Why didn't Paul write about what Jesus said and did? Or can you show us that he

[oldbadger]

Paul DID constantly explain the communion and the resurrection of Jesus....yes he did.

But he didn't seem to write anything about the life and times of Jesus......... Can you tell us why?

Maybe he didn't think that the words and actions of Jesus were that important?

[Clownboat]

You weren't just listing verses, you made a claim based off of your understanding of those verses.

My claim is that Jesus would be rolling in his grave right now if he knew what Paul did to his message. I base this off of my reading of the Bible. Your mileage obviously varies.

If you aren't offering an interpretation,

I wasn't, just listed some of the verses that give me pause and suggest that my claim above is correct. Your mileage obviously varies and you haven't been convinced.
What I ask you is: is it possible that a threat of going to a hell or a threat of not getting to a heaven is a stumbling block for you when reading the Bible? Could that demand of you, that there must be some other interpretation of the words outside of how they read and why you are asking me to interpret for you?

then your claim that Paul's teachings contradict Jesus' teachings is empty because one must offer interpretations of both texts to say they contradict.

I believe that it is foolish to think that anyone can interpret words from thousands of years ago that were penned many, many decades after they were to have taken place. All we have is the words in the book, a book that claims that dead bodies left their graves and walked the streets of Jerusalem mind you as well as other seemingly impossible claims like sorcer'ing up fish and bread or the earth ceasing to rotate. You can't just interpret such things away..

Why isn't it logical for God to have some things that require certain knowledge to properly understand it?

I see why you are confused. You got my claim wrong.
Copy/paste: It is not logical that an all powerful and all knowing God would create a message for all of humanity, but then require pastors, priests and theologians to the interpret the message.

If you were arguing for a non all powerful and non all knowing god concept, then we could expect what we have. If the god concept is all powerful and all knowing as the actual claims go and had a message for all of humanity, there would be no reason to get non all knowing and non all powerful humans involved to corrupt it. That would be illogical.

[William]

[Replying to Clownboat in post #81]

Is there a pattern here?
For example, can we identify things in the 613-mitzvot which could be seen to contradict things in the 10 commandments?
(What Does Jesus say about the biblical law? What Does Paul say about the biblical law?)

It is not logical that an all powerful and all knowing God would create a message for all of humanity, but then require pastors, priests and theologians to the interpret the message.

Does the bible specifically make the claim that God is "all powerful and all knowing" or is it a case of folk reading things into it?
Also, are there any instance in biblical script which give a clear indication that God is not all powerful and all knowing?

[Clownboat]

Is there a pattern here?
For example, can we identify things in the 613-mitzvot which could be seen to contradict things in the 10 commandments?
(What Does Jesus say about the biblical law? What Does Paul say about the biblical law?)

I await the answer.

Does the bible specifically make the claim that God is "all powerful and all knowing" or is it a case of folk reading things into it?

Yes to both.
Revelation 19:6-7
New King James Version
6 And I heard, as it were, the voice of a great multitude, as the sound of many waters and as the sound of mighty thunderings, saying, “Alleluia! For the[a] Lord God Omnipotent reigns!

Believers also 'read into it' via the Genesis creation story (resurrection claims and other miracles as well) by claiming that only an all powerful being could create the universe out of nothing for one example.
Just ask any believer if there is anything greater then their god concept for further proof.

Also, are there any instance in biblical script which give a clear indication that God is not all powerful and all knowing?

I await the answer.

[William]

Is there a pattern here?
For example, can we identify things in the 613-mitzvot which could be seen to contradict things in the 10 commandments?
(What Does Jesus say about the biblical law? What Does Paul say about the biblical law?)

I await the answer.

Does the bible specifically make the claim that God is "all powerful and all knowing" or is it a case of folk reading things into it?

Yes to both.
Revelation 19:6-7
New King James Version
6 And I heard, as it were, the voice of a great multitude, as the sound of many waters and as the sound of mighty thunderings, saying, “Alleluia! For the[a] Lord God Omnipotent reigns!

Believers also 'read into it' via the Genesis creation story (resurrection claims and other miracles as well) by claiming that only an all powerful being could create the universe out of nothing for one example.
Just ask any believer if there is anything greater then their god concept for further proof.

Also, are there any instance in biblical script which give a clear indication that God is not all powerful and all knowing?

I await the answer.

Understood.

Where you wrote "claiming that only an all powerful being could create the universe out of nothing for one example." I agree with this evaluation. I also think that there is no reason to believe that the universe came into being out of nowhere. The logical resolve is to understand that which is the "something" which makes up the universe, must have existed. Otherwise what would science be showing us, that would be any different from the view that the universe come out of nothing?

[SiNcE_1985]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #74]

Baseless claims, empty assertions, subjective opinionated views.

Let me know when meat and potatoes are on the menu.

