Paul The First Heretic

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by Akragon

 

. . . 30 some odd years after the death of Jesus, paul still practices blood offerings...

I would say it is a complete fabrication.
No serious Bible scholar takes the Book of Acts at face value.
There seems to be a sort of bias involved in the writing of that pseudo-history, to be the best way to undermine Paul, which is to make a story which appears on the surface to build Paul up where you do not notice all the subtleties just under the surface that go counter to his real teachings as described in his own letters. You can see him already reacting to these attacks in Galatians where he says the meetings with the council (as described in Acts) never happened.

edit on 16-2-2012 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)

I know you've stated this before but could you tell me which books you think are actually his?

reply to post by Akragon

I know you've stated this before but could you tell me which books you think are actually his?

The short list is:
Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, 1 Thessalonians, and Philemon.
The super short list, meaning the ones that evidence shows Paul actually meant to be published is the first four.

reply to post by Akragon

I know you've stated this before but could you tell me which books you think are actually his?

Bart Ehrman is an Agnostic, he denies anything supernatural immediately as not legitimate. And many people have refuted him, Goggle it.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by Akragon

 

I know you've stated this before but could you tell me which books you think are actually his?

Bart Ehrman is an Agnostic, he denies anything supernatural immediately as not legitimate. And many people have refuted him, Goggle it.

I've noticed... i just watched a debate with him and one "Craig evans".... and i actually believe most of what Bart had to say aside from one point. For the most part he pretty much ruined almost every arguement Dr.evans had to say... and they agreed on many things as well...

I wouldn't discount Dr. Ehrman so fast... He like everyone else says "no one knows everything"... And at least he conferms the fact that there are errors within the bible... there was no debating that issue.

I'd like to chat with Dr. Ehrman actually...

Either way doesn't "agnostic" mean.... "uhm... im not sure"?

Originally posted by Akragon
Well since this thread has strayed waaaaaay off topic... i will be happy to get it back on track...

Back to paul...

19For when Moses had spoken every precept to all the people according to the law, he took the blood of calves and of goats, with water, and scarlet wool, and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book, and all the people,

20Saying, This is the blood of the testament which God hath enjoined unto you.

21Moreover he sprinkled with blood both the tabernacle, and all the vessels of the ministry.

22And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission.

And what counters this arguement...

1. IESUS was teaching his disciples in the outer court of the Temple and one of them said unto him: Master, it is said by the priests that without shedding of blood there is no remission. Can then the blood offering of the law take away sin?
2. And Iesus answered: No blood offering, of beast or bird, or man, can take away sin, for how can the conscience be purged from sin by the shedding of innocent blood? Nay, it will increase the condemnation.
3. The priests indeed receive such offering as a reconciliation of the worshippers for the trespasses against the law of Moses, but for sins against the Law of God there can be no remission, save by repentance and amendment.

The Gospel of the Holy Twelve ~ a.k.a. Gospel of the Nazarenes

en.wikipedia.org...

I fail to see the counter argument hear. The Law of Moses taught the remission of sins through blood. The remission of sins was the cancelation of previous debt. The person making the sin sacrifice was doing so as an act of repentance. The sacrifice was an acknowledgement of both sin and repentance.

Paul completely agrees with Jesus that the sacrifice of blood was not sufficient to clear the conscious of the individual. This is why Paul considered himself dead to the law, only observing it in cases where it would benefit his ability to spread the good news of Christ.

The blood sacrifices were a foreshadow of what was going to come. The blood of goats could not prove to anyone they were forgiven, so their conscious could not be cleared thus they remained in fear of God.

You do realize that Christ did indeed bleed to death. And it is by his death and resurrection, with resurrection being the key that we know for certain that he did have authority from God to forgive the sins of man. It is the assurance that was purchased at the price of the physical body through death that can indeed cleanse our conscious.

Because Christ was sacrificed once for all, and resurrected, we can all know that we have been forgiven by God. If you can have faith that God sent his son to teach us that we are forgiven and that we should love our neighbor than you conscious can be cleansed of your previous sin.

This is what is wrong with the Church, they have completely destroyed the purpose of the sacrifice. The sacrifice was made to cleanse our conscious, once we reach an age where we can reason that we need forgiveness.

