Paul may have been addressing problems in Corinthians, but his main message was being saved. Just about all Paul talks about, from my knowledge of the subject, is salvation. He brings up god, etc., but his stress is on salvation. How many times does he quote Jesus? How many times does he pass on the teachings of Jesus? Paul is pushing faith and grace, while Jesus stressed behaviors and deeds or actions. So Paul is more or less ignoring the actual teachings of Jesus and stressing faith and grace, something Jesus never pushed. The gospels that followed a few decades later did not get all excited about salvation either. They more accurately reflected what was by then known to be the teachings of Jesus. (It is presumed by historians that people had written down a lot of the teachings of Jesus, even though we don't have any proof that that is so. It would explain a bit about how the gospel writers knew what Jesus was purported to have said) Read Matthew 25:31-45 and show me the part where Jesus says entrance into heaven requires salvation.
If we are going to go by this, Jesus’ message was also on Salvation.
How many times does He quote Jesus? From all the books that have a claim that Paul wrote these books, I counted 8 times, not including repetitions.
How many times does Paul pass on the teachings of Jesus? Way to many to count. He constantly went out and preached unto the Gentiles, to the Jews, to the fellow Apostles, etc. He was imprisoned for passing on the teachings of Jesus.
Paul is pushing faith and grace, while Jesus stressed behaviors and deeds or actions. So Paul is more or less ignoring the actual teachings of Jesus and stressing faith and grace, something Jesus never pushed.
8:10 And hearing it Jesus was filled with admiration, and said to those that followed: Verily I say to you, not even in Israel have I found so great faith.
8:26 And he says to them: Why are you fearful, O you of little faith? Then he arose and rebuked the winds and the sea, and there was a great calm.
9:22 But he turned and saw her and said: Daughter, take courage; thy faith has saved thee. And the woman was saved from that hour.
9:29 Then he touched their eyes, saying: According to your faith be it done to you.
14:31 And Jesus immediately stretched forth his hand, and took hold of him, and said to him: O thou of little faith, why didst thou doubt?
15:28 Then Jesus answered and said to her: O woman, great is thy faith: be it done for thee as thou wilt. And her daughter was restored to health from that hour.
16:8 But Jesus perceiving it, said: Why reason among yourselves, O you of little faith, because you took no bread?
17:17 And Jesus answered and said, O generation unbelieving and perverse, how long shall I be with you? How long shall I bear with you; Bring him hither to me.
17:20 He said to them: Because of your little faith; for verily I say to you, if you have faith as a grain of mustard, you shall say to this mountain: Be removed hence to that place, and it shall remove, and nothing shall be impossible for you.
5:34 And he said to her: Daughter, thy faith has saved thee: go in peace, and be well of thy scourge.
9:19 And he answered and said to them: O faithless generation, how long shall I be with you? how long shall I bear with you? Bring him to me.
9:22 And he has often thrown him into the fire and into the water, to destroy him; but if in any way thou canst, have pity on us and help us.
9:23 But Jesus said to him: What is this “If thou canst”? All things are possible to him that believes.
10:52 Jesus said to him: Go, thy faith has saved thee. And he immediately received sight, and followed him in the way.
11:22 And Jesus answered and said to them: Have faith in God.
7:9 And when Jesus heard these things he was astonished at him; and turning, he said to the multitude that followed him: I say to you, not even in Israel have I found so great faith.
7:50 But he said to the woman: Thy faith has saved thee, go in peace.
8:25 And he said to them: Where is your faith? But being afraid they were astonished, saying one to another: Who then is this, that he commands both the winds and the water, and they obey him?
8:48 But he said to her: Daughter, thy faith has saved thee; go in peace.
8:50 But Jesus hearing it answered him: Fear not; only believe, and she shall be saved.
9:24 For whoever will save his life, shall lose it; but whoever may lose his life for my sake, he shall save it.
9:41 And Jesus answered and said: O generation faithless and perverse, how long shall I be with you, and bear with you? Bring thy son hither.
17:6 But the Lord said: If you have faith as a grain of mustard, you might say to this sycamine tree: Be uprooted and be planted in the sea, and it would obey you.
17:19 And he said to him: Arise and go: thy faith has saved thee.
18:42 And Jesus said to him: Receive sight: thy faith has saved thee.
