in something, I’m not going to knock him down. If a man is ok not having hope in anything, I’m not going to knock him down.


----------



## Israel (Apr 29, 2021)

bullethead said:


> You interjected "hostile and obnoxious" in order to provide a platform for yourself to continue on.
> 
> 
> Whew, yes thankfully
> ...


Do you see _how accomplished you are _at reading motive into what is written?


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Apr 29, 2021)

stringmusic said:


> Why do you think he chose to go from Roman citizenship to being put in prison?



I thought about this and it brought up the question in my mind: Did Paul ever actually renounce his Roman citizenship?  I was under the assumption that he was tried, jailed and executed as a Roman.  I know it's what saved him and had him sent to Rome in chains, because the Jews were planning to execute him as a Jew and he appealed to Festus on behalf of his Roman citizenship to be sent to Rome.  King Agrippa after hearing Paul and a discussion over Paul being put to death or imprisoned, said to Festus "This man could have been set free. But he has made an appeal to Caesar."  So, I'm under the impression that he went to Rome as a Roman citizen.  Any other non-citizen would have been set free according to Agrippa.

But to answer the heart of your question, Paul had the peace that comes with this mindset 



> We know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose.


----------



## gordon 2 (Apr 29, 2021)

bullethead said:


> Again,  some real people, some real places, some real events which are embellished to add miraculous godly interactions. No different than cultures all throughout history.
> Watch out for the Krakken on your next fishing trip if you do not give Poseidon the respect he, the Ancient Greeks and the authors of such tales deserve.
> Or
> Take them for what they are and go about your business unconcerned and a non believer.
> ...




I think Paul had issues with the Pharisees, basically he probably was scandalized by what they claimed and what they practiced. However, Paul's experience of meeting up with Jesus, cannot be dismissed as embellishment in his change of heart and orientation.  Claims of events similar to his have been recorded by scientists as to alone giving a profound change of "heart" or phycology to those experiencing them.

It is clear that Paul had issues with the "system" as any healthy young person would, but his interaction with God cannot be dismissed as embellishment regards who Paul became and the events where he is minister.

There are two things generally one can do when confronted with moral discomfort where you are an actor or worker: stay or leave.

On the other hand there are two things generally one can do when confronted with moral comfort where you are an actor or worker: stay or leave.


----------



## stringmusic (Apr 29, 2021)

SemperFiDawg said:


> I thought about this and it brought up the question in my mind: Did Paul ever actually renounce his Roman citizenship?  I was under the assumption that he was tried, jailed and executed as a Roman.  I know it's what saved him and had him sent to Rome in chains, because the Jews were planning to execute him as a Jew and he appealed to Festus on behalf of his Roman citizenship to be sent to Rome.  King Agrippa after hearing Paul and a discussion over Paul being put to death or imprisoned, said to Festus "This man could have been set free. But he has made an appeal to Caesar."  So, I'm under the impression that he went to Rome as a Roman citizen.  Any other non-citizen would have been set free according to Agrippa.
> 
> But to answer the heart of your question, Paul had the peace that comes with this mindset


Yea, I wanted the question to be strictly about his conversion, I should have probably just left the Roman citizen part out as that doesn’t really matter too much.
And I believe you’re correct in that I don’t remember anywhere where Paul renounced his citizenship. Interesting, thanks for bringing  that up.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 29, 2021)

Spotlite said:


> Well, that’s where some real and some aren't come into the picture.
> 
> There’s one characteristic I’ve never understood with some non believers and not aimed at anyone in particular on here, but be seen this in several comments. Remember I have an atheist cousin so for the sake of argument, I will use him.
> 
> ...


To your Lying part...EXACTLY


----------



## bullethead (Apr 29, 2021)

gordon 2 said:


> I think Paul had issues with the Pharisees, basically he probably was scandalized by what they claimed and what they practiced. However, Paul's experience of meeting up with Jesus, cannot be dismissed as embellishment in his change of heart and orientation.  Claims of events similar to his have been recorded by scientists as to alone giving a profound change of "heart" or phycology to those experiencing them.
> 
> It is clear that Paul had issues with the "system" as any healthy young person would, but his interaction with God cannot be dismissed as embellishment regards who Paul became and the events where he is minister.
> 
> ...


