Dubai Forums archive (old posts) - to navigate to the current version click Dubai Forums
Dubai Expat Help Dubai Chat Dubai Romance Dubai Auto Surgery jobs in Dubai Dubai High Tech Dubai Guide Electrical Engineers wanted in Dubai Accommodation in Dubai Jobs in Dubai Available Professionals in Dubai Learn Arabic Philosophy Forum
Dubai Expat Forum - Philosophy and Religion Forums

What vision did Paul have?


event horizon After doing a little digging on shafique to see if he made any similar claims on the New Testament on this forum as he did on another forum, in which I came to the conclusion that shafique relies on websites for his information on the New Testament and certainly has not read the book he pontificates on in its entirety, I came across this little gem:

Shafique's other 'points' have already been addressed and refuted previously, but I'm curious where Paul had a vision?
Also, could shafique show which passages say the disciples were not comfortable with the 'change' in message?
Obviously, chapter and verse would be nice. I'm assuming, since I asked this same question to shafique previously, that he made the claim up in his rather long rambling pontifications, but perhaps he'll get around to finding a passage?
It's also interesting that shafique is simply not aware of the council of Jerusalem and repeats the claims that Paul changed direction and preached to Gentiles, but hey, as I said, I've debunked these common (as in found on Muslim missionary websites) myths before.
I think this post pretty much sums up my previous claim of shafique, his knowledge on a subject is a mile long and an inch deep. But I'm happy to hear an explanation on how someone, even with a basic handle on the New Testament, could confuse Paul with Peter.
shafique What a strange question!
The 'vision' Paul had was his 'conversion' on the road to Damascus - the point I was making was that Paul was not a disciple and never met Jesus, and yet we have a branch of Christianity called 'Pauline Christianity' - which is distinct from Jewish Christianity (see the prior references from Kung etc provided by eh).
I guess the question was prompted by the fact that the NT accounts of Paul's conversion are contradictory - was a voice heard or not by his companions... let's see if this question has been answered.
Let me thank you for quoting me and reminding us here of what we were discussing in the other forum - the differences between Pauline and Jewish Christianity.
Edit, for the sake of completeness, here is a description of Paul's conversion:

Strange that eh-oh was unaware of this - have you actually read the NT?? :)
Cheers,
Shafique event horizon
Yes shafique, I'm the one who corrected your mistaken views on these 'differences'.
Although I notice that you have not answered my question:

Which passage? event horizon
Cool. But what about the numerous passages of Jesus preaching/ministering to Gentiles and Samaritans?