19:9 And Jesus said to him: This day has salvation come to this house, inasmuch as he also is a son of Abraham;
19:10 for the Son of man has come to seek and save the lost.
22:32 but I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not. And thou, when thou hast turned to me, strengthen thy brethren.
3:15 that every one that believes in him may have life eternal.
3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whoever believes on him might not perish, but have life eternal.
3:17 For God sent not the Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world might be saved through him.
3:18 He that believes on him is not condemned: he that believes not is condemned already, because he has not believed on the name of the only begotten Son of God.
4:25 The woman says to him: I know that Messiah comes, who is called Christ: when he has come, he will tell us all things.
4:26 Jesus says to her: I that speak to thee am he.
5:24 Verily, verily, I say to you, that he that hears my word and believes on him that sent me has life eternal, and comes not into condemnation, but has passed out of death into life.
5:34 but I receive not testimony from man, but these things I say that you may be saved.
6:29 Jesus answered and said to them: This is the work of God, that you believe on him whom he has sent.
6:40 For this is the will of my Father, that whoever sees the Son and believes on him may have life eternal, and I shall raise him up in the last day.
6:47 Verily, verily, I say to you, he that believes has life eternal.
12:47 And if any one hear my words and keep them not, I judge him not; for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world.
20:27 Then he says to Thomas: Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands, and reach thy hand, and put it into my side, and be not faithless, but believing.
20:28 Thomas answered and said to him: My Lord and my God.
20:29 Jesus says to him: Because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that, though not seeing, have yet believed.
So, do you want to try that accusation again? Every Scripture above quote’s Christ’s words.
I’ll explain Matthew 25:31-45 later on.
Of course he wasn't dead yet so salvation hadn't been invented. But I don't see him even implying that it was going to take more than being genuinely kind and generous to go up (or wherever) once dead. Oh yea, and loving god. That's big too. But again, no mention of salvation.
Read above. Jesus mentions plenty on salvation as well. If anything, Jesus was a bigger advocate of faith/grace/ and salvation than Paul ever did.
Thomas Jefferson, who wrote his own version of the bible, taking out the mean parts, didn't like Paul at all. He once wrote in a letter to a friend that Paul was "first corrupter of the doctrines of Jesus". So do keep in mind that your version of how wonderful he was isn't necessarily shared by other christians.
So. What does Thomas Jefferson have to do with the debate? We are debating Jesus Christ and His validity, historical accuracy, and the 3(4) L’s about Him. We are not debating whether Paul was liked or disliked by a certain sect of Christians. Just because Paul is liked or dislike, doesn’t change anything, nor history.
I don't believe any of this stuff, but the way various factions of christianity, and individual customizations of the same, cherry pick their way through the orchard that is the bible is always intriguing.
I believe it, but I find it just as, if not more amusing that atheists do exactly what they criticize Christians of doing, and not just that, but an even greater volume and degree than the Christians they are pointing at.
You are impressed that christianity succeeded, and I am not. You are so impressed that you believe what you read in your bible. And I do not. Christianity had several attributes that apparently helped it along, despite the fact that it was and is just as false a religion as jainism an scientology.
You made the claim, so prove it.
You mean about the religion being false? If I could do that, we wouldn't need this site. If you could prove that christianity was true and your god was real, we wouldn't need this site. We need this site. [/quote]
No, prove to me I’m impressed that Christianity succeeded, because I really am not. Prove to me that because of this false impression I believe in what the Bible says.
Also, we don’t need the site for proving nor disproving anything. It’s a site for atheists to come and discuss about religion and science. Christians don’t have all the answers, but neither do atheists either.
So while you're oohing and aahing of 1st Corinthians, I'm paying attention to those attributes. They include:
Sources for these claims about me?
I'm being metaphorical. This bothers bible people? I apologize. In post #2, you said:
And here is what I say. I agree they make for a good story, but unlike the faiths of others, Jesus’ entire faith (Christianity) rests on the resurrection, not even necessarily His’ life. If you can really disprove the resurrection, then you have effectively disproven Christianity.
. I re-read that when went to look at why I thought you were oohing and aahing, and I see now that you are what I assume is called a "Paulist". Or a christian, version 2. So all this salvation stuff I've been talking about is probably pretty familiar to you. I'd still love to hear why Matthew 25:31-45 is something salvationists consider irrelevant. [/quote]
It was going back to the above, not necessarily that statement alone.