Gordon I agree that Paul's vision of Jesus cannot be dismissed regarding his change of heart. It cannot be confirmed either. Realistically if someone wanted others to regard them in a leadership role "meeting the god they worship" and claiming that god gave them special instructions or inside information or whatever (because when nobody else can see it or hear it) the person can say anything they want.
Joseph Smith has quite a following of Mormons using the same style. How can Joseph Smith's claims be dismissed as embellishments and not Paul?


----------



## Spotlite (Apr 29, 2021)

bullethead said:


> To your Lying part...EXACTLY


But what’s the only way to prove a lie? If the non believers / believers had THAT for the other, this forum and 31% of the population would be


----------



## bullethead (Apr 29, 2021)

Spotlite said:


> But what’s the only way to prove a lie? If the non believers / believers had THAT for the other, this forum and 31% of the population would be


It comes down to a more likely than not scenario based off of available evidence, historical practices, human nature and events that play into situations. If a person can momentarily eliminate their own beliefs from a situation, look at it from both sides, and use the same rational judgement that they use in every day life and for religions they do not find appealing then it is possible to see which way is that more likely way.
And trying to figure it out stimulates thought for some of us, and provides good conversation for some of us.


----------



## Danuwoa (Apr 29, 2021)

Bullet Bob loves the sound of his own voice and truly believes he’s open minded.  Not much you can do with that.


----------



## Spotlite (Apr 29, 2021)

bullethead said:


> It comes down to a more likely than not scenario based off of available evidence, historical practices, human nature and events that play into situations. If a person can momentarily eliminate their own beliefs from a situation, look at it from both sides, and use the same rational judgement that they use in every day life and for religions they do not find appealing then it is possible to see which way is that more likely way.
> And trying to figure it out stimulates thought for some of us, and provides good conversation for some of us.


I enjoy the conversations, although they get a little sideways sometimes but at the end of the day, even if I don’t agree with what’s posted, it gets me to reading. I have often wondered how many actually study objectively without being at least a little biased towards their belief / unbelief.

I’m not going to lie, I lean to where I’m biased, but I’m biased because that’s exactly what I believe to be truth.


----------



## Danuwoa (Apr 29, 2021)

Spotlite said:


> I enjoy the conversations, although they get a little sideways sometimes but at the end of the day, even if I don’t agree with what’s posted, it gets me to reading. I have often wondered how many actually study objectively without being at least a little biased towards their belief / unbelief.
> 
> I’m not going to lie, I lean to where I’m biased, but I’m biased because that’s exactly what I believe to be truth.


And everybody else is the same way.  The ones that talk a big game about how open minded and unbiased they are are the worst in that regard.


----------



## NE GA Pappy (Apr 29, 2021)

Spotlite said:


> I’m not going to lie, I lean to where I’m biased, but I’m biased because that’s exactly what I believe to be truth.



Everyone has biases. We enter into each and every discussion with our personal bias.  If someone tells you that they are not biased, they have never thought about the topic, or they are lying.

The question isn't whether we are biased, the real question is what is the best bias to be biased with


----------



## Spotlite (Apr 29, 2021)

Danuwoa said:


> And everybody else is the same way.  The ones that talk a big game about how open minded and unbiased they are are the worst in that regard.





NE GA Pappy said:


> Everyone has biases. We enter into each and every discussion with our personal bias.  If someone tells you that they are not biased, they have never thought about the topic, or they are lying.
> 
> The question isn't whether we are biased, the real question is what is the best bias to be biased with


Hardest thing I learned was this, especially if I’m asked, and even more so if I offer information without being asked.

1 Peter 3:15 “But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear:”

But yea, agreed.


----------



## Israel (Apr 29, 2021)

bullethead said:


> I honestly do not know. All I did was make a reply as my something, which was all I meant.
> If you quote me and call me out, I reply. It is that simple



Let's play the couch game if that's all you see.

No, the something _given_ was appended with "Don't start nuthin, Won't be nuthin." It seemed not enough to give the "something" for this was in addition to the "something".

Now, am I silly to understand that as in almost every other instance of its use I have encountered...I have understood it as a threat of sorts, a warning...veiled or otherwise? But, in this case...it _honestly was not_ just the empty bravado as it appears to be to me?


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Apr 29, 2021)

NE GA Pappy said:


> The question isn't whether we are biased, the real question is what is the best bias to be biased with



The truth.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 29, 2021)

Danuwoa said:


> Bullet Bob loves the sound of his own voice and truly believes he’s open minded.  Not much you can do with that.