Pray tell, where did the Pharisees (Jesus was a Pharisaic Jew himself) and the Sadducees (Priests) go against Jewish law?
Any idea? shafique Your question here was - what was the vision, please see the edited post above for the clarification. As for the differences between Pauline and Jewish Christianity - you've shown that you disagree with Kung et al on this and other subjects. Hey - I'm all for a radical way of thinking - go for it man! (However, I repeat, it is strange that you ask what vision Paul had - had you not read this part of the Bible?) As for the Jewish Christian view of Christianity - this is obviously not to be found in the edited Bible that we have today, as Kung rightly pointed out - the bible was edited by Pauline Christians. I'll re-supply the quote if you wish - it was from Women in Christianity. Cheers, Shafique event horizon Obviously, I was referring to Acts 10 - since you talked about all food being made lawful - referring to Peter's vision of unlawful animals in his vision. It's interesting in your post that you were clearly oblivious to Acts 15. And for the record, circumcision was always a requirement for Jews. That's why Paul had Timothy circumcised. But hey, it's always amusing reading your posts. Have you actually read Acts? event horizon
But you claimed the disciples were uneasy about Paul's supposed change in direction.
Which is it? Can you provide these passages or did you make them up and now that you're being asked for verses, you suddenly say 'oh, of course they're not in there, did you want me to actually back my claims up?!' shafique Yes, please (again) try to keep up. Those who remained true to Jesus' message (the 'lesser commission') and are now termed as 'Jewish Christians' - are the ones who did not accept the Pauline Christian doctrines. As I stated, it is a circular argument to say that the edited version of the Bible we have today is silent about these Jewish Christians - it would be, because (as Kung et al conclude) it was edited by the Pauline Christians. We all agree as fact that the Bible contains forged verses - you've quoted scholars who even say some of the forgeries were incompetent. It's really not a difficult concept - the Jewish Christians traced their beliefs back to Jesus. Kung's quote said that it was only after a hundred years after Jesus that these Christians' views became heretical and it was subsequent to this that the Bible was edited to reflect this. The Gibbon thread showed that indeed the Bible that was canonised disagreed with primary/earlier sources (of the gospels) - and that the additions added were inserted to reinforce Pauline Christian views on Trinity (i.e. propaganda). You weren't aware of this fact - and thought Gibbon had only highlighted something about Roman life and were confident he hadn't shown the NT to be faulty from a historical perspective - when in fact he did show just that - that the canonised Bible is not to be trusted as 100% accurate - especially on issues relating to Pauline vs Jewish Christian theology. I gave you examples of James the Just's role in the early Christian church and how the historians I quoted said his role had been watered down to down-play the differences between Jewish and Pauline Christian views. I am a little weary of repeating myself, but as I have young kids, I am used to it. I guess it is the 'again again' motto of tellytubbies that saves you! ;) Cheers, Shafique shafique BTW - did you concede that you now know what 'vision' I was referring to? Did you really not read this part of the NT - dealing with Saul/Paul's conversion?? Cheers, Shafique event horizon Already explained - I assumed you were referring to Peter's vision of clean and unclean animals when you said food being clean after Paul's vision, which I assumed you mixed up your 'recollection' of Acts 10 once more. You also seem to be claiming that the lesser commission, in which Jesus is reported to have instructed his disciples to not travel to certain geographic areas was an instruction adhered to by the true followers of Jesus. This claim that the true followers of Jesus did not enter Gentile or Samaritan regions can be discussed when I have more time. In the meantime, I'll go ahead and ask you to cite which Biblical passages or historical accounts written at the time of the New Testament (but outside of it, of course) says that the 'true' followers (I guess that means that Peter and John were not the true followers of Jesus) of Jesus did not travel outside of Israel. Additionally, you will also have to establish that these followers, who you claim did not travel outside of Israel as per the lesser commission, were actually the true followers of Jesus. Do you have any evidence that these people were truer to your interpretation of the Bible, based off a missionary website, than Peter and John, which secular history attests to their forming of churches and Christian communities in Gentile regions? Hopefully you won't skirt around my questions as you have already not answered where the Bible says the disciples were weary of Paul, but hey, I don't mind repeating myself.

1 Dubai Jobs .com The First Place to Find a Job in Dubai
shafique
See what happens when you jump to conclusions. Happy that today I could clear up two misconceptions then (first was the issue of whether the Christian terrorists were converts, and here where I meant what I wrote when I said 'Paul's vision').
Anyway - glad this misconception of yours has been cleared up.
You've also seem to have forgotten that we've established that Historians and Biblical scholars all agree that the Bible is not an accurate historical record on the differences between Pauline and Jewish Christianity - Gibbon showed this centuries ago, and Hans Kung reinforced this in a book you quoted.
You seem to think that the canonised Bible is the only source of historical information about Jesus' teachings - when in fact the Jewish Christians had pretty much a different view of Jesus' teachings to those of Pauline Christianity - eg. whether Jesus was God, or whether Christians needed to obey Judaic law (eg be circumcised).

Bingo - don't let anyone say you don't occasionally get the other guy's argument! Well, in this case it is only partially correct - the lesser commission is not a travel guide, but an explicit instruction about not preaching to Gentiles (your wishful thinking that it means something else is another thing you disagree with Biblical scholars over - just look up what 'lesser commission' means in, say, Kung's writings)

Funny - but as I said above, the lesser commission is not a travel guide! ;)

See previous note about travel guide. ;)

I understand you may want me to explain things to you umpteen times - but given that you have shown today that you can admit your mistakes, I may persist with you a bit more.

Yes, your quote from Hans Kung in Women in Christianity (for one) - which talks about how the Bible was re-written by Pauline Christians and the historical fact that Jewish Christianity was not heretical until the Pauline Christians had the political power.
I've explained that the Muslim view of Jesus' message is that of the Jewish Christian's - that Jesus was the Messiah for the Children of Israel prophecised in the OT, and that Jesus never changed his mission from the 'lesser commission' - and that we agree with the Biblical scholars who say the Bible verses talking about the 'Great Commission' are a later fabrication.

