27 Books in the NT, 13 by Paul who never met Jesus?

[toshmanta]

One has to raise an eyebrow at this statistic,, especially since most historians accept at least 5 were not written by Paul.

Dearie me i just lack faith.

[toshmanta]

One has to wonder why we must rely on Paul when there were 12 disciples and seemingly countless followers as eye witnesses to his life and death, maybe they had amnesia too.

[Shooby]

The Road to Damascus.

[Shooby]

BTW, Paul was alive during the time of Christ. First, Paul was a lived in Jerusalem as a child (Acts 22:3). He was there approving of Stephen's stoning (Acts 8:1). His nephew lived in Jerusalem and Jesus had visited Jerusalem . Also Jewish law would have motivated him to be in Jerusalem for Passover which would have put them in close proximity.  And as a zealot of the faith, Paul would have been very interested in any teachings going on, especially what was considered false by him at the time.  

  But, Billy Graham never personally met him either.  So, not really sure what your point is.

[toshmanta]

Jan 8, 2017 10:15:06 GMT -5 Shooby said:

BTW, Paul was alive during the time of Christ. First, Paul was a lived in Jerusalem as a child (Acts 22:3). He was there approving of Stephen's stoning (Acts 8:1). His nephew lived in Jerusalem and Jesus had visited Jerusalem . Also Jewish law would have motivated him to be in Jerusalem for Passover which would have put them in close proximity.  And as a zealot of the faith, Paul would have been very interested in any teachings going on, especially what was considered false by him at the time.  

  But, Billy Graham never personally met him either.  So, not really sure what your point is.

I did not realise Billy Graham's opinion was considered the inerrant word of God?

Paul is the original ghost writer, how he knew what Jesus meant requires faith in his visions, the guy could have been mentally ill for all we know, being Jewish or nearby means diddly squat, he never met the man so how did he know what Jesus was or what Jesus was saying?
Jesus was supposed to be God according to John, cant find any agreement from Paul, he was not a witness to the resurrection.

[Politically_Incorrect12]

Jan 9, 2017 21:47:40 GMT -5 toshmanta said:

Jan 8, 2017 10:15:06 GMT -5 Shooby said:

BTW, Paul was alive during the time of Christ. First, Paul was a lived in Jerusalem as a child (Acts 22:3). He was there approving of Stephen's stoning (Acts 8:1). His nephew lived in Jerusalem and Jesus had visited Jerusalem . Also Jewish law would have motivated him to be in Jerusalem for Passover which would have put them in close proximity.  And as a zealot of the faith, Paul would have been very interested in any teachings going on, especially what was considered false by him at the time.  

  But, Billy Graham never personally met him either.  So, not really sure what your point is.

I did not realise Billy Graham's opinion was considered the inerrant word of God?

Paul is the original ghost writer, how he knew what Jesus meant requires faith in his visions, the guy could have been mentally ill for all we know, being Jewish or nearby means diddly squat, he never met the man so how did he know what Jesus was or what Jesus was saying?
Jesus was supposed to be God according to John, cant find any agreement from Paul, he was not a witness to the resurrection.

Paul also spoke with the original apostles (which is mentioned by the way), and he was one of the few who reached out to the Gentiles (so really not a huge surprise that he would be the author of so many books, especially when you realize many of the chapters in the NT were written to different Gentile churches).  Are you curious about some difference you see between what Paul wrote and what the other apostles wrote? So, what exactly is your question or concern or was the comment meant to be more facetious than actually trying to start a conversation?

[mmhmm]

Jan 7, 2017 21:53:50 GMT -5 toshmanta said:

One has to raise an eyebrow at this statistic,, especially since most historians accept at least 5 were not written by Paul.

Dearie me i just lack faith.

So do I. That's why I avoid challenging others over their faith. It's really none of my business and of no real interest to me. Of course, I have no interest in poking others with pointy objects just for the hell of it, either.

[thyme4change]

Maybe the original 12 were all illiterate.  Or couldn't afford paper, or whatever they wrote on.  

[toshmanta]

Apr 10, 2017 18:21:50 GMT -5 Politically_Incorrect12 said:

Jan 9, 2017 21:47:40 GMT -5 toshmanta said:

I did not realise Billy Graham's opinion was considered the inerrant word of God?

Paul is the original ghost writer, how he knew what Jesus meant requires faith in his visions, the guy could have been mentally ill for all we know, being Jewish or nearby means diddly squat, he never met the man so how did he know what Jesus was or what Jesus was saying?
Jesus was supposed to be God according to John, cant find any agreement from Paul, he was not a witness to the resurrection.