Says DonJuanoa


----------



## bullethead (Apr 29, 2021)

Israel said:


> Let's play the couch game if that's all you see.
> 
> No, the something _given_ was appended with "Don't start nuthin, Won't be nuthin." It seemed not enough to give the "something" for this was in addition to the "something".
> 
> Now, am I silly to understand that as in almost every other instance of its use I have encountered...I have understood it as a threat of sorts, a warning...veiled or otherwise? But, in this case...it _honestly was not_ just the empty bravado as it appears to be to me?


Right Izzy, Dont start nothing(quote me for something I am talking to someone else about) Won't be nothing (I won't have to reply to you about it)
Take it how you wish, or don't.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Apr 29, 2021)

Israel said:


> No, the something _given_ was appended with "Don't start nuthin, Won't be nuthin." It seemed not enough to give the "something" for this was in addition to the "something".



I saw the "Don't start nuthin, Won't be nuthin." and laughed.  I shouldn't have, because it's sad really.    It took me back to the two playground bullies in the 7th grade who hung together because they were both so "bad" they resorted to preying on the very weakest ones and always as a pair.   That's how low their self-esteem was.  They constantly had to taunt others to make them feel better about themselves.   It was sad to see in a 7th grader.  In an adult indicates something a lot more serious.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 29, 2021)

SemperFiDawg said:


> I saw the "Don't start nuthin, Won't be nuthin." and laughed.  I shouldn't have, because it's sad really.    It took me back to the two playground bullies in the 7th grade who hung together because they were both so "bad" they resorted to preying on the very weakest ones and always as a pair.   That's how low their self-esteem was.  They constantly had to taunt others to make them feel better about themselves.   It was sad to see in a 7th grader.  In an adult indicates something a lot more serious.


Or maybe you watched Men in Black, that's where the saying came from. And only one of me in here with at least three who offer nothing about counter discussion of the OP and instead talk vague smack.
I can handle it


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Apr 29, 2021)

bullethead said:


> Or maybe you watched Men in Black, that's where the saying came from. And only one of me in here with at least three who offer nothing about counter discussion of the OP and instead talk vague smack.
> I can handle it



Don't know if you're ever heard of the Karpman Drama Triangle, but you just went from persecutor, to victim, to rescuer/hero all by yourself in 2 sentences.  Normally that takes 3 dysfunctional people.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 29, 2021)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Don't know if you're ever heard of the Karpman Drama Triangle, but you just went from persecutor, to victim, to rescuer/hero all by yourself in 2 sentences.  Normally that takes 3 dysfunctional people.


I didn't claim any of them. It takes a self appointed want to be doctor to come up with that stuff. He follows me around peddling diagnosis because he can't stick to the problem with Paul.
You'll keep this up in order to shut the thread down.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 30, 2021)

Spotlite said:


> I enjoy the conversations, although they get a little sideways sometimes but at the end of the day, even if I don’t agree with what’s posted, it gets me to reading. I have often wondered how many actually study objectively without being at least a little biased towards their belief / unbelief.
> 
> I’m not going to lie, I lean to where I’m biased, but I’m biased because that’s exactly what I believe to be truth.


Is there a post where anyone mentioned that they are not biased?
I cannot find a single post where anyone made that claim.


----------



## Spotlite (Apr 30, 2021)

bullethead said:


> Is there a post where anyone mentioned that they are not biased?
> I cannot find a single post where anyone made that claim.


No there’s not, at least that I’m aware of.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 30, 2021)

Danuwoa said:


> And everybody else is the same way.  The ones that talk a big game about how open minded and unbiased they are are the worst in that regard.


Donny, can you quote the thread where anyone claims they are unbiased?


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Apr 30, 2021)

> Don't know if you're ever heard of the Karpman Drama Triangle





bullethead said:


> I didn't claim any of them. It takes a self appointed want to be doctor to come up with that stuff. He follows me around peddling diagnosis because he can't stick to the problem with Paul.
> You'll keep this up in order to shut the thread down.



I’ll take that as a “No”.  BTW, the “You'll keep this up in order to shut the thread down.” is back to ‘victim’.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Apr 30, 2021)

bullethead said:


> Donny, can you quote ....



Persecutor


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Apr 30, 2021)

bullethead said:


> To your Lying part...EXACTLY



Persecutor


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Apr 30, 2021)

bullethead said:


> Street Corner/AAA threads, at least one holds you accountable.



