The apostle Paul

Originally posted by ahosyney
I will give you a hint and I hope you will accept what I say as Just a discussion no more:

From what I know Paul's writting (or at least most of them) precede the four Gospels (or at least two of them). So what I see that we can say that the teachings of Paul's were there when thos gospels were written, and so the same ideas were inserted inside them.
...[text shortened]... Paul's writting, he didn't believe that Jesus was GOD, and he didn't believe in trinity.

We can say that Paul admittedly did not meet the any of the 12, but
he did meet Jesus which is more important if you read his writings
and Luke and Peter acknowledge Paul too.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
We can say that Paul admittedly did not meet the any of the 12, but
he did meet Jesus which is more important if you read his writings
and Luke and Peter acknowledge Paul too.
Kelly

Paul never met Jesus. Your assertion that he did is a complete fabrication.

Originally posted by rwingett
Paul never met Jesus. Your assertion that he did is a complete fabrication.

I suggest you read Acts.
Kelly

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Read my post again. It's speaking against the assertion that "This in no way diminishes the role of women in any way...".

Be that as it may:
Do you have any idea what the word "prejudice" means? It's quite a leap to say that since the first woman was deceived it means that it's an inherent flaw in all women. I'm thinking that throughout history there ...[text shortened]... doesn't exactly put one on higher ground than being deceived into going against God.

Do you have any idea what the word "prejudice" means?
I suppose I have an idea of what the word means, although I do not purport to possess an exhaustive and/or expert understanding of the word. When I used the word, I was using it in the sense of any preconceived opinion or feeling, either favorable or unfavorable.

It's quite a leap to say that since the first woman was deceived it means that it's an inherent flaw in all women.
That would, indeed, be quite a leap.

I'm thinking that throughout history there's been at least a few men who have been deceived, so there's some evidence that both sexes are capable of being deceived.
In this, you are not deceived.

Aside from that I'm thinking that deliberately chosing against God doesn't exactly put one on higher ground than being deceived into going against God.
Higher ground or higher responsibility? Hmm...

Originally posted by rwingett
Paul never met Jesus. Your assertion that he did is a complete fabrication.

Huh?

Acts 9 says otherwise:
As he neared Damascus on his journey, suddenly a light from heaven flashed around him.
He fell to the ground and heard a voice say to him, "Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?"
"Who are you, Lord?" Saul asked.
"I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting," he replied.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b]Do you have any idea what the word "prejudice" means?
I suppose I have an idea of what the word means, although I do not purport to possess an exhaustive and/or expert understanding of the word. When I used the word, I was using it in the sense of any preconceived opinion or feeling, either favorable or unfavorable.

It's quite a leap ...[text shortened]... g deceived into going against God.
Higher ground or higher responsibility? Hmm...[/b]

Glad to see that you were willing to rescind your original assertions. Good for you.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Huh?

Acts 9 says otherwise:
As he neared Damascus on his journey, suddenly a light from heaven flashed around him.
He fell to the ground and heard a voice say to him, "Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?"
"Who are you, Lord?" Saul asked.
"I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting," he replied.

Paul claimed to have had a "vision" of Jesus, but he never actually met the man. I, personally, do not trust Paul's highly subjective visions, and neither did many of the early Christians.

Originally posted by rwingett
Paul claimed to have had a "vision" of Jesus, but he never actually met the man. I, personally, do not trust Paul's highly subjective visions, and neither did many of the early Christians.

When He met Jesus it wasn't as a man no one said that, that I'm
aware of.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
When He met Jesus it wasn't as a man no one said that, that I'm
aware of.
Kelly

So Paul and Jesus never met. All you have is Paul's claim to have had a "vision" of Jesus. So there are three possibilities here:

1. Jesus appeared in a vision just as Paul described.
2. Paul mistakenly thought he saw Jesus in a vision.
3. Paul made the whole thing up to justify his version of scripture. Seeing as he never actually met Jesus, he may have thought this tactic was necessary to give him more solid footing against people who actually had met him.

Originally posted by josephw
Paul's writings have nothing to do with what culture he was in. His writings reflect the will of God, and are grossly misunderstood and misinterpreted.

As to woman remaining silent, it is simply about order and the structure of the local assembly. Only men are allowed to occupy spiritual leadership in the structure of any institution created by God.
This in no way diminishes the role of women in any way as some might suggest.

I will have to disagree with you on this one Joseph. What of this verse?

1 Corinthians 11:6 "For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn, or shaven, let her be covered. For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man."

So what of these teachings? These teachings are about praying in public. Do you concern yourself over whether your wife is shorn/covered when praying in public? Do you concern yourself over whether you wear a hat to cover your head when praying in public? Is it a sin to do so? I say a clue is given in this scripture which is, "but IF it be a shame for a woman to be shorn." In other words, Pual is not saying here that it is a shame to be shorn, rather, it may be a shame if the society dictates that it is.

I think another clue here is a verse given earlier in 1 Corinthians. In 1 Corinthians 8:13 Paul says, "Wherefore, if meat make my brother to offend, I will eat no flesh while the world stands, lest I make my brother to offend." In other words, eating meat is not a sin, rather, eating meat in front of a fellow believer who may be offended at you eating meat that may cause them to stumble would be a sin. As a Christian, we are commanded to be all things to all men. Therefore avoid contentious issues such as meat and head coverings and comply with what is required to operate in a particular culture so as not to offend them in any way. It would be similar if you sat down to eat and decided to give a loud belch. Sure, you may think its funny, and, in fact, it may well have been, however, is it worth the price of offending those eating with you? Would it hurt your witness? Is it respectful to offend people? From what I know about the teachings in the Bible concerning love, it is first and foremost about respecting others. In fact, I think you will find that where there is no respect, there is no love.