Now that I can reason that I need forgiveness I can appreciate the sacrifice. It is the understanding that I have been forgiven that compels me to live a holy life, and turn from sin. The blood of animals simply could not prove to me I was forgiven.

Jesus and Paul agree that the proof of forgiveness is the resurrection, but you must realize without the shedding of blood there could be no resurrection. This passages from Corinthians shows that Paul teaching the death of Christ much more about how it pertains to the Resurrection, than his physical death.

1 Corinthians 15:12-28 The Resurrection of the Dead

12 But if it is preached that Christ has been raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? 13 If there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. 14 And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith. 15 More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified about God that he raised Christ from the dead. But he did not raise him if in fact the dead are not raised. 16 For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised either. 17 And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins. 18 Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ are lost. 19 If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are of all people most to be pitied.

20 But Christ has indeed been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. 21 For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man. 22 For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive. 23 But each in turn: Christ, the firstfruits; then, when he comes, those who belong to him. 24 Then the end will come, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father after he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power. 25 For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet.

26 The last enemy to be destroyed is death. 27 For he “has put everything under his feet.”[c] Now when it says that “everything” has been put under him, it is clear that this does not include God himself, who put everything under Christ. 28 When he has done this, then the Son himself will be made subject to him who put everything under him, so that God may be all in all.

Paul makes his opinion on the blood sacrifice and resurrection easy to understand here. He agrees with Christ that the shedding of blood alone by no means can clear the conscious of a man. But the shedding of blood of Christ followed by his resurrection could indeed cleanse the believer of their sins. This is the good news, you are forgiven.

If you don’t believe that Christ was who he said he was or don’t believe in the resurrection than your conscious can never be cleansed of sin. This is why Christians are called to lead a holy life, as proof that we indeed have a clear conscious, living a righteous life worthy of Christ. The church has not been teaching this message. The church says you are forgiven now ask for forgiveness every time you sin.

Both Jesus and Paul say now go and sin no more. Expecting that this is possible.

reply to post by sacgamer25

This is why Paul considered himself dead to the law . . .

Which is what baptism does, among other things.
When you are baptized you are buried with Christ.

reply to post by Akragon

I'd like to chat with Dr. Ehrman actually...

First listen to what Craig A. Evans, Ph.D has to say about Bart, his book "Misquoting Jesus" in particular, and Bart's scholarship in general. Then watch that debate again. You'll realize who won and who did not. And if you get all turned on by academia, his resume is quite stronger than Mr. Ehrman's is. Check out:

"Fabricating Jesus: How Modern Scholars Distort the Gospels" (2006) HERE You don't need a Master's Degree to read that book either, it's written for the general public.

HERE is the first book review under Google.

Interview for book: HERE

reply to post by NOTurTypical

Craig A. Evans

He does not come off as being at all honest to me. (after watching an hour's worth of video of him speaking)
His career was guided along and financed, by his own admission, starting early on when he showed an interest in proving the things in the New Testament really happened.
So of course he is going to say all those things because saying those things is what he was groomed for and backed to say. He will say them whether he believes what he is saying, or not.
Ehrman has a good, well established position based on a lot of hard work in his specialty and is bold enough to say what he really believes, or does not believe, regardless of what the people who sign his paycheck think, or could possibly think, about it.

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

Craig A. Evans

He does not come off as being at all honest to me.

YOU are not honest jm, I don't want to hear you tell me who you think has integrity and who does not. Secondly, that's a "poisoning the well" fallacy and foolish on top of it. You don't decide truth by rejecting an argument because you don't like the person making it, you listen to it, and decided on what's said, not who says it. It's of the Ad Hominem variety.

Ehrman has a good well established position based on a lot of hard work in his specialty

Craig A. Evans Ph. D.:


1. 20 years as professor at Trinity Western University where he founded the Daed Sea Scrolls Institute.
2. Bachelors in History and Philosophy from Claremont McKenna College
3. Master of Divinity degree from Western Baptist Seminary
4. Masters and Doctorate in Biblical Studies from Claremont Graduate University
5. Served as visiting fellow at Princeton Theological Seminary.
6. He's lectured at Cambridge, Durham, Yale, and Oxford.
7. For 10 years served as editor-in-chief of the "Bulletin for Biblical Research"

and is bold enough to say what he really believes, or does not believe regardless of what the people who sign his paycheck think, or could possibly think, about it.

