the JESUS paul knew is diffrent from the JESUS we know...

Canada
August 9, 2007 10:09am CST
you know paul thought that christ lived in a mythical realm? in over 80,000 words he wrote all about jesus, he never writes about Mary, Joseph, Bethlehem, Harrid, John the baptist, he never even heard about jesus's miracles, he never quotes jesus, he does not mention that jesus had any kind of ministry, he does not know about the entrance to Jerusalem, no jewish mob, no trials... he doesnt know any of what we would call the story of jesus accept for 3 events, which paul never places on earth, just like the other savior (mostly pagan) gods at the time, Paul's "jesus" died rose and ascended all in a mythical realm. "if jesus HAD BEEN on earth, he would not even have been a priest" Hebrews 8:4 paul doesnt believe (and not even aware of the idea) that jesus was EVER a human being.. and he is the link between jesus's life and the gospels that were written 40 years after him.
3 people like this
7 responses
@cyntrow (8527)
• United States
13 Aug 07
It doesn't matter to me if Paul mentioned Jesus or not; he did, but it doesn't matter. Paul is the messiah to the Christian Coalition and the other similar groups. They ignore Christ all together and go from the Old Testement, directly to the teachings of the Apostle Paul, who was probably a closet homosexual, definately a sexist, and he never walked with, nor heard a word that Christ spoke. And at that time, the gospels were not written, so he was still vomitting the Old Testement to people who would listen to him.
2 people like this
• United States
13 Aug 07
Why is because it wasnt preached from a book it was preached by word of mouth and the spirit in the first church.
2 people like this
@cyntrow (8527)
• United States
13 Aug 07
That's also a fairly decent explanation for some of the inconsistancies between the Gospels. They were transcribed from memory after being passed down verbally.
2 people like this
• Canada
14 Aug 07
word of mouth? so, roomers? so your saying that the greatest story ever told is a result of roomers? have you ever played that phone game in which one person says something to another and it goes in a circle and finally the last person needs to say the same thing that the first person says? now extend that for 40 years. so, your saying, that the base of Christianity is held together by word of mouth... i mean, even SCIENTOLOGY has better justifications than THAT!.. lol
1 person likes this
@Springlady (4011)
• United States
9 Aug 07
He was speaking in the present time, fighting. Jesus was not on earth as he wrote the letters. I don't know what you are trying to do here. I pray you will come to know the Lord Jesus. Messing with God's Word and trying to take people away from God is very dangerous! You better think long and hard about what you are doing! God bless.
• Canada
9 Aug 07
he never spoke about jesus being on, in 80,000 words..
2 people like this
• Canada
9 Aug 07
on earth*
1 person likes this
• India
10 Aug 07
Who is this Harrid? There is no Harrid in the Bible. By the way, Paul spoke to Jesus. And he quoted his encounter with Jesus again and again. So your source of information is wrong. I think you have not read the Bible well before you start attacking it. It's a costly affair to attack Bible or Quran or Gita and so on before you read them well. I am not saying they are all true though! The Gospels were not written 40 years after Jesus, they were written within 40 years. To say that Gospels were written 40 years after Jesus is an outdated argument.
1 person likes this
• Thailand
10 Aug 07
Paul had a hallucinogenic encounter with Jesus but never one in the flesh. It is impossible to say when the gospels were written or who they were written by. There is not a single miracle, parable or moral teaching attributed to Jesus in the Gospels of which Paul seems to possess any knowledge whatever. This is a good indication that the gospels were written after Paul.
1 person likes this
• India
11 Aug 07
It was never a hallucination. Because Paul's companion could hear the voice...they also could see the light. Hallucination would not blind Paul. So your statement was wrong. It is never impossible to give a rough date. You look at the content of the manuscripts. The Manuscripts give sufficient evidences that the temple in Jerusalem was still there when much of it was written. I wonder how you could say that it is impossible to date it. It is also unanimous among historian regarding the authors. Of course if you would be skeptical of everything you can also challenge authorship of everything. Paul met people like Peter and James who were with Jesus. By the way, Paul had degrees equal to three Ph.Ds of our times so he was one of the most learned person of his times...he would be well aware of the richness of Jewish oral tradition.
1 person likes this
• Thailand
13 Aug 07
"It was never a hallucination. Because Paul's companion could hear the voice" Whose word do we have that Paul's companion could hear the voice? We have Paul's. We are left with having to believe that what Paul is saying is factual because Paul says it is. This is not a very good argument on which to base history. The main problem with dating the manuscripts is that we have no manuscripts to date. If we set as our standard the mention of a historical place and a description of it then almost every historical novel ever written must have been written in the time they are describing. To say; "It is also unanimous among historian regarding the authors." ignores the facts. Most historians now have reached the conclusion that at least parts of Paul were not written by him. Those that are sceptical question whether he existed at all.
1 person likes this
@AndriaToh (1268)
• Malaysia
10 Aug 07
Have you read 1 Corinthians 11:23-24? "For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, 'This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me.'" It certainly seems like a quote from Jesus.
1 person likes this
• Canada
10 Aug 07
funny because, Mithra said that too..
1 person likes this
@AndriaToh (1268)
• Malaysia
10 Aug 07
Changing the subject, are we? I would like to know how you come to this conclusion.
• Canada
11 Aug 07
what conclusion?
1 person likes this
@EvanHunter (4030)
• United States
10 Aug 07
Nice translation what site did you get it from this time? Dont you ever look into things yourself or you just randomly spit out whatever someone tells you so long as its anti-christian? Here you go http://www.biblegateway.com/ maybe this will help you the next time you want to throw something out, check it first. Now if He were on earth, He would not be a priest at all, since there are those who (A)offer the gifts according to the Law; New American Standard Bible If he were on earth, he would not be a priest, for there are already men who offer the gifts prescribed by the law. New International Version For if he were on earth, he should not be a priest, seeing that there are priests that offer gifts according to the law:King James Version For if He were on earth, He would not be a priest, since there are priests who offer the gifts according to the law; New King James Version for if, indeed, he were upon earth, he would not be a priest -- (there being the priests who are offering according to the law, the gifts, Young's Literal Translation As far as the pagan gods we have already debated that in which the only proof you could offer was early Christian church. Nice to see you could come up with something you blindly believe that they said. For all your "facts" (if someone can call them that) against the bible you still havent once tried to argue nag hammadi and its dating but like to spout common misconceptions that you cant back up. Now that is sad.
• Thailand
10 Aug 07
I am a bit confused again. The topic under discussion is Paul and the thing that are strangely missing from his writing. The approach here seems to be to kill the messenger and ignore the message. All of what you say may have merit but it is not relevant. I have read and reread Paul and fighting is right. If Paul knew Jesus where is the virgin birth, where is the Sermon on the mount, where is any mention of Jesus' teachings.
1 person likes this
• Canada
10 Aug 07
yes, your right evan, all my information is wrong, it does not mean anything. i believe in jesus now i guess.
1 person likes this
@AndriaToh (1268)
• Malaysia
10 Aug 07
About the absence of Jesus' teachings in Paul's writings - Paul was mainly writing to various churches, who would already know these things. There was no need to waste time or paper repeating them.
1 person likes this
• Canada
23 Aug 07
I am curious. Have you ever read the bible from the beginning to the end? Or maybe just the entire new testament?
• Thailand
22 Aug 07
Please excuse my interruption of this interesting debate. Let me insert a rather interesting document. I am rushing to work at the moment so I will reserve comment until later. http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/m_m_mangasarian/truth_about_jesus.html