Cool, repeat yourself until you feel happy - your questions are answered above. But hey - if you want a textual criticism of the Bible - why don't you look up Mark 16 and compare what is there with the Codex Sinaticus (sp?) and what all modern day Bibles say - i.e. that this part of Mark is a later fabrication. And the subject matter - isn't it the 'Great Commission'??
Perhaps it is wishful thinking - but may be it is possible you'll admit your mistaken three times today?
Cheers,
Shafique event horizon Just for anyone reading, the following claims by shafique have been unanswered since he was asked for evidence or to elaborate on his claims:

Where does the New Testament say this?


Is shafique simply not aware that Jews were still forbidden from consuming pork? Probably.

Where did the Sadducees (Priests) go against Jewish Law? In fact, Jesus was the one who occasionally went against Jewish Law, but that is a little advanced for someone who, apparently, did not know that Jews in the New Testament were still required to be circumcised.
Please shafique, could you answer these questions? I assume you won't bother because you are/were once again pontificating but, if that is the case, why skirt around the issue and not acknowledge you made the claims up or read them off a missionary website? event horizon
For the most part, it is. There is the Didache, a book penned by Jewish Christians who sided with Paul, John, Peter and James that Gentiles were not required to follow Jewish law after they were converted, the Gospel of Thomas, with its gnostic tendencies and the writings of the apostolic fathers who studied at the feet of the Jesus' disciples, Peter and John - whom you claim were not true followers of Jesus.
Since you have not read any of the literature mentioned, in addition to the New Testament, I'll happily ignore any pontifications you type out after reading about them on google for two minutes.

Please learn the differences in theology from one group of Jewish Christians from other groups of Jewish Christians. No competent historian will claim that all the Jewish Christians believed Gentiles were required to follow Jewish law - the writings of church historians confirms this.
You are once again only showing your ignorance on this subject. But then again, I was the one who corrected your mistaken view on this topic previously - with you claiming that the controversy was over preaching to Gentiles.

Yes, I was the one that explained this to you, numerous times. How many times will it take for you to figure out the Jewish Christians were not a monolithic group?

Cool, so it's back to your previous claim that the Jewish Christians were against preaching to Gentiles. Hope you can show proof for this and also show proof that Paul changed direction and preached to Gentiles against the wishes of the Jesus' disciples.
After all, if you have no Bible verses or contemporary sources from the first century to support your claim, how did you arrive at it?
Further, we can also determine if the Ebionites, from the second century, did not evangelize and convert (preach to) gentiles as you just now have claimed.

I don't think you want to claim that two chapters you've read from a long dead historian (not a Biblical scholar) constitutes what scholars think. At least, not if you want to be taken seriously.

Which book of his did he discuss the lesser commission? I've read his book on women in christianity, which is what I am assuming you're referring to. Hope you're not once again pontificating.

Wait, what? Your response to my post does not even make any sense. Please re-read my post and then respond.

Please post these Biblical scholars to see what they actually say and if they believe that the lesser commission is also a fabrication. As far as I know, your 'scholars' is a reference from a sentence you quoted from wikipedia where the founder of the Jesus seminary expresses this belief. shafique Ok - lets start with what we agree.
We agree that the Bible is not 100% historically accurate and that scholars have shown that verses have been fabricated and inserted. These verses are sometimes innocuous (eg causing just contradictions - Paul's companions not hearing or hearing a voice) - or sometimes inserted for propaganda - eg what Gibbon showed centuries ago, and the example I gave above of Mark 16 v9 onwards.
We also agree that the Jewish Christians disagreed with some central tenets of Pauline Christian theology. We also agree that their views only became heretical after more than 100 years after Jesus.
Two specific points that Jewish Christians disagreed with Pauline Christians on were:
1. Was Jesus God - i.e. part of the Trinity, or was he a human Prophet only.
2. Was Jesus' message intended for people who choose not to follow Judaic law (eg could the uncircumcised be followers of the religion/message brought by Jesus).
You ask for references for these differences - even a 60 second Google search for 'Jewish' vs 'Pauline Christianity' throws up a wealth of information. But you don't need Google - you have already quoted books you have read which deal with this - viz Kung's comments in Women in Christianity.
You've read that book and I've quoted the relevant passage - but let me do so again:

(From second page of Contradictions in NT thread - referring to the book 'Women in Christianity' by Hans Kung you quoted from and available on Google books)
I trust that the quote from the eminent Professor and the reference to the book you have and quoted from will do for your purposes? Failing that, may I suggest you Google to check whether Prof Kung is mistaken and you are right?
Cheers,
Shafique event horizon I certainly hope you're not skirting the questions!