And he doesn't need anyone's paycheck JM, he's a tenured professor and author of over 50 books.

reply to post by NOTurTypical

. . . that's a "poisoning the well" fallacy . . .

Protecting your quotation from Titus?
That would be how your fallacy label would apply.
Discrediting Evans diminishes your theses on "washing", since it lends indirect credibility to Ehrman, who you are depending on (Evans) to do your work for you of discrediting Ehrman.
To be honest, I am depending on Ehrman to a degree since I do not have the expertise to fully argue my case against Titus.
My normal argument I can repeat from Ehrman's book, Forged, is to ask if "all Cretans (people who live in Crete) are lazy and liars and otherwise generally bad people?"
A normal person would say, "No, that would be ridiculous to think every person in Crete is a lazy lying bad person."
But the writer of Titus says, "Yes, that is a true saying about Cretans".
The best thing would be for people to watch the same videos I did, after they were posted on this sub-forum www.youtube.com... of Evans giving a talk on Ehrman.
BTW: you are putting to use your own "poisoning the well" fallacy by saying I am not honest.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by Akragon

 

I'd like to chat with Dr. Ehrman actually...

First listen to what Craig A. Evans, Ph.D has to say about Bart, his book "Misquoting Jesus" in particular, and Bart's scholarship in general. Then watch that debate again. You'll realize who won and who did not. And if you get all turned on by academia, his resume is quite stronger than Mr. Ehrman's is. Check out:

"Fabricating Jesus: How Modern Scholars Distort the Gospels" (2006) HERE You don't need a Master's Degree to read that book either, it's written for the general public.

HERE is the first book review under Google.

Interview for book: HERE

edit on 17-2-2012 by NOTurTypical because: (no reason given)

Actually i don't need to watch the debate again, its quite clear who won... but of course that depends on what truths the listener is looking for. Dr. Ehrman argued solid facts... which can't even be debated. Those facts were not disputed by Dr. Evans at all... and of course are widely accepted by scholars all over the world.

The only point that Dr.Ehrman did not win was when they argued the point on "IF there is enough information about Jesus for us to understand his message" He says "no its not possible to know IF it was actually Jesus who said those words" which i agree with as a matter of fact, but i also believe that what we have about him is correct for the most part. Jesus' lessons are flawless aside from minor details and inconsistancies.

Dr. Evans did not win that debate, not even close actually... every point he made to refute Dr.Ehrman was done using his own theology and beliefs based on his own religion... He admitted (supprizingly) that the trinity doctrine was fabricated by the early church fathers... and that the Jesus is God issue also was not part of the original texts... yet after admitting such things he went directly back to preaching these things to the audience.

Dr. Evans side of the debate was nothing but preaching... but Dr.Ehrman did not preach what so ever... he just laid down the facts and said "check for yourself if you don't believe me"

Now unfortunatly i have no interest in any Critics view of another Critic... that is just wandering of the path of what im trying to find out in the first place.

In actuality none of this is new information for me anyways... but its interesting to have my beliefs reinforced by scholars....

I will definatly take a look at those links you provided though...

And by the way i don't get "turn around on academia"... i respect ANYONE who dedicates their life to this kind of study... i respect both of these people in this debate...

reply to post by Akragon

Originally posted by Akragon
Well since this thread has strayed waaaaaay off topic... i will be happy to get it back on track...

Back to paul...

19For when Moses had spoken every precept to all the people according to the law, he took the blood of calves and of goats, with water, and scarlet wool, and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book, and all the people,

20Saying, This is the blood of the testament which God hath enjoined unto you.

21Moreover he sprinkled with blood both the tabernacle, and all the vessels of the ministry.

22And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission.

And what counters this arguement...

1. IESUS was teaching his disciples in the outer court of the Temple and one of them said unto him: Master, it is said by the priests that without shedding of blood there is no remission. Can then the blood offering of the law take away sin?
2. And Iesus answered: No blood offering, of beast or bird, or man, can take away sin, for how can the conscience be purged from sin by the shedding of innocent blood? Nay, it will increase the condemnation.
3. The priests indeed receive such offering as a reconciliation of the worshippers for the trespasses against the law of Moses, but for sins against the Law of God there can be no remission, save by repentance and amendment.

