Why Was Paul's Teaching More Acceptable?

Peace, Love, & Understanding :)
Not quite. Jesus ended up with 2.3 billion followers (and still increasing).
Click to expand...
The followers of Jesus can be counted on the fingers of one hand. YOU certainly display precious little peace, love, or understanding, Q
The Epistle to the Romans, regarded by many as the apex of the Pauline Corpus, was written to a church not founded by him.
Click to expand...
The "Romans" epistle was not originally addressed to Rome. It is a cut-and-paste of two or perhaps three letters, addressed to we don't know who (but the material is certainly from Paul, so it doesn't much matter); the text as we have it accidentally incorporates a "cover letter" (the epistle of Tertius, found in the last couple chapters) written to the Roman community (of the 2nd century: the list of names is far too long to be a 1st century community, and includes some names like "Hermas" known from other sources to be 2nd century personalities) by someone who was forwarding these Pauline texts to Rome. The earliest published text of "Romans" did not include the Tertius material, or the long interpolation about Paul's supposed plans to travel on to Spain.
According to Clement, and the other early sources, the community in Rome was founded by Paul. We see in the book of Acts that when Paul arrived in Rome, there were no Christians there for him to stay with (he had to rent a house, unlike the other places he stayed), only Jewish rabbis who are interested to hear his side of things because "all we know about this sect is that it is spoken against everywhere."
The Christians in Judea never accepted Paul's new version of the faith.
Can you back up such claims with evidence, please.
Click to expand...
The Judean Christians, commonly known as the "Ebionites", continued for some centuries. Their leadership was always drawn from Jesus' family: after Jesus was gone, his brother James was "the Messiah" (anointed, rightful king), then their cousin Simeon, and so on; each in turn was "the king" but Jesus was "the king of kings" (supreme human, who would rule over all the kings as well as everyone else at the end times). They rejected the virgin birth story and the Pauline theology in its entirety.
but that author was a late forger, from the Pauline Christian communities, not a first-generation representative of the original disciples.
No scholar would make such a claim.
Click to expand...
Practically EVERY scholar says so. The issue is not really debatable: there is no reason whatsoever to think of 2nd Peter as genuine, or early.
Well as Pierre Benoit OP was a scholar with a global reputation ... I would suggest the weight of evidence and opinion is against you.
Click to expand...
I don't care who he is. What matters is what he says, not who says it. The weight of the EVIDENCE is that mythologies elaborate very quickly, often, quite opposite to what he claims.
And I find it strange that you are willing to make arguments from authority in this case, while disregarding the scholarly opinion on the pseudepigraphic epistles.
The position of Rome seems to have been accepted from the close of the first century, as Clement of Rome's epistle to the Corinthians indicates.
Click to expand...
Rome had some pre-eminence over the Greek communities founded by Paul; also over Italy, and Rome's supremacy was never disputed in Spain. Gaul and North Africa sometimes did and sometimes didn't follow Rome; the East never did.
Actually the 'organised church' was a reality in Paul's day, the structure of bishops, presbyters and deacons already in place
Click to expand...
You are believing that the epistles to Timothy are genuine. There are no good grounds for any such belief.
 
bob x said:
The followers of Jesus can be counted on the fingers of one hand. YOU certainly display precious little peace, love, or understanding, Q.
Click to expand...
tee hee, first thought, you've gotta take a picture of that hand! At a minimum we can say 12 followers, but then we can easily add more, after all you don't send 600 men to arrest the leader of a handful, unless of course we are talking Waco and the BATF. But then of course there is the story of the 5,000, but you are correct many of those were there just for the buffet, but then the 5k doesn't include women and kids, that still amounts to the potential of a guiness record appendage.

But then I contemplate the end of your statement and the implication that they were a significant number of hangers on, but very few that grocked the message and were actually followers.

But then I wondered if Paul made any difference in that regard, and if your above statement was in relation to today or the OP.
 
Last edited:
bob x said:
According to Clement, and the other early sources, the community in Rome was founded by Paul.
Click to expand...
So tradition is acceptable when it supports your argument, but not, when it doesn't?

