Did Paul base creeds on “mystery� or blind-faith?

[paarsurrey1]

Did Paul base creeds on “mystery� to make Christianity a blind-faith?

But Jesus believed with reason.
Paul, for his own suitability, wanted that people should inculcate blind-faith in them instead of reason and Revelation from God, to bring them under his control.
The truthful Religion has got nothing to do with blind-faith, please.
Regards

[paarsurrey1]

[Replying to post 58 by Elijah John]

Other than that, Islam seems a quite Deistic, Monotheistic religion. A frequent refrain in the Qur'an is "These are signs for thinking men". An appeal to reason, based on the observation of nature.

Islam may not have progressed too far beyond authoritarian and sometimes extremist applications, (as can be seen in many headlines) but in it's conception it seems quite benevolent and yes, even enlightening.

I appreciate your post.
Regards

[paarsurrey1]

[Replying to post 58 by Elijah John]

My theological positions:

-God created us in His image, not the other way around.
-The Bible is redeemed by it's good parts.
-Pure monotheism, simple repentance.
-YHVH is LORD
-The real Jesus is not God, the real YHVH is not a monster.
-Eternal life is a gift from the Living God.
-Keep the Commandments, keep your salvation.
-I have accepted YHVH as my Heavenly Father, LORD and Savior.

I am inspired by Jesus to worship none but YHVH, and to serve only Him.

I appreciate and agree with all of your above concepts with minor adjustments, please.
Regards

[brianbbs67]

I think we are Sadducees and Pharisees arguing. The message is missed. I am smart enough to know. I don't know. Every time I think I do, God shows me different. He is the vine, we are the branches. Many paths lead here. Thus the gate.

[marco]

We really differ on this. Whereas Paul may have replicated Jesus teaching on love, he also taught things that Jesus himself never seems to have taught. Things like blood-atoning human sacrifice, and Jesus having a pre-exsiting "first born or all Creation" state of being.

Well we don't really differ too much since I find much of what Paul says objectionable. Paul liked Paul more than he liked Jesus, it would seem, despite his Uriah Heep humility.

I see Mohammad as a corrective prophet of God.

Yes, he corrected things in favour of himself since he was an astute trader and military leader. He was expert at attacking caravans and getting booty which he handed over to followers. And he had a hearty sexual appetite. His declaration he had a chat with God was a stroke of genius that wins admirers today, as well as jihadist brutes keen to reap the sexual heavenly benefits Muhammad craftily promised. His flight of fancy on a winged horse surpasses anything Jesus thought up. Muhammad founded a political institution that still keeps women in servitude. Attributing his victories, such as Badr, to Allah, assured him of a place in history - and a giant following.

[paarsurrey1]

Marco
Well we don't really differ too much since I find much of what Paul says objectionable. Paul liked Paul more than he liked Jesus, it would seem, despite his Uriah Heep humility.

Paul liked Paul more than he liked Jesus

Paul hijacked the followers of Jesus and cleverly made Jesus' character-assassination.
Paul did exactly the perfectly matched what Jesus had forewarned his sheep of a wolf in sheep's clothing.

Regards

[marco]

Paul hijacked the followers of Jesus and cleverly made Jesus' character-assassination.
Paul did exactly the perfectly matched what Jesus had forewarned his sheep of a wolf in sheep's clothing.

And many would say that Muhammad did exactly the same thing but in a more audacious way. He said "I am the final prophet. Listen to me." I can think of no better example than this that illustrates Christ's warning. As you discredit Paul, others discredit Muhammad. Who - if any - is right?

[paarsurrey1]

[Replying to post 58 by Elijah John]
Elijah John

I see Mohammad as a corrective prophet of God, ignoring the institution of blood sacrifice altogether, and explicitly stating that "God is not begotten, nor does He beget". And He has no (literal) Son, but rather He is uniquely One.

Mohammad as a corrective prophet of God

This is one aspect of Muhammad's title "Khatam-un-Nabiyyeen" or Seal of the Prophets by YHVH, with the teachings given to him by Allah in Quran, one could easily see the core original teachings given to any prophet/messenger of God in the past, this is the seal of authentication that Muhammad is. Prophets/Messengers could come after Muhammad under discretion of YHVH but with no new Law, they will follow Muhammad in teachings and his sunnah/acts as authentication from Muhammad. Mirza Ghulam Ahmad 1835-1908 is one such prophet/messenger of Allah and valid Successor of Muhammad. Right, please?

Regards

[marco]

This is one aspect of Muhammad's title "Khatam-un-Nabiyyeen" or Seal of the Prophets by YHVH, with the teachings given to him by Allah in Quran, one could easily see the core original teachings given to any prophet/messenger of God in the past, this is the seal of authentication that Muhammad is. Prophets/Messengers could come after Muhammad under discretion of YHVH but with no new Law, they will follow Muhammad in teachings and his sunnah/acts as authentication from Muhammad. Mirza Ghulam Ahmad 1835-1908 is one such prophet/messenger of Allah and valid Successor of Muhammad. Right, please?

Muhammad is his own authenticator. The writings came from him and presumably his literate scribes, so he is the proposer of his own status, not Allah. Others who claim to have spoken to God naturally do the same sort of thing - suggest they are "special." It's a pity the almighty hasn't cleared up the problem of umpteen messengers.

It is sad you reproach Paul, who never claimed prophet status, and yet support Muhammad, who did. They were both violent men in their time but Paul seems later to have been a peace-lover, who adored God, while Muhammad was a tough soldier and raider, who used God. Or that is how it seems.

[paarsurrey1]

[Replying to post 68 by marco]

Paul, who never claimed prophet status

Yes, Paul did not claim to be a prophet in so many words, but he claimed to have a conversation with Jesus whom he upgraded, fictionally, as God and it is one of the creeds of Pauline-Christianity :

"The Conversion of Paul

In the three versions of Paul’s conversion (Acts 9:1-9, 22:6-11, 26:9-20), there are repeated elements which appear to be central to his mission and commissioning. First, it marked his conversion to Christianity; second, it constituted his call to be a prophet; and third, it served as his commission to be an apostle. These three points may be broken down into the following, more intimate considerations: (1) Paul was specifically chosen, set aside, and prepared by the Lord for the work that he would do; (2) Paul was sent as a witness to not just the Jews, but the Gentiles as well; (3) Paul’s evangelistic mission would encounter rejection and require suffering; (4) Paul would bring light to people who were born into and currently lived in darkness; (5) Paul would preach repentance was required prior to a person’s acceptance into the Christian faith; (6) Paul’s witness would be grounded in space-time history and be based on his Damascus Road experience—what he had personally seen and heard in a real location that would be known to all who lived in Damascus."
https://www.gotquestions.org/apostle-Pa ... ophet.html

In this sense, Paul deserves to be a "false prophet". Does one believe him as such, please?

Regards

[marco]

Yes, Paul did not claim to be a prophet in so many words, but he claimed to have a conversation with Jesus whom he upgraded, fictionally, as God and it is one of the creeds of Pauline-Christianity :

Can you tell me what is the difference between Paul claiming to have had a miraculous conversion and Muhammad claiming to have received words from God? Both were fallible human beings. You believe Muhammad but you don't believe Paul. Why the difference?