Paul also spoke with the original apostles (which is mentioned by the way), and he was one of the few who reached out to the Gentiles (so really not a huge surprise that he would be the author of so many books, especially when you realize many of the chapters in the NT were written to different Gentile churches).  Are you curious about some difference you see between what Paul wrote and what the other apostles wrote? So, what exactly is your question or concern or was the comment meant to be more facetious than actually trying to start a conversation?

Thank you for your reply,i would have hoped my point was obvious,there are millions of Christians who believe the Bible is the inerrant word of God and yet it was written by those who never met Jesus,never witnessed the resurrection nor were even contemporaries of Jesus,and there is no evidence an apostle wrote anything.

If you read  Paul or  Mark and compare it to John you would be forgiven for thinking they were describing two different events,and as for Jesus being God,not according to Paul.

How can contradictory testimony written between 20 and 70 years after the event by people who were not there be considered inerrant??

[toshmanta]

Apr 10, 2017 19:40:29 GMT -5 thyme4change said:

Maybe the original 12 were all illiterate.  Or couldn't afford paper, or whatever they wrote on.  

Jesus never bothered to write anything down either because what he was preaching had already been written down,he was Jewish after all and did say he preached the Torah and nothing new.

If you like the views of Jesus then my advice is become a Jew,it was good enough for him.

[toshmanta]

Apr 10, 2017 18:51:32 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

Jan 7, 2017 21:53:50 GMT -5 toshmanta said:

One has to raise an eyebrow at this statistic,, especially since most historians accept at least 5 were not written by Paul.

Dearie me i just lack faith.

So do I. That's why I avoid challenging others over their faith. It's really none of my business and of no real interest to me. Of course, I have no interest in poking others with pointy objects just for the hell of it, either.

Education is important, think of me as a teacher of reason.

[Politically_Incorrect12]

Apr 11, 2017 6:14:21 GMT -5 toshmanta said:

Apr 10, 2017 18:21:50 GMT -5 Politically_Incorrect12 said:

Paul also spoke with the original apostles (which is mentioned by the way), and he was one of the few who reached out to the Gentiles (so really not a huge surprise that he would be the author of so many books, especially when you realize many of the chapters in the NT were written to different Gentile churches).  Are you curious about some difference you see between what Paul wrote and what the other apostles wrote? So, what exactly is your question or concern or was the comment meant to be more facetious than actually trying to start a conversation?

Thank you for your reply,i would have hoped my point was obvious,there are millions of Christians who believe the Bible is the inerrant word of God and yet it was written by those who never met Jesus,never witnessed the resurrection nor were even contemporaries of Jesus,and there is no evidence an apostle wrote anything.

If you read  Paul or  Mark and compare it to John you would be forgiven for thinking they were describing two different events,and as for Jesus being God,not according to Paul.

How can contradictory testimony written between 20 and 70 years after the event by people who were not there be considered inerrant??

You'll have to give me examples of what it is you are wanting clarification on between the three authors, or what would make you think they were describing different events.

[Shooby]

Apr 11, 2017 7:27:01 GMT -5 toshmanta said:

Apr 10, 2017 18:51:32 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

So do I. That's why I avoid challenging others over their faith. It's really none of my business and of no real interest to me. Of course, I have no interest in poking others with pointy objects just for the hell of it, either.

Education is important, think of me as a teacher of reason.

[br

Sorry that's just not possible!

[toshmanta]

Apr 11, 2017 18:26:50 GMT -5 Politically_Incorrect12 said:

Apr 11, 2017 6:14:21 GMT -5 toshmanta said:

Thank you for your reply,i would have hoped my point was obvious,there are millions of Christians who believe the Bible is the inerrant word of God and yet it was written by those who never met Jesus,never witnessed the resurrection nor were even contemporaries of Jesus,and there is no evidence an apostle wrote anything.

If you read  Paul or  Mark and compare it to John you would be forgiven for thinking they were describing two different events,and as for Jesus being God,not according to Paul.

How can contradictory testimony written between 20 and 70 years after the event by people who were not there be considered inerrant??

You'll have to give me examples of what it is you are wanting clarification on between the three authors, or what would make you think they were describing different events.

i.imgur.com/CBTiKeh.png

The word inerrant means incapable of being wrong,since historians do not dispute Paul was not the author of Timothy 1 & 2,Titus or Hebrews IT IS NOT INERRANT.