There is often precious little clear ground to say much with absolute certainty on these matters, and scholarship generally acknowledges that. What results are theories and speculations, but rarely hard or indisputable proofs.

There is certainly not enough evidence to support the claims you are making, especially when the grounds on which they stand are far more tenuous than the grounds you reject, and that most of the data derives from the works of the Fathers anyway, viewpoints which you accept or reject out of hand according to your own agenda.

We all select, but when your argument is presented as 'proof', based on "I don't care" when a contrary (and world-recognised) view is offered, then I see no point in arguing.

Thomas
 
Thomas: "So tradition is acceptable when it supports your argument, but not, when it doesn't?"
All tradition is "evidence", strong or weak; but where the traditions are in conflict, traditions near to the time are stronger than late traditions (Clement was actually alive when Paul and Peter were in Rome; the editors of "Romans" as we have it now were not). I strongly agree with you that, "There is often precious little clear ground to say much with absolute certainty on these matters, and scholarship generally acknowledges that. "

Quahom: "You don't know me from Adam, Bob."
All I know of you is what you chose to show me: a willingness to do me harm, without cause, based on an irrational hatred.
 
bob x said:
Quahom: "You don't know me from Adam, Bob."
All I know of you is what you chose to show me: a willingness to do me harm, without cause, based on an irrational hatred.
Click to expand...

Huh? All in your own mind...

I don't hate anyone, especially you. I don't know you. I have no idea where that came from...but if you feel I hate you so much, feel free to file a complaint with the admin. In fact I insist that you do. That way we can get this issue out in the open and resolved.

v/r

Q
 
Thomas said:
Actually the 'organised church' was a reality in Paul's day, the structure of bishops, presbyters and deacons already in place (organised by Peter) and, as some say (and I am inclined towards) based on the ecclesial lines of the Essences, from converts to Christianity.

...

Mark and Matthew could be argued as contemporary with Paul, Luke was a disciple of Paul. John's gospel was primarily aimed at combatting the teachings of Cerinthus that was being promulgated at Ephesus at the time, nothing to do with the wider Church.

And usually I'm defending Paul against accusations of the 'invention' of Christianity, not the Gospels!
Click to expand...

I haven't been able to locate any definitive, objective historical evidence which lays out a solid chronology of the Church's early development. I just don't know what actually happened. I'm inclined to think that the Gospel narratives are almost, if not entirely fictitious. Same goes for Acts. I know that Paul was a real person, and I accept the consensus of scholarship on which writings are authentically his. I try very hard to keep in mind what I actually know and what I don't. It's mostly don't! Unfortunately there is so much "political" pressure to arrange the facts to suit one's point of view that it's nearly impossible to have an honest conversation about any of it. I appreciate your constant effort to be objective, and I realize that there are common sense constraints on what you are willing to say.

Chris
 
Quahom: I have been without health insurance for years, and as a result have untreated problems that will likely shorten my life. In our only prior interaction, you wanted to keep things that way, for purported reasons so flimsy and specious that "irrational" is a polite term for it. You did little to conceal the true reason, that you are willing to say or do ANYTHING, anything at all, as long as it does injury to me and my kind.
Yes, you are a stranger to me: a stranger who wants to throw me under a bus. That is as much as I need to know about you, to know that you are not very reminiscent of Jesus.
 
bob x said:
Quahom: I have been without health insurance for years, and as a result have untreated problems that will likely shorten my life. In our only prior interaction, you wanted to keep things that way, for purported reasons so flimsy and specious that "irrational" is a polite term for it. You did little to conceal the true reason, that you are willing to say or do ANYTHING, anything at all, as long as it does injury to me and my kind.
Yes, you are a stranger to me: a stranger who wants to throw me under a bus. That is as much as I need to know about you, to know that you are not very reminiscent of Jesus.
Click to expand...

Care to refresh my memory as to what irrational thought I had that would keep you from having insurance? And since you are in Michigan, I would assume you are aware of State offered insurance augments?

v/r

Q

p.s. never mind, I remember now. Domestic Partner benefits...back in October. You thought the insurance companies could handle the surge of such benefits extended to those other than married couples and family and I thought they could not.
 