[The Tanager]

I wasn't, just listed some of the verses that give me pause and suggest that my claim above is correct. Your mileage obviously varies and you haven't been convinced.

They can only give you pause because you are interpreting them in a specific way that gives you pause.

What I ask you is: is it possible that a threat of going to a hell or a threat of not getting to a heaven is a stumbling block for you when reading the Bible?

Would you accept my answer as an honest one, if it doesn't fit what you assume about me? If you will, then know that threats of hell or missing out on heaven don't drive my thinking; the pursuit of truth does. Regardless of what you think, or even assuming I'm lying, rational people have no time for psychologizing like this. One’s motivations don’t matter when debating the truth of a subject; the reasoning of one’s arguments for their claims do. That is what rational people stick to.

Could that demand of you, that there must be some other interpretation of the words outside of how they read and why you are asking me to interpret for you?

“How they read” is semantics for your interpretation.

I believe that it is foolish to think that anyone can interpret words from thousands of years ago that were penned many, many decades after they were to have taken place. All we have is the words in the book, a book that claims that dead bodies left their graves and walked the streets of Jerusalem mind you as well as other seemingly impossible claims like sorcer'ing up fish and bread or the earth ceasing to rotate. You can't just interpret such things away.

Yet your interpretation gives you pause.

I see why you are confused. You got my claim wrong.
Copy/paste: It is not logical that an all powerful and all knowing God would create a message for all of humanity, but then require pastors, priests and theologians to the interpret the message.

If you were arguing for a non all powerful and non all knowing god concept, then we could expect what we have. If the god concept is all powerful and all knowing as the actual claims go and had a message for all of humanity, there would be no reason to get non all knowing and non all powerful humans involved to corrupt it. That would be illogical.

I don’t see how I was misunderstanding you; my response remains the same. Why is an all powerful and all knowing God getting non all knowing and non all powerful humans involved to corrupt (do you mean this in the sense of ‘misunderstand,’ ‘change’ or something else?) it, illogical?

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #74]

Baseless claims, empty assertions, subjective opinionated views.

Let me know when meat and potatoes are on the menu.

They are on the menu all the time. If you refuse to partake, that's up to you.

Like here:

Third off, he sorta sees, sir, that Paul's belated vision of Jesus was ...visionary and he works out that it should be between racing to Damascus to ruin Christians callcenters there and being converted when he is there. So a sorta Vision is invented on the way. Yet Paul suggests it was a visit to the Third heaven where Jesus told him his gospel, I suppose, as Paul got it from above, not from men. So the conversion doesn't fit what Paul says.

Nor does the escape from Damascus. Paul says it was to escape the Nabatean army. He absurdly claims they were after him, but he simply fled danger leaving is fellow Christians to face the heat. Luke relates this bit of Bio. but alters it to smear the Jews, saying it was a plot to kill him (cue the 'weaving together' apologetic).

You don't argue why this isn't as good or better than taking Acts as Paul's story, when it differs. As usual, Believers think they win by refusing to discuss the meat and potatoes as it were but those with a mind still open will see it as running away shouting 'I win'.

[TRANSPONDER]

I wasn't, just listed some of the verses that give me pause and suggest that my claim above is correct. Your mileage obviously varies and you haven't been convinced.

They can only give you pause because you are interpreting them in a specific way that gives you pause.

What I ask you is: is it possible that a threat of going to a hell or a threat of not getting to a heaven is a stumbling block for you when reading the Bible?

Would you accept my answer as an honest one, if it doesn't fit what you assume about me? If you will, then know that threats of hell or missing out on heaven don't drive my thinking; the pursuit of truth does. Regardless of what you think, or even assuming I'm lying, rational people have no time for psychologizing like this. One’s motivations don’t matter when debating the truth of a subject; the reasoning of one’s arguments for their claims do. That is what rational people stick to.

Could that demand of you, that there must be some other interpretation of the words outside of how they read and why you are asking me to interpret for you?

“How they read” is semantics for your interpretation.

I believe that it is foolish to think that anyone can interpret words from thousands of years ago that were penned many, many decades after they were to have taken place. All we have is the words in the book, a book that claims that dead bodies left their graves and walked the streets of Jerusalem mind you as well as other seemingly impossible claims like sorcer'ing up fish and bread or the earth ceasing to rotate. You can't just interpret such things away.

Yet your interpretation gives you pause.

I see why you are confused. You got my claim wrong.
Copy/paste: It is not logical that an all powerful and all knowing God would create a message for all of humanity, but then require pastors, priests and theologians to the interpret the message.

If you were arguing for a non all powerful and non all knowing god concept, then we could expect what we have. If the god concept is all powerful and all knowing as the actual claims go and had a message for all of humanity, there would be no reason to get non all knowing and non all powerful humans involved to corrupt it. That would be illogical.