Where does the New Testament say this?

Where did the Sadducees (Priests) go against Jewish Law?
Here are your statements from the OP that I didn't see an answer to. shafique I'm sorry you are having a hard time accepting the historical reality that the New Testament was edited by Pauline Christians to support their theological views - I suggest you confirm that the quote I gave from Kung above (from a book you have) is accurate, and check with a friend about what Kung is actually saying. I've always said that you can't rely on the NT for historical references for the innovations introduced by Pauline Christians - but have to go back to the practices of the Jewish Christians who followed what Jesus actually taught. Let me give you a simple analogy - if you believe Fox News to be gospel, then you will believe that 9.29 etc show that Islam is a violent religion, but if you actually look at the reality you'll get the true picture. Capish? Now - this topic was about an error you made (assuming I was referring to Peter's vision rather than Paul's), so it would be a bit foolish for you to compound your error and continue to show another discredited belief (that the Bible is historically accurate/doesn't contained fabricated verses) Your second question about Pharisees and Saducees is quite simple - Jesus clarified the aspects of Judaic law which had become corrupted - like the emphasis on punishment, when the law of Moses also allowed for forgiveness - and also the practices of overt materialism/capitalism in the temples. As Jesus said, he didn't come to change the law of Moses - but was a reformer for the Jews. The Jewish Christians understood this and followed Jesus' message. As Kung points out, only after a century later did the Jewish Christian views become 'heretical' - and only when Pauline Christians had gained 'political' power (within the 'church'). You have the books, I suggest you read up on the issue. Til then, may I just thank you again for bringing up the subject and confirming that I was right in my initial post all along (on Paul having a vision, not having physically met Jesus etc) Cheers, Shafique event horizon
I'm sorry, but that's not what you originally wrote - if I can remember, you said the disciples were weary of Paul's conversion of Gentiles.
I have asked you where in the Bible does it say this and you have so far not responded. Am I to assume you made the claim up, or not?
If you did not arrive at this conclusion from the Bible, then which primary source have you read that says the disciples were weary of Paul's conversion of Gentiles?
Did you make this claim up, as I suspect, or do you have any NT passage or primary source from the first century that supports your assertion?

Been there, done that.
I've already asked you for what contemporary sources exist alongside the New Testament and you couldn't find any (oops, I forgot not to use the 'c' word around you).
Happy to look at what historical sources you're basing this off of and if you're actually just looking at one group of Jewish Christians or all of them. For someone like myself who has read historians on this topic, I assume for you that it's a combination of pontificating (making claims up) and googling.

Don't recall Jesus saying this is a corruption of Judaic law. But what does a 're-interpretation' of Jewish law have to do with your claim that the Sadducees were going against the Law?