A Paulist? Salvationist? Never heard of that before. I just call myself a follower of Christ. Leave the labels and denominations to the political side of the churches. I myself despise the politics of religion.
31 But when the Son of man shall have come in his glory, and all the angels with him, then shall he sit on the throne of his glory;
32 and there shall be gathered before him all the nations; and he shall separate them one from another, as the shepherd separates the sheep from the goats;
33 and he shall place the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left.
34 Then shall the king say to those on his right: Come, you blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom that has been prepared for you from the foundation of the world.
35 For I was hungry, and you gave me to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave me drink; I was a stranger, and you took me to your homes;
36 I was naked, and you clothed me; I was sick, and you visited me; I was in prison, and you came to me.
37 Then shall the righteous answer him, saying: Lord, when saw we thee hungry and fed thee? or thirsty and gave thee drink?
38 And when saw we thee a stranger and took thee to our homes? or naked and clothed thee?
39 And when saw we thee sick or in prison and came to thee?
40 And the King shall answer and say to them: Verily I say to you, Inasmuch as you did it to one of the least of these my brethren, you did it to me.
41 Then shall, he say to those also on the left: Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire that is prepared for the devil and his angels.
42 For I was hungry, and you gave me not to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave, me no drink;
43 I was a stranger, and you took me not to your homes; naked, and you clothed me not: sick and in prison, and you visited me not.
44 Then shall they also answer him, saying: Lord, when saw we thee hungry, or thirsty, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and ministered not to thee?
45 Then shall he answer them, saying: Verily I say to you, Inasmuch as you did it not to one of the least of these, you did it not to me.
46 And these shall go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.
There is nothing irrelevant about this. This agrees with everything that the Bible says. I had no idea there were Christians who disagree with this. Guess you learn something new everyday.
Nowhere does it say entrance into Heaven requires salvation. It mentions neither salvation nor Heaven. The context of this is: this is the last day, judgment day if you will. It is showing off the golden rule sort to speak (what you do to others, you do to God, and it comes back to you). It is showing that because an individual was compassionate towards people, they are compassionate towards God, and the selfish were all about themselves, and treated people as such. Them being evil and ill towards people, showed that they were ill towards God.
The ones that are compassionate, will go into eternal life (not heaven). The selfish, evil, vile, and wicked ones, will go into eternal punishment (which we all know is death, which is eternal, and is cessation of existing).
All who Truly love and follow Christ, will bear this mark of compassion and love on them. You can never know a True Christian from a False Christian, but this can at least show you who False Christians can be.
Where did Paul say take care of the poor? Is there a quote in one of his books that I don't know about? If he is a big teacher of christianity, why is he not teaching what Jesus said and did? Through word and deed. Jesus raised the dead and Paul doesn't mention it? Even you mention it. What gives? Though Paul is credited with pulling off a few miracles himself, I don't recall anywhere in the bible where Paul is teaching about the miracles of Jesus. Now I tend to assume that is because Jesus didn't do any anyway, and Paul's are made up, but if Paul was the first big christian, why was he leaving out all the good parts? Why does his message not match that of Jesus. Why does he teach that Jesus lived but not much about what Jesus said or did? Did he have an agenda? Were his old anti-christian feeling still alive inside him? Inquiring minds want to know. And I have no trouble finding christians who don't like him via google.
Paul’s words weren’t poor and rich, but rather strong and weak. The message is still the same, just different wordings.
Paul is and did teach what Jesus said and did. You even quoted me one the Corinthians verse I quoted, which is already one example of Paul preaching on the Words and Miracles of Christ. You told me one example yourself and you are questioning this?
Nothing Paul preached contradicted what Christ taught. Paul’s teachings are Christ’s teachings. You’ll have to show me where they don’t add up, because they compliment each other perfectly.
This debate is about Jesus Christ, not about how likable or unlikable Paul is.
People die for their beliefs all the time. Including many beliefs you don't have anything to do with. People are capable of taking a lot of things to heart. Not all of them can be true. Being stoned and flying into buildings are both ways to express belief. Neither is inherently impressive.
I knew a guy who drowned when he jumped in deep irrigation ditch in an effort to save his old dog that had fallen in. He believed it was that important. Also, both Paul and Peter died at the hands of Nero, who didn't like lots of people, including christians. If arrested as a christian, I have no reason to think that one could recant and be saved from death. Nero didn't roll like that.
