The apostle Paul

Originally posted by kirksey957
I am going to exclude you from particpating in the forums of Redhotpawn. Just because you are excluded does not diminish you in any way. In fact, if properly understood, this does not make one better than another. There must be order in this forum or else we get what is so obviously apparent in the forums today. Disunity.

I need a rec! Now! 😛

Originally posted by wittywonka
I need a rec! Now! 😛

Done 🙂

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Glad to see that you were willing to rescind your original assertions. Good for you.

My original assertion has not been rescinded. For purpose of clarity, it was more specifically articulated.

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.

Given that the Lord Jesus Christ left this planet in a resurrection body; and given that "a light from heaven flashed around him" and given that he and those around him heard the sound of Jesus Christ's voice, I'd say it's a pretty reasonable assumption to conclude that Saul met the Lord Jesus Christ.

Did they shake hands or join in supper together? Take a stroll around the local temples together? No, but lack of that level of intimacy does not exclude the possibility that, as described, they did indeed meet.

The fact that you distrust "Paul's highly subjective visions" is more indicative of your general ignorance and/or arrogance toward the scriptures of the New Testament than proof of any substantial charge of unreliability of the same.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Given that the Lord Jesus Christ left this planet in a resurrection body; and given that "a light from heaven flashed around him" and given that he and those around him heard the sound of Jesus Christ's voice, I'd say it's a pretty reasonable assumption to conclude that Saul met the Lord Jesus Christ.

Yeah, given all those things it is a reasonable asumption. So please explain why they are 'given'? You've based your assuption on shakey ground.

Originally posted by pawnhandler
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 thes ...[text shortened]... n of saints. If these are beliefs that work for you, swell, but that doesn't make them facts.

He believed the return of Christ was immanent.
Christ's return is imminent. It has been since He left the planet now 2000+ years ago. Paul knew it could happen at any moment, unattended by any sign, independent upon any prophecy.

He lived in a time when women were considered to be unequal to men.
Which (among other writings) the guys who wrote the following caused such a ruckus:

"You are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus, for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus."

Who could have dared to write with such boldness?

There is no reason to believe that only men are allowed to occupy spiritual leadership.
Except for those pesky words of his, no reason at all.

Originally posted by Jake Ellison
Yeah, given all those things it is a reasonable asumption. So please explain why they are 'given'? You've based your assuption on shakey ground.

They are given because they are the testimony of several witnesses. Upon what would you like them to be based?

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
They are given because they are the testimony of several witnesses. Upon what would you like them to be based?

Something a little more reliable. There is no way you can show that there were several witnesses. Wheres the testimony anyway? Who exactly wrote it, where else is it corroborated? The bible is hardly proof.

Originally posted by Jake Ellison
Something a little more reliable. There is no way you can show that there were several witnesses. Wheres the testimony anyway? Who exactly wrote it, where else is it corroborated? The bible is hardly proof.

That and $4.25 will get you a venti mocha at Starbucks. You'll have to do much, much better than this, Mr. Ellison.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
That and $4.25 will get you a venti mocha at Starbucks. You'll have to do much, much better than this, Mr. Ellison.

Don't see why. It was you that made the statements in the first place. Come on. Give me something to go on. How do you know these 'eyewitnesses' were reliable? Where have they written down what they saw?

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b]He believed the return of Christ was immanent.
Christ's return is imminent. It has been since He left the planet now 2000+ years ago. Paul knew it could happen at any moment, unattended by any sign, independent upon any prophecy.

He lived in a time when women were considered to be unequal to men.
Which (among other writin ...[text shortened]... d to occupy spiritual leadership.[/b]
Except for those pesky words of his, no reason at all.[/b]

The passage of 2000 years shows that Paul was wrong -- imminent has much more immediacy to it. Had he been correct in his assumption, it would have happened in his lifetime and it would have made sense for him to tell virgins and single men to remain unmarried, etc. I assume that those who take every word of the Bible literally have remained single and virginal.

Your quote, which includes "neither male nor female" shows that there are no gender biases and thus women ARE allowed to occupy spiritual leadership. All are equal under the Lord.

Originally posted by Jake Ellison
Don't see why. It was you that made the statements in the first place. Come on. Give me something to go on. How do you know these 'eyewitnesses' were reliable? Where have they written down what they saw?

I don't think ANYONE questions whether or not the New Testament has many, many authors. Thus you could then presume there to have been many, many witnesses to occurences written of in the New Testament. Now this does not mean that the authors were eye witnesses, however, it would stand to reason that they were influenced by those who were eye witnesses.

The other option is to presume that these many authors who span a wide range of time and backgrounds have made up such accounts that all seem to be for the most part all in one accord.

As for the 12 disciples, all but one gave their lives for preaching the "good news" after Christ had resurrected and returned to heaven. Historically speaking, the 12 can be traced as to having devoted their lives to preaching the good news as well as had given thier lives for it. Paul is no different in this regard. So the question remains, why have so many given so much for so little? Would they have given their lives for a lie or for something they did not personally witness?

Edit: I almost sound like Churchill or something. Not bad if you ask me. 😛

Originally posted by whodey
So the question remains, why have so many given so much for so little? Would they have given their lives for a lie or for something they did not personally witness?

Yeah, they would. Happens all the time, in fact.

Two words from our own era: suicide bombers.

Originally posted by whodey
I don't think ANYONE questions whether or not the New Testament has many, many authors. Thus you could then presume there to have been many, many witnesses to occurences written of in the New Testament. Now this does not mean that the authors were eye witnesses, however, it would stand to reason that they were influenced by those who were eye witnesses.

...[text shortened]... ly witness?

Edit: I almost sound like Churchill or something. Not bad if you ask me. 😛

Blakbuzzrd's post is a good place to start. People having been dieing and killing all throughout history for things that arn't true. I'm sure that many of these things you'd agree were not true. Early Muslims dies for their faith, but most Christians won't give Islam the time of day, and dismiss those early Muslims imediatly.

Originally posted by whodey
Your point is well taken. In fact, Paul did get into arguements over whether the Jews should continue some of the pracitces of the Law of Moses. After all, these men were raised via Jewish tradition. For example, they were taught to circumcise themselves and such. In fact, these types of disputes continue in the church today. For example, should Christia ...[text shortened]... up in the letter of the law that we forget why we have the law or what it was intended for.

Therefore, my challenge to you is to find me written authentic evidence that ANY of the 12 disciples did not place their hope in the resurrective power of Jesus Christ for their salvation.

I need your help here,

Can you define written authentic evidence for me? do you mean from the Bible.


---------------
I have read your post, I have read the chapter you asked me to read. I'm just some how busy, but I will be back to you.