Lol. What reading up on the issue have you done, exactly? Pray tell, how many books have you read? shafique Thanks for confirming that I have indeed answered your queries and we now agree on this historical reality that the Bible has been edited by Pauline Christians. You seem to have a wierd view of recent events (to go with your wierd view of more distant events) - as you seem to be under the impression that I thought the Bible was a credible and unbiased historical document -when I in fact pointed out to you that historians has disproved this many hundreds of years ago (and cited Gibbon).
You keep asking where I got my information that Jewish Christians differed from Pauline Christians - yet I keep referring you to scholars such as Kung (knowning you say you own their books).
I understand that your confusion seems to stem from the belief that the Bible is an accurate historical account and contains no contradictions. And yet you seemed unaware that the Bible states Noah lived to 950 years (whilst starting a thread asking what the Quran says Noah's age was).
May I ask whether you have read the Bible? Did you not know it said Noah was 950 years old?
You also ask how many books I've read - please specify the time period, I can tell you how many I've read over the past few days, but going back more than a couple week will be a little problematic (I'll probably only be able to tell you to the nearest 10).
I'm currently reading: The Quran (every day), The Black Swan - N Taleb, Hidden Agendas - J Pilger and Dan Brown's Lost Symbol. Last week I finished 'Blink' by Malcolm Gladwell (previously read, Tipping Point and Outliers) - and also finally got round to 'Notes from a small Island' by Bill Bryson - excellent read, - also recommend Mother Tongue and 'A short history of almost everything' by him.
But I'm curious - why this recent interest in what I'm reading?? ;)
Cheers,
Shafique
Cheers,
Shafique event horizon Didn't read your post, except for the first line. Can you tell me how you arrived at your conclusion that the apostles were weary of Paul? Did you read this in the NT, from a primary source outside of the NT or did you make the claim up/read it off a Muslim missionary website? Simple question, hopefully you won't skirt the issue (again).
shafique :lol: I read it from books written by scholars such as Kung. Jewish Christians followed Jesus' teachings and the apostles of Jesus were all good Jewish Christians who continued to follow Judaic law (as did Jesus himself). I have also given you references, ad nauseum, to scholars who confirm that the Bible has been modified (and let's not forget, you've quoted a few of them as well!) I now understand how you get your views -you only read headlines! Cheers, Shafique event horizon Cool. Can you provide the passage from 'books' you've read that say the apostles were weary of Paul for preaching to Gentiles? It was your claim, after all. You shouldn't hesitate to substantiate it (unless you made it up). shafique You really must try and keep up and actually read the books you quote from. Actually, it may just be a matter of comprehension rather than reading - perhaps the meaning of Kung's words which I quoted from 'Women In Christianity' didn't register? Let's take it in baby steps for you (sorry, if I had an illustrated version of the development of Pauline Christianity, it might have been easier for you to follow - but alas, we have to make-do with grown up books - sorry). Firstly - what does Kung say in the book you quoted from about the difference between Pauline and Jewish Christianity? Does he say that all the apostles of Jesus acted as is described in the edited Bible that was canonised by Pauline Christians? A clue to the answer is in the quote I already gave from pg 15 of his book, and the subsequent passages also references in 'Contradictions in NT'. Please don't ask for more help with your education until you've done some work and read the book you say you possess and answer the question above. Cheers, Shafique event horizon Strange reply. For starters, your post I quoted in the OP was from at least a year ago, probably longer than that. Your response that the answer lies in Kung's book does not seem to be very believable considering that you had not read the page from Kung's book at the time you made the claim that you're now referring to. So, ignoring that Kung's book does not say the apostles of Jesus were weary of Paul's missionary work among Gentiles, you must have either picked this claim up somewhere else or made it up on the spot - similar to the claim of yours that Jesus said works without faith are dead, which you later retracted and acknowledged you made that assertion up as well. Are you having difficulty with the question, shafique? To reiterate: How did you come by the conclusion that Jesus' apostles were weary of Paul's missionary work amongst the Gentiles - a claim you mode more than a year ago. Did you make it up, as I suspect (like your statement of Jesus' quote from the epistle of James), or did you read this from the New Testament or some other contemporary source outside of the New Testament but was written within the first century? Perhaps you read this claim from one of those theologians you claim to read. Perchance you have the theologian, book and page number? Come on, all this talk about reading comprehension seems to have flown over your head. Pray tell, did you make the claim up or didn't you? If you didn't, where did you hear this from? Hopefully this shouldn't be too hard of an answer to such a simple question, but I suspect another 10 pages of obfuscation by referring to a book that does not actually address the question and is a moot point because you were not aware of the book at the time you made the claim. shafique Did you even read the book 'Women in Christianity' by Hans Kung that you quoted from? Was my reference to his quote on pg 15 not specific enough for you, or was his explanation not clear enough? Happy to try and explain it to you in simple words - just tell me what you think he says about the issue of Jewish Christianity vs Pauline Christianity. Can't be fairer than that. Cheers, Shafique event horizon Ok, I'll bite. Where does Kung's book say the following:

Nope, don't see anything on the apostles of Jesus being weary of Paul's conversion of Gentiles. Is shafique having a senior moment or am I?
shafique You want me to chew your food before you swallow it?
I gave a quote from Pg 15 of Kung's book - what does it say about the Bible in relation to Pauline vs Jewish Christian discussion we've been having? I'm just checking you understand what you are reading - simple really.
If you look up this page at the post from Sat Oct 3 at 5.53 am, you'll find a quote from the Book - please read it in context and the subsequent passages which talk about how the Bible had misogynistic passages inserted by Pauline Christians.
But, as I'm feeling charitable, here it is again:

So, according to Kung, what were the views of 'Jewish Christians' that only became heretical in the 2nd and 3rd centuries? They were the very differences between Pauline and Jewish Christianity we are discussing (at least what I was referring to in your first quote from me in this thread about Paul's 'vision' )
Cheers,
Shafique event horizon Amazing leap of logic in shafique's post:


Uhm, no. Kung simply says that there were differences between the Christian communities in later centuries. He never said that these differences were the same differences between Paul and the Judaizers he had disagreements with (let alone between the differences, as you claim, were between Paul and the apostles of Jesus in regards to Gentile conversion).
Are you having difficulty with my question or are being deliberately obtuse? shafique Does Kung say that the Church history was re-written by the Pauline Christian victors along theological lines? Does he not also state that the Christians the 'official' church declared as heretical have now (recently) been rehabilitated (i.e. recognised as true Christians) and that he includes 'Jewish Christians' as true Christians who were considered heretics by the Pauline Christians? As I thought - it appears the challenge you are facing is one of comprehension. ;) Cheers, Shafique event horizon Despite your misinterpretation of facts, what does that have to do with your claim that the apostles were weary of Paul's missionary work among Gentiles? I fail to see your connection to the views of Jewish Christians and the Catholic church (regarding issues of a virgin birth, trinity vs. adoptionism) over a century and a half later and your claim that the apostles *at the time of Jesus* were 'weary' of Paul. shafique Ok, let me connect the dots for you. The apostles that did not follow Pauline Christian doctrines but rather remained true to Jesus' teachings (as believed by the Jewish Christians) were the ones that were wary of Paul's changing of Jesus' mission. This schism between Jewish Christians and Pauline Christians is one of the areas the historians have highlighted as being distorted by the re-writing of the Bible and official Church history. Cheers, Shafique event horizon
Unfortunately, there is no apostolic succession between the Ebionites and the earthly followers of Jesus.
Do you want to try again (or will you claim that because the Ebionites venerated James this meant there was a direct connection?)
Oh, and care to show the differences in belief between the Jewish-Christians, as documented by Justin Martyr and Epiphanius, with those of Paul?
I'll go ahead and ignore that this has nothing to do with your original claim and my question asking for you to substantiate it. event horizon For anyone reading along:

So far, shafique seems unable or unwilling to simply answer a question to his own post.
What source says the *disciples* did not want the message of Jesus to be taken to the Gentiles?
Does a historian make this claim, if so, why doesn't shafique simply post this historian who explicitly says this, as opposed to citing one sentence that is unrelated to the issue at hand? shafique What historian makes the claim that Jewish Christians did not agree with Pauline Christian theological innovations? Pretty much every historian who has written on the subject of the differences between the two! The Jewish Christians believed (as do Muslims) that Jesus taught his disciples that he wasn't God and that his message was only meant for followers of the laws of Judaism - as Jesus clearly stated in the Bible that he did not come to change Mosaic law. Next I guess you'll be asking me to prove water is wet! ;) Cheers, Shafique event horizon
You really do seem to be making a point on how obtuse you are. What don't you understand that there were different sects within Jewish Christianity - with some siding with the decision of the Jerusalem council and others, later Pharisaic Jews according to your own author, who maintained that Gentiles should follow Jewish dietary laws?
Are you having a difficult time reading plain English?

You must not have read very many historians. I would re-explain this to you, but I would simply waste my time. Please refer to my post and the quotes from church fathers on the Nazarenes by Justin Martyr and Epiphanius. shafique Your faith in official church history is touching.
I refer you to the quote I gave from Father Murphy-O'Conner in the 'Contradictions in NT' thread - which shows that your views are at odds with historical fact.
I agree that the official church history downplays the differences between Pauline and Jewish Christianity - it has to. The problem for you is that the Bible and official church history is now commonly known to be unreliable as it contains fabrications written by Pauline Christians.
It is a matter of choice/opinion which of the various schools of thought is correct - whether the Jewish Christians' view of Jesus' message (the ones who disagreed fundamentally with Pauline Christianity) or those of the Pauline Christians (or even those Pauline Christian history says 'half' agreed with Paul).
The point is that official church history is highly suspect. The Bible itself contains forged verses/letters , as you now have had to concede.
Biblical scholars acknowledge that there are contradictions because of these fabrications (you say there are no contradictions).
I'm not asking you to take my word, just the scholars you have quoted and eminent experts such as Father O'Conner - quoted again below.
event horizon Where's the beef? You quote from some Biblical scholars who say there were fabrications and I can quote from many scholars on the Koran who say the Koran contains contradictions and the Koran abrogates its own passages.