Doesn’t change anything I said.
You're using modern interpretations of what happened 2,000 years ago. Why am I limited? Every generation customizes their religion. In the 15th century, paintings of the tomb portrayed Jesus being guarded by uniformed Swiss army guards. That's how they made the story modern. Fundamentalist christians who follow the same basic story you are telling here cropped up in the 1970's. Believers with that general attitude (you have to be born again) were relatively rare until the resurgence of that period. They certainly had way too little political power until their growth starting in that decade.
Context. That is something that is heavily missing from both sides of the argument for both Christians and Atheists.
Anybody is twisting anything and everything to get anything to mean whatever they want it to mean. This is why I decided to go with the earliest complete Bible known to Man, and why I choose only to dwell in the early debut Christian history, and not any of the money sucking political bs called Christianity today. I think the dwelling on the money sucking political bs is why there are so many problems today, and just about every argument on this site and beyond I’ve heard (with the exception of a very select few), is a product of the modern mainstream bs, and not the early church. I see Christianity’s debut, if brought about today, would actually correct just about every problem atheists have with Christianity, and Christians would just believe and not become intolerant zealots who want to shove a Bible down a non-believer’s throat. They would just leave people alone instead of borderline stalking unbelievers and just let them do their thing instead.
I was giving three reasons why christianity has prospered while other religions did not. Christians want us to think it is because it is the right religion. I was giving you reasons it succeeded that have nothing to do with it being right, but rather that it was in the right place at the right time. The Paul part is irrelevant to that portion of my argument.
I will agree the possibility is there. Remember that Mormonism and Islam were also a success, but were so at very differing times than Christianity. But I agree, there is that possibility, but I believe it was because of Christ, that Christianity succeeded.
The fact that the catholic version of christianity is much different that the protestant version, or whatever, is not much of an argument. That christianity is so customizable has always fascinated me. All christianity had was the catholics and the eastern orthodox for centuries. But now there are tens of thousands of versions. That is not actually impressive.
It is an argument whenever the views that are being argued corresponds with 1 particular branch of Christianity, and that 1 branch is being used to paint the rest with a broad brush. Trust me, not all Baptist churches are like Westboro Baptist Church.
I already touched up on the customization earlier.
First of all, I had one kid when I wasn't married, and one when I was. Two different women. I live in Montana, and all you have to do to be married is say you are and the state recognizes it. That's how my marriage happened. No ceremony. It was done for tax purposes, or it wouldn't have happened. And that one is over. I am currently a happy man.
I apologize for the misinterpretation, and I thank you for the correction. I am glad you are currently a happy man. It is always great to hear somebody is doing good.
You also have a very romantic version of the history of marriage. Marriage and love were not connected until very recently in the history of western civilization. Marriage was for convenience, or for making alliances, or for survival. Love was a bonus when it happened, but it usually wasn't a component. People got married long before christianity came along, and the variations on the marriage theme that exist in different cultures is rather astounding. As an idealistic version of what marriage is, your description is pretty good. In the real world, is it useless. If it's so great, why are the divorce rates higher in the fundamentalist south than the liberal northeast?
Correction to be made. My romantic view of marriage is dealing with the as you said, the modern Christian version of marriage. Even the Bible shows that back in the day, Polygamy was the proper marriage, and that marriages were arranged at birth by their parents rather than by love or friendship like today. I know the history of marriage, and my thoughts on marriage deal only with the modern view of it, but I can’t help but feel overall Christianity was responsible for the modern view of marriage.
As I said, I don’t need to dwell into the politics of certain views. The divorces happen because not many people Truly mean their vows anymore. It is all just a phase to most people.
I don’t need the input, because my parents have only married 1 time (to each other), and they are still married, and we are still a great family. Yes, every family has problems, but nobody used it as an excuse to divorce. My life testimony disproves my ideologies of marriage are useless. I see my view of marriage work 1st hand, so I don’t care what politics say, I know it can last and lead to a fulfilling life. With that being said, marriage isn’t for everybody.
I hope you find someone, fall in love, get married and live happily ever after. But if that happens, you will at some point notice that it's no big deal. Unless you survive it.
Thank you! I do highly appreciate this! If I never do find a partner, as long as I’m happy, that is all that matters.
