Does the cosmos have a reason?

Cypress said:
Thanks for backpedaling and admitting I was correct.
Click to expand...

Dude, please, TRY to be honest. I've admitted this NUMEROUS times. I've said it a zillion times and many on this very forum where you were present.

Are you really this dishonest or are you really forgetful?

The point I made is it is not a simple claim that Paul said "X" ergo there is no reason to not do "X". In fact there is reason IN THE BIBLE to assume Paul was incorrect. But that gets into the whole 'was Jesus real?' and 'do the Gospels give us any factual information about Jesus' ministry?"

I honestly wish you could be less of a fuckwit and maybe become able to hold many different ideas in your mind.

As the misattributed quote to Aristotle goes: "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it."

Cypress said:
The fact that the leader of the Jerusalem church, Jesus' brother James, was dubious of Paul's mission to the gentiles is a historical footnote that has nothing to do with the actual practice of Christianity.
Click to expand...

Incorrect. It shows how the sausage was made and it calls into question exactly how accurate the stories are. How on earth could a man who NEVER MET Jesus argue with the people who presumably hung around with him AND WIN THE DEBATE?


Cypress said:
Paul by far and away is Christianity's most important theologian and interpreter of Jesus during it's foundational decades.
Click to expand...

And, as I've said many many times on this forum: Christianity does appear to be largely a religion made up by Paul. However, as YOU YOURSELF have noted you think the stories of Jesus are reasonable and likely true to some greater or lesser extent. Which means you must also accept that at least there is a KERNEL of truth in the Gospels.

I'm curious why you then wish to excise what the Gospels themselves say JESUS said.

"... Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled."
 
Cypress said:
Too much word salad to invest time reading
Click to expand...

^^^^^Dishonest debator.

The fact is, you are scared of what I said because it hits a bit too close to home.

I know you, Cypress. I know you all to well. I have lived around people like you. I know all the tells. You exude them all the time.

And the worst part is: you know I'm right.
 
Obtenebrator said:
Dude, please, TRY to be honest. I've admitted this NUMEROUS times. I've said it a zillion times and many on this very forum where you were present.

Are you really this dishonest or are you really forgetful?

The point I made is it is not a simple claim that Paul said "X" ergo there is no reason to not do "X". In fact there is reason IN THE BIBLE to assume Paul was incorrect. But that gets into the whole 'was Jesus real?' and 'do the Gospels give us any factual information about Jesus' ministry?"

I honestly wish you could be less of a fuckwit and maybe become able to hold many different ideas in your mind.

As the misattributed quote to Aristotle goes: "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it."



Incorrect. It shows how the sausage was made and it calls into question exactly how accurate the stories are. How on earth could a man who NEVER MET Jesus argue with the people who presumably hung around with him AND WIN THE DEBATE?




And, as I've said many many times on this forum: Christianity does appear to be largely a religion made up by Paul. However, as YOU YOURSELF have noted you think the stories of Jesus are reasonable and likely true to some greater or lesser extent. Which means you must also accept that at least there is a KERNEL of truth in the Gospels.

I'm curious why you then wish to excise what the Gospels themselves say JESUS said.

"... Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled."
Click to expand...
It's funny that you think you have made a profoundly original and novel insight that there was debate about doctrine in the first few decades of early Christianity. You're a genius!

You're free to think Christianity as we know it draws it's theological roots from James and the Judaic-oriented Jerusalem Church of the mid-1st century.

Martin Luther, John Calvin, and me are quite certain that Paul ended up being the central figure in the practice, theology, and interpretation of Jesus in the foundational years of the early Church.
 
Cypress said:
It's funny that you think you have made a profoundly original and novel insight that there was debate about doctrine in the first few decades of early Christianity. You're a genius!

You're free to think Christianity as we know it draws it's theological roots from James and the Judaic-oriented Jerusalem Church of the mid-1st century.

Martin Luther, John Calvin, and me are quite certain that Paul ended up being the central figure in the practice, theology, and interpretation of Jesus in the foundational years of the early Church.
Click to expand...

Well, it isn't the topic of the OP so I'll let you just blather on with your usual insults.

Maybe we can talk about the topic? Or will you just shout insults at me because you are threatened?
 
Cypress said:
You're free to think Christianity as we know it draws it's theological roots from James and the Judaic-oriented Jerusalem Church of the mid-1st century.
Click to expand...

Why are you dishonest about other people's points? I'm genuinely curious why you seemingly are incapable of presenting someone's point accurately.

It's almost as if you just want to insult me. Almost as if you get off on trolling me non-stop. All you ever do is insult me.
 
Obtenebrator said:
Why are you dishonest about other people's points? I'm genuinely curious why you seemingly are incapable of presenting someone's point accurately.

It's almost as if you just want to insult me. Almost as if you get off on trolling me non-stop. All you ever do is insult me.
Click to expand...
Baptists are of the Protestant tradition,
and Paul is the foundational early figure in Christian practice, theology, and interpretation of Jesus.