Cool. Thanks for the history lesson.

I wouldn't know. I tend to read secular historians and scholars. Your argument is really with modern historians who have re-appraised Church history and the New Testament. It is their conclusions, for the most part, that I am reporting. But hey, I'd love for you to give me your opinion of New Testament scholars such as Dunn and the new perspective?
I'm sure you've read his books just like you've read the NT.

The funny thing is, is that you're presenting this information as if it was 'news' to me. I can only assume you came across it just recently as a result of your googling and felt the need to share it like a three year old who must tell others how old he is or of the doggy he rubbed. shafique Well, I'm glad the information that I'm presenting isn't news to you. Given that I've quoted Father O'Conner stating that the Bible contains forged verses which contradict other parts of the Bible - then I take it you knew I was right all along when I stated the Bible contains contradictory verses which were inserted by Pauline Christians (as O'Conner et al state). Glad we clarified that. Cheers, Shafique event horizon shafique Why did you ask me to produce a reference from a NT scholar then? Anyway - glad you don't disagree that Father O'Conner is a reputable Biblical scholar/theologian who has written books about Paul. It is interesting that he outright contradicts your view of this passage - that it is not only a contradiction, but a fabrication. I'm also happy to compare and contrast the internal consistency of the Quran with that of the Bible - no Muslim scholar, to my knowledge, says that the Quran had verses/chapters added to it by later authors. Anyway - you asked for the reference from a NT scholar, I provided you with another one. I presume you're satisfied now that your view is not shared by O'Conner? Cheers, Shafique event horizon
It's also interesting that the views of orthodox Islam disagree with your opinion that the Koran does not contain contradictory passages. One must choose who to believe - Arabic speaking scholars on the Koran, or someone whose knowledge of religion seems to derive from an Ahmadiyya website.

If I did ask you to produce a quote from a NT scholar, it might have been in relation to your claim that the apostles were distrustful of Paul's missionary work amongst Gentiles.
For some reason, however, I guess you found out through your googling that the authorship of the second letter attributed to Peter is in dispute and decided to post this strawman.
Still not sure why you continue to bring up what is widely known, but good for you that learned something new.

Yes, that's partially correct. What is more accurate is what I'm asking for. shafique
Cool, we don't disagree that O'Conner flatly contradicts your view on this verse. The Bible contains contradictory verses inserted by Pauline Christians according to this eminent Biblical scholar and Dominican Monk - and the quote comes from a recent book talking about the compilation of the Bible and its canonisation.
Therefore, your claims do seem to be a bit hollow - but I admire your chutzpah to argue that there aren't contradictions in the Bible despite the verdict of the likes of O'Conner.

If you look at the thread NT contradictions, you will see that there the verse discussed there is what O'Conner states is a contradictory fabricated insertion, you say is not a contradiction.
You now say it was widely known that the Bible contains contradictions and contains fabricated verses. I TOTALLY agree - and I've been saying this all along. Yet you have repeatedly asked for references from scholars. QED.
Anyway, glad we agree that O'Conner agrees with me that this first contradiction is a contradiction and that this is a widely known fact that is at odds with your assertion that the Bible 'contains no contradictions'.
Cheers,
Shafique event horizon
Please try and read. I don't recall saying that the New Testament contains either contradictions or interpolations.
What I said, is that the belief that the New Testament contains interpolations is widely known.
Really, your inability to comprehend the English language / twist the written word is remarkable. Is English your first language (if it isn't, I won't be so critical)?

Once again, another remarkable failure to comprehend what I was asking for.
I was asking for which sources (and I extended this to the views of scholars since +you+ were unable to state which NT passage or primary sources make the claim) state that the apostles of Jesus were distrustful of Paul's missionary work amongst Gentiles.
Did you make your claim up while pontificating (as I suspect) or did you actually, at the time, read this from a historian/theologian?



Dubai Forum | Paris Forum | Vegan Forum | Brisbane Forum | 3D Forum | Classified Jobs in Dubai | Listings of Jobs in London | London classified ads Portal
| © 2021 Dubai Forums | Privacy policy