Original Greek manuscripts of Mark 16 end on verse 8,few dispute verses 9 to 20 were added later,so yet again it is not inerrant.

My objection is clear the NT is not inerrant.

[toshmanta]

Paul makes it abundantly clear in Galatians 1:11-12 that what he teaches he received from no man, which includes all of the followers of Jesus.

Paul gets a vision from Jesus about the Lord's Supper during the Passover meal,however in John's gospel Jesus was dead by the time of the Passover meal

I have always found it bizarre why Jesus did not choose one of his followers to share his vision with, why pick someone who he never even met??


The Jews and the Romans were obsessed with documenting everything, and yet no one seems to have noticed zombies wandering about?

“And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose, and came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many.”


~ Matthew 27:52-53



Mind you it couldn't have been that big a deal because Mark,Luke and John didn't think it was important enough to mention it.

[toshmanta]

The evolution of Jesus from Jew to Christian God is a fascinating detective story,and i don't believe the historical Jesus in any way disrespects his sacrifice or diminishes his teachings about love and compassion.

If it wasn't for Paul i think Christianity would have remained a fairly innocuous Jewish sect, believers in his resurrection awaiting the return of their Messiah. I don't think they considered Jesus as God or divine,(they were all committed monotheists),more like an exalted figure chosen by God to free them from slavery and oppression.

After 20 years and no signs of his return along comes Saul, and with a few theological variances Christianity is sold to enslaved and oppressed pagans throughout the Roman Empire.In order to avoid the same fate as Jesus,John the Baptist and others the blame for the death of Jesus is transferred from Rome to Jewish orthodoxy.

My guess is Paul's conversion was not caused by a vision but by his shared apocalyptic beliefs and increasing Roman oppression,in a theological sense he resurrected the spirit of Jesus and made it universal.

[Aman A.K.A. Ahamburger]

Perhaps some things understood from the start. Only predictions had to come true before a real true believer took it to the next level and the temples level it did. (that's all I have to say about it.)

Preacher man, don't tell me
Heaven is under the earth
I know you don't know
What life is really worth
It's not all that glitters is gold
Half the story has never been told
And now you see the light
You stand up for your rights
Get up, stand up, stand up for your rights!
Get up, stand up, don't give up the fight!

[toshmanta]

The destruction of Jerusalem was around 70 CE, a few decades before John's Gospel?

[mmhmm]

Apr 11, 2017 7:27:01 GMT -5 toshmanta said:

Apr 10, 2017 18:51:32 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

So do I. That's why I avoid challenging others over their faith. It's really none of my business and of no real interest to me. Of course, I have no interest in poking others with pointy objects just for the hell of it, either.

Education is important, think of me as a teacher of reason.

LOL! Ah, tosh, m'love: alas, if I'm seeking reason I'd not look to you for education on the subject. Now, if I were seeking education on poking things with pointy objects you'd probably be the first place I'd turn! 

[toshmanta]

Mar 21, 2018 20:30:38 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

Apr 11, 2017 7:27:01 GMT -5 toshmanta said:

Education is important, think of me as a teacher of reason.

LOL! Ah, tosh, m'love: alas, if I'm seeking reason I'd not look to you for education on the subject. Now, if I were seeking education on poking things with pointy objects you'd probably be the first place I'd turn! 

AHA....you just had to bite though.....hope you are well xx

[mmhmm]

Mar 25, 2018 17:04:39 GMT -5 toshmanta said:

Mar 21, 2018 20:30:38 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

LOL! Ah, tosh, m'love: alas, if I'm seeking reason I'd not look to you for education on the subject. Now, if I were seeking education on poking things with pointy objects you'd probably be the first place I'd turn! 

AHA....you just had to bite though.....hope you are well xx

Haha! Of course, I bit! How else am I to get you to respond so I can find out how the heck you're doing, ol' fella?   

[toshmanta]

Mar 25, 2018 17:59:02 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

Mar 25, 2018 17:04:39 GMT -5 toshmanta said:

AHA....you just had to bite though.....hope you are well xx

Haha! Of course, I bit! How else am I to get you to respond so I can find out how the heck you're doing, ol' fella?   

I am evolving, in which direction I am not sure but there is nothing worse than predictability so I await with gasped breath.

My two sons are now 8 and 11 so they keep me balanced 3 days per week, the rest is a kind of immoral mayhem, structure and contentment are beyond me so I live with the consequences and still manage a smile.

The funny thing is I look at Twitter's popularity and it is becoming a troll's paradise at every level, we are slowly sinking to my level, which is sad really.