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.
Luke 6
26 Woe to you, when all men speak well of you, for so their fathers did to the false prophets.
1 Corinthians 10
just as I try to please all men in everything I do, not seeking my own advantage, but that of many, that they may be saved.
Akragon
reply to post by SasquatchHunter
What does that have to do with anything in this thread?
SasquatchHunter
Akragon
reply to post by SasquatchHunter
What does that have to do with anything in this thread?
Lol... I don't understand this crusade to discredit Paulal, there's no evidence he was a fraud. His writings are brilliant.
SasquatchHunter
reply to post by Akragon
So you believe Luke was a fraud? Peter?James? You have to completely throw out all of their works along with the bulk of the NT written by Paul.
For what reason? There's nothing that doesn't align with the OT or NT by the works of Paul. What is the real reason to discredit him?
SasquatchHunter
reply to post by Akragon
It does matter Paul was called upon by Jesus to serve him. If you claim he is a fraud you also have to consider the other Apostles as frauds. You have to say Acts and 2peters is fraudulent. Those are serious claims to go against so much material that is written.
Akragon
SasquatchHunter
reply to post by Akragon
It does matter Paul was called upon by Jesus to serve him. If you claim he is a fraud you also have to consider the other Apostles as frauds. You have to say Acts and 2peters is fraudulent. Those are serious claims to go against so much material that is written.
You do realise the bible is not ONE book... its 66 books even more at times depending on the version or favor of said religion you subscribe to...
So if I call one writer of the NT a Fraud because he contradicts the Gospels... that does not imply the others are also fraudulent
edit on 11-11-2013 by Akragon because: (no reason given)
BugWhisperer
reply to post by EnochWasRight
Hi EnochWasRight,
First, I'd like to say thanks for all the work you do to bring to us these interesting threads.
I was thinking about this 'Homer' riddle and this is what I came up with:
A homer is a measure of grain.
And homer backwards, maybe rhema, which is word or to speak?
So then words are seeds?
Am I close at all?
SasquatchHunter
Akragon
SasquatchHunter
reply to post by Akragon
It does matter Paul was called upon by Jesus to serve him. If you claim he is a fraud you also have to consider the other Apostles as frauds. You have to say Acts and 2peters is fraudulent. Those are serious claims to go against so much material that is written.
You do realise the bible is not ONE book... its 66 books even more at times depending on the version or favor of said religion you subscribe to...
So if I call one writer of the NT a Fraud because he contradicts the Gospels... that does not imply the others are also fraudulent
edit on 11-11-2013 by Akragon because: (no reason given)
Written by Luke
Luke- Supports the Apostle Paul
Acts- Half the book is about Paul's life
Written by Paul
Romans
1 Corinthians
2 Corinthians
Galatians
Ephesians
Philippians
Colossians
1 Thessalonians
1 Thessalonians
1 Timothy
2 Timothy
Titus
Philemon
Written by Simon Peter
2 Peter- Supports Apostle Paul
That's 16 Books by 3 Authors you have to throw away just to say Paul was a fraud. That's like 75% of the NT.
Of course luke supported Paul, he was one of his followers... But he unlike Paul did some research and interviewed people about their experiences with Jesus... Paul didn't know Jesus... Paul never met Jesus
One must take the word of a self professed murderer, a Pharisee... and a liar... to accept Pauls writing as legit. Or of course Just be taught that Paul is some hero of the Christian faith.
Sure according to him, he met the resurrected Jesus... But none of his writing show ANY evidence of his claim...
And again, the NT is not one Book... Nor is the OT... they're compilations of Books
3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by SasquatchHunter
There's a ton of evidence that suggests Luke was actually a Roman aristocrat writer named Plutarch, someone who wrote historical fiction for a living, not a physician.
As far as Peter's epistles, Peter is said to have been illiterate and didn't know how to write and I assume the verse you're referring to where Peter supports Paul is 2 Peter 3:16, correct? Most modern scholars agree that that verse was interpolated later by another author and/or that 2 Peter is completely pseudographical, meaning Peter didn't write it at all.
I don't think it's just a coincidence that modern scholars agree that 2 Peter 3:16 was interpolated, a verse that supports Paul supposedly written by an apostle, because Paul was a fraud who used Jesus' name to insert his own (OT) doctrine into the minds of later believers.edit on 11-11-2013 by 3NL1GHT3N3D1 because: (no reason given)