It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Paul messed up Christianity

page: 3
9
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 6 2012 @ 05:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by squandered
 

We are all God because consciousness is God.

In a similar fashion as to how the guppy in your backyard pond is the same as a great white shark, both being fish.
Both Paul and Jesus would have been brought up in a world of Hellenistic Judaism, from opposite sides of the Mediterranean, one to the north, in Asia Minor, the other in the South probably in Alexandria, waiting for a safe time to return to Palestine, and then settling in gentile Galilee. They would have been heavily influenced by some for of Platonism and Stoicism.
edit on 6-5-2012 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)


Could someone in the know advise on the uncanny similarity of the "Parakletos" of which Jesus/John spoke, and, "Herakleitos" of Ephesus, the pre-Socratic Greek philosopher who expounded the concept of the Logos, or Living Word?

And I will ask the Father, and he shall give you another Paraclete, that he may abide with you for ever.
John 14:16




posted on May, 6 2012 @ 07:46 PM
link   
reply to post by 1nOne
 


So basically you're saying there really is no difference at all between "dancer" and "cancer"?



posted on May, 6 2012 @ 10:29 PM
link   
reply to post by 1nOne
 

"Herakleitos" of Ephesus, the pre-Socratic Greek philosopher who expounded the concept of the Logos, or Living Word?
The writer of the Gospel of John points out, and is something echoed by Paul in Philippians, that the ruling law of the universe (logos) is not something that God is subject to, but is itself identified with God.
I lean towards a particular Stoic type philosophy which says the material universe is, and beings operate within it, including us and the gods, where we as humans are more susceptible to the natural laws and the gods are not. But in their dealings with us, the gods have to observe those laws so as not to crash us up against them to our destruction.
edit on 6-5-2012 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 7 2012 @ 03:39 AM
link   
reply to post by Jordan River
 



Paul work is good, the core beliefs, but his attack towards and against Peter and the "so called disciples" are degrading and judgmental.



I'll be frank.... I don't trust Paul. Paul diluted the teachings of the bible by adding in way too many of his own opinions... rarely referring to Jesus' teachings and sometimes contradicting what Jesus taught.

The problem is that many Christians value his words as equally as the words of Jesus just because its bound in the bible. So anything written by Paul is immediately considered as considered valuable.



posted on May, 7 2012 @ 06:46 AM
link   
reply to post by jmdewey60
 


"Logos" is Greek for written word. "Rhema" is Greek for spoken word.



posted on May, 7 2012 @ 07:18 PM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical

That's rather arbitrary. Someone just made that up so as to fit a Pentecostal system.

Rhema and Logos
Some modern usage in Christian Theology distinguishes Rhema from Logos (which here refers to the written scriptures) while Rhema refers to the revelation received by the reader from the Holy Spirit when the Word (Logos) is read,[55][56][57][58] although this distinction has been criticized.[59][60]


John1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 The same was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made through him. Without him was not anything made that has been made. 4 In him was life, and the life was the light of men.

Do you think it makes sense to say, "In the beginning was the Bible, and the Bible was with God, and the Bible was God..."

Some one is making stuff up. Here's an example:

The Stoics also spoke of the logos spermatikos (the generative principle of the Universe), which is not important in the Biblical tradition, but is relevant in Neoplatonism.[11]

[11] David L. Jeffrey (1992). A Dictionary of Biblical Tradition in English Literature. Grand Rapids, Michigan, USA: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co. p. 459. ISBN 0-8028-3634-8.
- - Ibid

The Stoic understanding of Logos is exactly the meaning in John 1:1. So where does the idea come from that it isn't? David L. Jeffrey.



posted on May, 7 2012 @ 09:02 PM
link   
reply to post by pthena
 



That's rather arbitrary.



No, it's Greek.


Rhema (ῥῆμα in Greek) literally means an "utterance" or "thing said" in Greek. It is a word that signifies the action of utterance.


Rhema ~ Wiki

Logos is the thought process leading to a Rhema utterance, or written words that someone had spoke at one time.

Logos ~ Wiki


For fun do a search on Blue Letter Bible for the times Logos and Rhema appear. Not every time you see the English "word" used in the text is it referring to the same thing.

As a matter of fact, go look at the Strong's number designation for "word" in Matthew 4:4.




edit on 7-5-2012 by NOTurTypical because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 7 2012 @ 09:33 PM
link   
"Don't get me wrong, Paul's core beliefs on subjects are incredible. Simply incrediable and I do believe we did (at the time) needed a Gentile to explain these wonderful ideas in the new testament."

Paul was Jewish not a gentile. Paul needed to stand up to Peter who was seperating himself from the gentiles when other Jews were around talk abvout being two faced after having a vision showing that the gentiles were to be accepted into the body of Christ.



posted on May, 8 2012 @ 06:29 AM
link   
reply to post by sk0rpi0n
 

The problem is that many Christians value his words as equally as the words of Jesus just because its bound in the bible. So anything written by Paul is immediately considered as considered valuable.
The reader should be careful to note that the words supposedly by Paul, found in Acts, is a recreation of what the writer of that book imagines that Paul would have said, in certain situations that are themselves no better than legends.
To find the real words of Paul, people should read the letters actually written by him, and to be careful not to take anything only ascribed to him to be by him. A simple search on Wikipedia will inform anyone who would take a minute, which are which.



new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join