Last edited:
In Michigan, it is specifically illegal (written into the constitution, in fact) for one of us to cover another; something the "Good Christians" pushed through. Your rant about how insurance companies would be "bankrupted" was irrationally far from any reality, and the intensity of your rant exposed the intensity of your hatred.
 
bob x said:
In Michigan, it is specifically illegal (written into the constitution, in fact) for one of us to cover another; something the "Good Christians" pushed through. Your rant about how insurance companies would be "bankrupted" was irrationally far from any reality, and the intensity of your rant exposed the intensity of your hatred.
Click to expand...

I remember that too. Infact it was not only the Christian populace, but the Jewish populace as well as Dearborn/Detroit's Muslim populace as well as the majority of the rest of the citizenry that voted that way.

As far as the insurance companies not being able to handle the onslaught of people co-insuring others...yes it would bankrupt the companies. Or else they would pull out of the state.

So, it boiled down to, vote for all to be covered (in which none would be covered, because there would be no insurance companies honoring the state), or keep the status quo for the majority of the populace...

edit: Mayhap the next president will push for "insurance" that covers all people (but it will be government insurance). But then the majority have to vote on that as well.

I don't hate anyone. You?

One more thing: As I recall for anyone to cover another with their insurance, that covered person has to be declared a "dependent", upon the one doing the insuring (which means the one has to provide for over 50 percent of the other's sustenance, and be legally a dependent). I know this because I was able to do it with my nephew by marriage. In short, one must legally become a "ward" of another.

Maybe I just gave you a "loop hole" to explore...
 
Infact it was not only the Christian populace, but the Jewish populace as well as Dearborn/Detroit's Muslim populace as well as the majority of the rest of the citizenry that voted that way.
Click to expand...
The Muslims, of course, are worse than the Christians, but no, there was no significant support among the Jews, nor among non-believers. All the money came from two sources: the "Family" put up about half, and the Catholic archdiocese the rest. The "Family" was responsible for the the deceitful advertising, specifically denying that they had any intention to take away people's insurance, or to do anything except "save marriage"; and also for the immediate lawsuits, to make sure that our insurance was taken away.
As far as the insurance companies not being able to handle the onslaught of people co-insuring others...yes it would bankrupt the companies.
Click to expand...
Domestic partnership insurance exists in numerous states. No insurance company has remotely been threatened by bankruptcy. We are not a very big percentage of the population, you know. You are making up nonsense out of nothing, because you will say, and do, ANYTHING, anything at all, as long as it does us injury.
I don't hate anyone.
Click to expand...
You don't CALL it "hate". Fine, you can call it or not call it whatever you want. You do me injury, for no cause, that is what I call "hate".
One more thing: As I recall for anyone to cover another with their insurance, that covered person has to be declared a "dependent",
Click to expand...
In Michigan, where a same-sex couple is involved, it does not matter in the least who is or is not dependent: the initial lawsuit was aimed at taking away insurance from the children raised by a lesbian couple, on grounds that recognizing those children as anything other than legal strangers to the one who was not the biological "mother" would be acknowledging something like a marriage.
In short, one must legally become a "ward" of another.
Click to expand...
That is specifically against the law in Michigan where same-sex couples are involved, same reasoning.
 
bob x said:
It's not so funny at the sharp end of the stick.
Click to expand...
I think you meant "bayonet"...
Where I come from we don't use them. We know how, but it isn't our style. We prefer to save lives... in fact we're pretty good at it (about 1.2 million confirmed to date).

semper paratus
 

Attachments

  • CG Shield.jpg
    CG Shield.jpg
    6.3 KB · Views: 154
bob x said:
Except for mine, of course. Me, you would rather find excuses to leave to die.
Click to expand...
If what you are implying is that because you think differently about amourous issues, I think you should be cast off...then you are a fool.

I have family in the same boat, as you imply you are in. That's where me and my family step in, as we still take care of our own, because we love them, where the gov't will not...

So, pack it, Bob.
 
A friendly reminder that this is the board that discusses thoughts about a guy who said things like "Love your neighbor as yourself" and "Forgive 7 x 70"

Didn't Paul the topic of this thread say "Let the mind of Christ be in you"?

Just wondering if we can all consider this for a minute.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top