The Gospel of the Holy Twelve ~ a.k.a. Gospel of the Nazarenes

en.wikipedia.org...

You might like to take a look at this lecture by a Jewish Rabbi, who looks at various aspects of animal blood sacrifices. According to the Rabbi, the blood sacrifices were only meant to be a part of the ritual of atonement. Their main purpose was for covering sins you didn’t know you had done, but this was in conjunction, with genuine repentance.


In other words, a man/woman had to repent first and foremost, for their sins during the ritual. The idea of sacrificing animals during these rituals was (according to the Rabbi) to act as a reminder, of the punishment you should have received.


The blood sacrifices in themselves were not the actual things, which atoned for your sins; they were only a part of the rituals of atonement; you still had to repent and ask God for forgiveness, during these rituals. So although the sacrifices also covered sins you didn’t know you had committed, they were never meant to be a substitute, for repenting for sins.


This is still a serious contention in Judaism today, especially in connection to the building of the third temple and whether are not sacrifices will again be needed, and more importantly, what the sacrifices originally signified.


- JC

reply to post by jmdewey60


Its not a fallacy to call someone dishonest who has demonstrated numerous times to being dishonest. It's a statement based upon past experiences. You've lied about me repeatedly, even after being corrected by me more than once in regards to the same issues.

Just two days ago in a thread in this forum you edited a post of mine to make it appear I said something exactly opposite to what I actually typed. This is extremely immature and petty as well as deliberately deceptive.

Originally posted by Joecroft
reply to post by Akragon

 

Originally posted by Akragon
Well since this thread has strayed waaaaaay off topic... i will be happy to get it back on track...

Back to paul...

19For when Moses had spoken every precept to all the people according to the law, he took the blood of calves and of goats, with water, and scarlet wool, and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book, and all the people,

20Saying, This is the blood of the testament which God hath enjoined unto you.

21Moreover he sprinkled with blood both the tabernacle, and all the vessels of the ministry.

22And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission.

And what counters this arguement...

1. IESUS was teaching his disciples in the outer court of the Temple and one of them said unto him: Master, it is said by the priests that without shedding of blood there is no remission. Can then the blood offering of the law take away sin?
2. And Iesus answered: No blood offering, of beast or bird, or man, can take away sin, for how can the conscience be purged from sin by the shedding of innocent blood? Nay, it will increase the condemnation.
3. The priests indeed receive such offering as a reconciliation of the worshippers for the trespasses against the law of Moses, but for sins against the Law of God there can be no remission, save by repentance and amendment.

The Gospel of the Holy Twelve ~ a.k.a. Gospel of the Nazarenes

en.wikipedia.org...

You might like to take a look at this lecture by a Jewish Rabbi, who looks at various aspects of animal blood sacrifices. According to the Rabbi, the blood sacrifices were only meant to be a part of the ritual of atonement. Their main purpose was for covering sins you didn’t know you had done, but this was in conjunction, with genuine repentance.


In other words, a man/woman had to repent first and foremost, for their sins during the ritual. The idea of sacrificing animals during these rituals was (according to the Rabbi) to act as a reminder, of the punishment you should have received.


The blood sacrifices in themselves were not the actual things, which atoned for your sins; they were only a part of the rituals of atonement; you still had to repent and ask God for forgiveness, during these rituals. So although the sacrifices also covered sins you didn’t know you had committed, they were never meant to be a substitute, for repenting for sins.


This is still a serious contention in Judaism today, especially in connection to the building of the third temple and whether are not sacrifices will again be needed, and more importantly, what the sacrifices originally signified.


- JC

unfortunatly i don't believe any sacrifice is needed other then your own... even back in that day it was simply a rediculous idea... Shedding the blood of the innocent...

Yes i know Jesus was supposedly the "sacrificial lamb"... though i also don't buy into the churches ideas of what Jesus purpose was either.

And considering these "rituals" are still practiced within many churches and they borderline pagan/wiccan rituals...... I couldn't care less what some rabbi has to say about them.

Symbolic rituals are NOT needed for anything... they are only needed to solidify the beliefs of converts and believers in said religions.