When you frantically Google and veer wildly off into fringe opinions and historical footnotes, it's only because you have an obsessive desire to find something "wrong" with my posts.
 
Cypress said:
Baptists are of the Protestant tradition,
and Paul is the foundational early figure in Christian practice, theology, and interpretation of Jesus.

When you veer wildly off into fringe opinions and historical footnotes, it's only because you have an obsessive desire to find something "wrong" with my posts.
Click to expand...

Why are you such a nasty bastard?

I've explained why I raised these points. The FACT that you REPEATEDLY misrepresent it indicates you didn't understand my explanation. You seem to be less intelligent than you like to think.

You are so threatened by me that you can't even function. Or you really are astoundingly stupid.
 
Cypress said:
When you frantically Google and veer wildly off into fringe opinions and historical footnotes, it's only because you have an obsessive desire to find something "wrong" with my posts.
Click to expand...

Why are you on a discussion forum if you are incapable of discussion?
 
Cypress said:
It's funny that you think you have made a profoundly original and novel insight that there was debate about doctrine in the first few decades of early Christianity. You're a genius!

You're free to think Christianity as we know it draws it's theological roots from James and the Judaic-oriented Jerusalem Church of the mid-1st century.

Martin Luther, John Calvin, and me are quite certain that Paul ended up being the central figure in the practice, theology, and interpretation of Jesus in the foundational years of the early Church.
Click to expand...
james refusal to embrace the Pauline ministry to the Goyim proves christianity was really intended to be a reform of judaism, not a dumbed down demoralized slave religion.

cynics refuse to accept "do unto others shall be the whole of the law" thats too simple and puts the pharisees out of jobs.

bottom line: Jews chose to stay evil
 
Blackwater Lunchbreak said:
Jesus As Jewish Schismatic,
Click to expand...

Well, we really only have the Gospels to tell us what was supposedly the words of Jesus and it doesn't sound like he was fully onboard with the idea of a real schism. My understanding is that there were a large number o apocalyptic religious figures in Palestine at that time and it is arguable that Judaism always had built into it, a streak of eschatology. The Isaiah and Daniel prophecies seemed to point to a future when all will be fuflilled.

One of the reasons I think we have to distrust the Gospels of being wholly accurate is that they all spring from the same concept of fulfillment of the Messiahanic prophecies of the OT which is why so much of his "life story" reads strangely. It was necessary to line him up with Isaiah. Virgin birth? Well, "almah" may not necessarily mean "virgin".

Jesus did not fit the mold of the Messiah, though. So in many senses and through many of his actions in the Gospels we do see someone that, even though he supposedly said his goal was not to overturn the law, did a great deal to tweak the noses of the Pious and did some pretty transgressive things.
 
Obtenebrator said:
Well, we really only have the Gospels to tell us what was supposedly the words of Jesus and it doesn't sound like he was fully onboard with the idea of a real schism. My understanding is that there were a large number o apocalyptic religious figures in Palestine at that time and it is arguable that Judaism always had built into it, a streak of eschatology. The Isaiah and Daniel prophecies seemed to point to a future when all will be fuflilled.

One of the reasons I think we have to distrust the Gospels of being wholly accurate is that they all spring from the same concept of fulfillment of the Messiahanic prophecies of the OT which is why so much of his "life story" reads strangely. It was necessary to line him up with Isaiah. Virgin birth? Well, "almah" may not necessarily mean "virgin".

Jesus did not fit the mold of the Messiah, though. So in many senses and through many of his actions in the Gospels we do see someone that, even though he supposedly said his goal was not to overturn the law, did a great deal to tweak the noses of the Pious and did some pretty transgressive things.
Click to expand...
we're not talking about historical accuracy, we're talking about the narrative of the text.

it might all be fake.
 
Blackwater Lunchbreak said:
we're not talking about historical accuracy, we're talking about the narrative of the text.
Click to expand...

Well, then if we go by the Gospels Jesus seems to be less interested in schism. Maybe shaking things up a bit, introducing more "love" to the equation, but if Matt 5:17-20 is to be believed then he wasn't for letting up on one jot or tittle of the law til all be fulfilled.

Blackwater Lunchbreak said:
it might all be fake.
Click to expand...

Would it matter?
 
Obtenebrator said:
Why are you on a discussion forum if you are incapable of discussion?
Click to expand...
You are not discussing. When you claim Baptists are not of the Protestant tradition, and that we could place James on equal footing with Paul in the development of Chrisitan practice and theology, you are not debating. Using a tactic from the climate denier handbook, you are frantically veering off into fringe opinions and erroneous statements in a desperate attempt to 'prove" there is something wrong with what I wrote.
 

Blackwater Lunchbreak said:
at least I can discern a basic narrative in a text, unlike you, worshipful masonic psyclops of the dickhole order.
Click to expand...
This thread as presented in the OP had nothing to do with the bible, Christianity, or Judaism. You and that Obtenator troll just turned it into a pissing contest between Team Holy Roller versus Team Militant Atheist.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top