Originally posted by josephw
. Only men are allowed to occupy spiritual leadership in the structure of any institution created by God.

I will have to take issue with this statement as well. What of Deborah the prophetess who sat in the role of judge in Judges 4:4? Was she outside the will of God for being in a postition of authority by being a prophetess and a judge? I think not. Other prophetesses include Miriam in Exodus 15:20, Huldah in 2 Kings 22:14, Noadiah in Nehamiah 6:14, Anna in Luke 2:36 etc. These are but only a few that are mentioned. I am sure there to have been many, many more. So is not a prophet or a prophetess in a position of leadership or authority? I will conceed that perhaps in the society that Paul was writing to, Christian women may well have been better kept under the radar, so to speak. After all, if it offended the soceity in which they lived, what benefit would this have produced for those trying to reach the society in which they lived?

Originally posted by josephw
Paul's writings have nothing to do with what culture he was in. His writings reflect the will of God, and are grossly misunderstood and misinterpreted.

As to woman remaining silent, it is simply about order and the structure of the local assembly. Only men are allowed to occupy spiritual leadership in the structure of any institution created by God.
This in no way diminishes the role of women in any way as some might suggest.

Paul's writings have everything to do with the culture he was in. He believed the return of Christ was immanent. He lived in a time when women were considered to be unequal to men. There is no reason to believe that this was the will of God. There is no reason to believe that only men are allowed to occupy spiritual leadership. For some people these are the traditions of their faith, just as others believe in the intercession of saints. If these are beliefs that work for you, swell, but that doesn't make them facts.

Originally posted by whodey
I suppose it is permissible to speculate on the origin of any document. In fact, they can't even decide who wrote the Shakespearean plays. Who is to say? All you can do is examine how old certain documents are and then compare writing styles to ascertain who wrote what. Yet this does not really prove anything either. I mean, just because one document may ...[text shortened]...
If Christ was, in fact, not crusified, then what documents other than the Quran indicate this?

I don't know why you switched the talk to be about my faith and Quran. The topic of the thread has nothing to do with that. And I was just discussing your ideas about Paul.

As many pointed here , those who believed in Paul who choosed what to be in the Bible, and what not to be. You don't know what was written into these books, and you don't know what actually Jesus said, because you only see it through Paul (or what matches his teachings) .

Going back about your talk about Quran and Islamic faith, Muslims didn't make up the idea that Jesus didn't die, because they don't need to do soo. Paul's christianity has many other problems that are enough to believe that it is not true. If there is only one part is not true, then the others will follow. If Jesus is not GOD (and it is easy to prove), then all what follows doesn't make any sense.

Was God trying to decieve us into believing that Christ was crucified and later resurrected from the dead?

It is not GOD who decieved you, it is the search formed by Paul that decieved you. If you talk Paul's writting out of the way, and looked at the four Gospels alone, you will find it easy to find the truth.

If Christ was, in fact, not crusified, then what documents other than the Quran indicate this?

Do you really thing that every Christian in the first century were believing that he was crusified? I think you are very mistaken. It was known between many sects that he was not crucified and someone else was in the cross. I think rwingett pointed out this in his post:

But its the Ebionites that I have found particularly interesting lately. Many scholars think that they may be the ones who were closest to the original teachings of Jesus. They were Jewish Christians, led by Jesus' brother, James, and who believed in keeping the Law of Moses. They clashed with Paul over many things and held him in low regard. The Ebionites had an "adoptionist" christology, which maintained that Jesus was wholly human but that God later "adopted" him and infused him with the spirit of Christ. They rejected the divinity, virgin birth, atoning death, and physical resurrection of Jesus. But what has been of particular interest to me has been the fact that they had a communal lifestyle with all goods held in common.

So what you believe now was not the common thing just after Jesus...

Originally posted by KellyJay
We can say that Paul admittedly did not meet the any of the 12, but
he did meet Jesus which is more important if you read his writings
and Luke and Peter acknowledge Paul too.
Kelly

What???????? Paul did not meet any of the 12 apostles? What of Acts chapter 15? It is clear in this chapter that they did encounter one another and did agree in terms of their theology. Here is where most loose me when trying to seperate Paul from the other 12. First of all, they were contemporaries. They appeared to have interacted in terms of Biblical accounts and historically they appear to have lived in the same area during the same time. I know of NO historical accounts or religious documents that pit the 12 against Paul. In fact, there are no such documents to my knowledge. In fact, just the opposite appears to be true. We have documents that link Paul and the 12 in terms of theology and their mission. In fact, can any one muster PROVEN documents written by any of the 12 that couterdict the theology of Paul?

Originally posted by whodey
What???????? Paul did not meet any of the 12 apostles? What of Acts chapter 15? It is clear in this chapter that they did encounter one another and did agree in terms of their theology. Here is where most loose me when trying to seperate Paul from the other 12. First of all, they were contemporaries. They appeared to have interacted in terms of Biblical ...[text shortened]... n any one muster PROVEN documents written by any of the 12 that couterdict the theology of Paul?

I have some questions :

according to what you believe,

Before Paul and the 12 apostles meet:

1- Which of the four Gospels used by the 12 apostles?
2- Which of the four Godpels used by Paul?
3- Which of the Paul's messages did the students use?
4- What change did happen after their meeting?