And since i don't believe in ANY religion... i also reject any form of needed "ritual" behavior

reply to post by Joecroft


And you have to remember that these animal sacrifices are only extensions of traditional hunter rituals, from when we were hunter gatherers. The Mithriac cult was used by the Romans as a syncretic tool to transform indigenous hunters to soldiers in the regions that they occupied. Homer's Odyssey, in it's detailed description of the ritual sacrifice of animals, shows these same remnants of the Spring hunter's ritual that then went on to become more and more ritualised, and thus, less recognisable to the actual functional practice.

reply to post by NOTurTypical

This is extremely immature and petty as well as deliberately deceptive.

You look at your readers as being incredibly stupid, then.
It was posted right underneath your post where anyone could make a one to one comparison, plus I knew you would comment on it, and I admitted I edited it a little funny.
It was my way of reading it and I was pointing out how I viewed the thought process behind what you said.
I'll do it again in a heart beat if you leave me an opening like that again.
Of course the only way I can do that is when you are making puffed up boasts about yourself.
BTW: it is a fallacy because you were using a personal accusation against me, to discredit my argument, instead of making a real argument yourself.

reply to post by Akragon


Ill respond more tonight when I get home on the PC and can do quotes. But briefly a few things. I don't know if you've ever been introduced to or taken a class in debate, but the video isn't a debate. Its basically a question and answer period. Secondly, I've watched this video a few times now and Bart didn't win his arguments. The most glaring flaw I have noticed is his addiction to pointing out numerous discrepancies in the gospel eyewitness accounts, then makes the fatal mistake of saying "If there are discrepancies in the accounts we cannot assume they were from eyewitnesses."

The huge problem there is even novice law students will tell you that if several witnesses testimony is exactly the same that shows that the witnesses engaged in collusion. If all the witnesses for the prosecution tell the exact same story the defense council will immediately say: "Objection your honor, collusion!"

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

This is extremely immature and petty as well as deliberately deceptive.

You look at your readers as being incredibly stupid, then.
It was posted right underneath your post where anyone could make a one to one comparison, plus I knew you would comment on it, and I admitted I edited it a little funny.
It was my way of reading it and I was pointing out how I viewed the thought process behind what you said.
I'll do it again in a heart beat if you leave me an opening like that again.
Of course the only way I can do that is when you are making puffed up boasts about yourself.

edit on 17-2-2012 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)

However you feel justified in making excuses for deception, go ahead and run with it. Rational people realize they cannot fabricate what someone actually said and debunk their own fabrication and think they've actually addressed what their opponent said.

You cannot debunk yourself and claim victory as if you debunked what was actually said.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by Akragon

 

Ill respond more tonight when I get home on the PC and can do quotes. But briefly a few things. I don't know if you've ever been introduced to or taken a class in debate, but the video isn't a debate. Its basically a question and answer period. Secondly, I've watched this video a few times now and Bart didn't win his arguments. The most glaring flaw I have noticed is his addiction to pointing out numerous discrepancies in the gospel eyewitness accounts, then makes the fatal mistake of saying "If there are discrepancies in the accounts we cannot assume they were from eyewitnesses."

The huge problem there is even novice law students will tell you that if several witnesses testimony is exactly the same that shows that the witnesses engaged in collusion. If all the witnesses for the prosecution tell the exact same story the defense council will immediately say: "Objection your honor, collusion!"

I realize this wasn't a debate... but this particular video was called a debate... so that was the name i called it.

You're right though there were 7 question... most of which were Dr.Ehrman repeating the same thing... but again he is comming from Factual information based on scholarly evidence that is well known... on the other hand Dr.Evans did not use the same tactic in his responses to the questions, he used his own personal beliefs based on his religion and his own personal theology... not on facts. Dr.Evans did not once deny any of the facts Dr.Ehrman presented... he danced around them using his own beliefs in the bible.

On one hand he is right... we can't assume what we have is from eyewitnesses... but on the other hand "we can assume if we choose to do so"

Myself i assume what we have is correct because of what you can read about him... flawless lessons. Though again that comes down to personal beliefs... not factual information.

reply to post by NOTurTypical

However you feel justified in making excuses for deception . . .

I'm not justifying anything, I was just describing what I did.
This is not sworn testimony and this is not court and no one here is up on charges and I think you should pack up your PC and not post if you are that intolerant of criticism and go hide in your closet to ask for harpazo before any real trouble comes.