I don’t see how I was misunderstanding you; my response remains the same. Why is an all powerful and all knowing God getting non all knowing and non all powerful humans involved to corrupt (do you mean this in the sense of ‘misunderstand,’ ‘change’ or something else?) it, illogical?

That seems obvious, as it is illogical that a god would allow (never mind enable) humans to make his message look unworthy of belief by wrong facts, contradictions and false prophecies. And indeed other Bible apologists have seen it "It is to test our faith". If they can see it, why can't you?

Interpretation really means excuses. We goddless take the Bible as substantially meaning what it says, obvious metaphor aside. As soon as one appeals to metaphor or 'interpretation', nothing has any validity ..Unless ...the apologist believes they have a better explanation of what it says (which is what we debate) or they thing that God is telling them what the Bible really means, not what it says. Which is of course their own opinions inflated to Cosmic level.

[The Tanager]

That seems obvious, as it is illogical that a god would allow (never mind enable) humans to make his message look unworthy of belief by wrong facts, contradictions and false prophecies. And indeed other Bible apologists have seen it "It is to test our faith". If they can see it, why can't you?

If you want to show that Paul contradicts Jesus, then bring up the verses and support your interpretation by rational argument.

Interpretation really means excuses. We goddless take the Bible as substantially meaning what it says, obvious metaphor aside. As soon as one appeals to metaphor or 'interpretation', nothing has any validity ..Unless ...the apologist believes they have a better explanation of what it says (which is what we debate) or they thing that God is telling them what the Bible really means, not what it says. Which is of course their own opinions inflated to Cosmic level.

No, calling the opponent’s view an “interpretation” and your view “just taking it to mean what it says” is an excuse. Everyone interprets the words. Instead of supporting your view/interpretation, you beg it and then try to cover it up with semantics. It’s avoiding one’s burden to explain one’s reasoning.

[TRANSPONDER]

That seems obvious, as it is illogical that a god would allow (never mind enable) humans to make his message look unworthy of belief by wrong facts, contradictions and false prophecies. And indeed other Bible apologists have seen it "It is to test our faith". If they can see it, why can't you?

If you want to show that Paul contradicts Jesus, then bring up the verses and support your interpretation by rational argument.

Where did I say that Paul contradicts Jesus? That is a strawman argument, and crafty, if I thought you had figured it out. Jesus rather follows (even quotes) Paul as the gospels were written by Pauline Christians. Or that is the theory and works as well as Paul supposedly following the gospels - which doesn't account for him saying almost nothing about it. Though I do recall a few remarks about how Christians should deal with each others which crop up in the sermon material, though Paul sounds like hi es making up the rules himself - he doesn't say that Jesus said it.

Interpretation really means excuses. We goddless take the Bible as substantially meaning what it says, obvious metaphor aside. As soon as one appeals to metaphor or 'interpretation', nothing has any validity ..Unless ...the apologist believes they have a better explanation of what it says (which is what we debate) or they thing that God is telling them what the Bible really means, not what it says. Which is of course their own opinions inflated to Cosmic level.

No, calling the opponent’s view an “interpretation” and your view “just taking it to mean what it says” is an excuse. Everyone interprets the words. Instead of supporting your view/interpretation, you beg it and then try to cover it up with semantics. It’s avoiding one’s burden to explain one’s reasoning.

No. To take Paul as read, his vision of Jesus is visionary. It was after the appearance to 500 all at once, and finally James, who I always thought was one of the 'eleven' (Luke) on Sunday night. But Paul is not there for sure and he sees no difference between his vision and theirs. What is apparently says is that 1 Cor is not the Sunday resurrection, but (it seems) visionary. And yet the Bible apologists 'Interpret' (one could say lie about it) to pretend it is the Resurrection day appearances.

I could quote Luke having Jesus forgive the Romans. They did not know what they were doing. It appears nowhere else, but seems to follow paul who said the lords of the world (I suggest Rome) would not have killed Jesus if they had known who he was. It fits, and explains why Luke alone has this, as his gospel has no much Pauline material, including Acts, of course.

Interpretation (as I was intending) is not so much to explain Paul, but Bible contradictions. But here, we get Paul saying he ran away from the Nabateans but Luke claims it was an escape from the Jewish plot to kill him. I can give you an 'Interpretation' on a former board "The Jews intended to kill Paul by handing him over to Aretas". That is not what the Bible says, but is "Interpretation". Just relating to Paul. How do you explain that better than 'Luke knew Paul's letters'?

Interpretation in the gospels themselves is endemic of course. The Marys splitting up is a particularly wilful "Interpretation" and of course 'weaving together' the death of Judas (even though they don't agree even then. "Interpretation" involves not taking what the gospels say, comparing them and realising they contradict, but making stuff up to make the problem go away. Interpretation is what the Bible - apologists do. Not me.

That is what it says, putting the contradiction together.