Rescuer/Hero


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Apr 30, 2021)

bullethead said:


> Good couch session with yourself.



Persecutor


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Apr 30, 2021)

bullethead said:


> I honestly do not know. All I did was make a reply ...
> 
> If you quote me and call me out, I reply. It is that simple
> 
> ...



Victim

Hero

Persecutor

Persecutor

It’s something you may want to look into, because the rest of us see it for what it is.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 30, 2021)

SemperFiDawg said:


> I’ll take that as a “No”.  BTW, the “You'll keep this up in order to shut the thread down.” is back to ‘victim’.


That was definite NO from me. I am not a hypochondriac. 
I don't have time to look up medical conditions on the internet nor do I have your experience as suffering through it to know what it might me. 
Thanks for popping in Dr.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 30, 2021)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Persecutor


Thank you


----------



## bullethead (Apr 30, 2021)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Victim
> 
> Hero
> 
> ...


Look into it how?
I've got the best quack internet wanna be Dr as my personal physician,  psychiatrist, and therapist on it incessantly for days now.
Dr SFD (one of his multiple personalities  in the "rest of us group" doesn't even have time to contribute to the discussion on Paul anymore because he is obsessed with my well being.


----------



## ky55 (Apr 30, 2021)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Victim
> 
> Hero
> 
> ...



“the rest of us”?

 It may come as a shock to you that you don’t speak for everybody.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 30, 2021)

ky55 said:


> “the rest of us”?
> 
> It may come as a shock to you that you don’t speak for everybody.


Ohhh Boy....
Now you did it.
SemperFilDoc is going to scour the internet for a diagnosis for you and then label you.


----------



## Spotlite (Apr 30, 2021)

bullethead said:


> Gordon I agree that Paul's vision of Jesus cannot be dismissed regarding his change of heart. It cannot be confirmed either. Realistically if someone wanted others to regard them in a leadership role "meeting the god they worship" and claiming that god gave them special instructions or inside information or whatever (because when nobody else can see it or hear it) the person can say anything they want.
> Joseph Smith has quite a following of Mormons using the same style. How can Joseph Smith's claims be dismissed as embellishments and not Paul?


Joseph Smith`s claims aren`t dismissed by his followers. True, they can say anything they want, some do.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 30, 2021)

Spotlite said:


> Joseph Smith`s claims aren`t dismissed by his followers. True, they can say anything they want, some do.


Agreed Spotlight.  Believers in whoever or whatever are going to believe but believing doesn't make it true or any more true than what the next set of followers believe.


----------



## ky55 (Apr 30, 2021)

bullethead said:


> Ohhh Boy....
> Now you did it.
> SemperFilDoc is going to scour the internet for a diagnosis for you and then label you.
> View attachment 1079111View attachment 1079112



Yeah, I realized the risk when I posted it. 
But that’s the thing about quack docs——

Ye shall know them by their fruit.


----------



## Spotlite (May 1, 2021)

bullethead said:


> Agreed Spotlight.  Believers in whoever or whatever are going to believe but believing doesn't make it true or any more true than what the next set of followers believe.


If we could just figure out that connection between believing and truth.......

is there a good doctor in the house ? 

Sorry SF had to 

Going miniature rabbit hunting today. Bush hogging and popping those big field mice with a 410.  Two seater tractor is easier than training a dog.


----------



## bullethead (May 1, 2021)

Spotlite said:


> If we could just figure out that connection between believing and truth.......
> 
> is there a good doctor in the house ?
> 
> ...


Good luck.
I, or one of my SemperFilDoc web search diagnosed personalities, has my Wife out for our Spring Gobbler opener.
Absolutely quiet. No gobbles and no shots heard.


----------



## Spotlite (May 1, 2021)

bullethead said:


> Good luck.
> I, or one of my SemperFilDoc web search diagnosed personalities, has my Wife out for our Spring Gobbler opener.
> Absolutely quiet. No gobbles and no shots heard.


I haven’t even been. I’ve got several good gobblers that were steady on the food plots. Normally I’ve killed one and running jugs for catfish and trolling for crappy this time of year.  Between both my grandsons crawling / walking, my wife has had me putting up new handrails, post and porch swings.

Good luck to y’all!


----------



## Spotlite (May 1, 2021)

@bullethead not the best picture. He was fanned out. If I’d been hunting he wouldn’t have been in the pasture.,


----------