My point was that christianity is big because some religion was probably going to be big. And it's big in Europe as well as in North and South America. And that it's success has nothing to do with it's legitimacy, but rather it's good fortune to be the fastest runner, so to speak.
I will at least agree on the latter half of the 1st sentence. Concerning popularity, Europe more and more is becoming a Secular Continent. There was even the thread by someone on here who was speaking of the way Christianity works in Sweden, then just about most of my bands I listen to are from either Norway, Sweden, and Finland, I can somewhat testify Christianity is not doing so well in Europe.
North America, I really don’t need to explain. We already know mostly over here, you either have the zealots, or the latest fashion trend concerning religion. Otherwise NA is probably one of the most secular countries on the planet, as it was originally intended ironically.
South America, is actually heavily into occultism and the old African tribal religions. Because I said that, and this is on religion and not Christianity I will agree with you on that.
If you want major Christian, the only Continent I’ve heard like this nowadays is Australia. Other than them, Christianity is pretty much dying off on it’s own, and you have spots of great Christianity, but no overwhelming like Australia.
You are of course right about many using the power of christianity for the purpose of making money, etc. So you're not a naive as I thought. And christianity is not the only source of power and greed and selfishness either. Business and government and organized crime and corruption all play the same game. I'm not comparing the Lutheran Church or Even Oral Roberts to the mafia, but any time money or power is available, someone will be there to take charge. Religion (and not just christianity) provides one of those paths to success that we all wish didn't exist. The main reason poor people need help is because there are so many out there willing to make people poor in the first place. Today and 2,000 years ago.
This I will agree with. I find nothing to disagree with, but they do rub off of each other hand in hand. Notice a requirement to become President of the US is to say you are Christian. Then, our current “Christian” president took over 8 million jobs away from it’s own people, using their money to bail out big businesses, only to turn around and those big businesses gave themselves a raise.
So, Christianity is not intended for what you say, but yes, you are correct here. People always wish to seek power, fame, and money. People can use Truth and Lies to obtain it. Because of this, I see People as the problem, not the religion within itself.
The Christian Bible does say somewhere, that the love of money is a root of all evil afterall.
The messages of social justice Jesus is said to have given were timely and actually valuable. Once you get into the miracles and the resurrection you've moved past the useful. Paul ignored huge portions of what Jesus said and then added features to the religion that were never mentioned by the Son.
Anyway, in Paul you have someone who says he saw Jesus rise from the dead and someone who introduces the concept of salvation from your sins to the mix. Many a christian does not like that message, and feel it is a distortion. Many other christians like it just fine. But liking or disliking something doesn't do anything to verify the subject matter. Dying for something doesn't verify it. For me, the gospels and the works of Paul are only stories. As I said somewhere else, nothing in the bible matches what I see in the real world. Petty bickering over how to get into heaven included.
Debunked the 1st sentence up above.
But liking or disliking something doesn't do anything to verify the subject matter.
I agree heavily with this. My question is, why are you using like or dislike to verify subject matters like Paul and His Letters?
As I will say, the concept of Heaven is a concept and problem of the modern day church bs, and it is the modern church as to why you don’t see anything in the Bible in the real world.
Read the Bible, you’ll see it is about Life and Death, and Revelation goes into grand detail about this with the Judgement day, and how it all works out.
There is no getting into Heaven. It is living forever, and I don’t believe living forever means that we cease to learn or eat or enjoy any of the pleasures we have on this earth, as this earth will be where eternity is. We will still continue to learn and grow and experience, the only real difference is that there will be no sin. That does not mean there may not be any conflict, but that means there will be no sin.
Since we are speaking of eternity, if not for art and artistry, after a few sextillions of years, I do see what you guys could be referring to about life becoming nothing more than a stagnation. I think there may be the possibility of this happening, and then we of course would want to die off of that, but we don’t know what eternal life is like, so what can I say about it? I will agree that it seems no matter what happens, you will die by stagnation or die by annihilation, and whichever way you choose, death is the final outcome. One death is a guarantee and one death is only a guess, an assumption.
I think that is why I love art and artistry, because even the most stagnate of stagnation, art keeps things going. Keeps things fresh and new. Brings forth knowledge wisdom and intelligence.
Anyways, I heavily apologize for the delay. Finally had the time to make the reply.