After breaking 1000 comments on the previous thread, I felt it was a good time to start another.
As a reminder, here are some of the most recent outstanding questions for Kathy:
From Laurie:
You said you answered my questions, and wish more questions were asked. Here are some questions that were not addressed.
Matt 23:8 read first
Philemon 1:10
1 Corinthians 4:14-17
1 Corinthians 12:27
2 Timothy 1:11
1 Timothy 2:7
Ephesians 4:11,12Why is it that messiah says not to be called rabbi or father, but Paul it’s not obedient to this command?
Matt 10:7,8
1 Timothy 5:17,18
1 Corinthians 9:11,12Messiah says here that he had given freely, go and freely give. Again, Paul is disobedient.
Matt 18:15
Galatians 2:11-14
Messiah said that if you have a problem with your brother, you should deal with it privately. Here Paul lashes out at Peter “before them all”.
Matt 9:10-12
2 Thessalonians 3:6,7
Yahusha said in the passage above that he came to call the sinner to repentance, not the righteous. Why would Paul want to separate from those that actually need him?
From William:
the “evidences” you listed arent real evidences. And since you refuse to look at things that are counter to your current beliefs, how can you honestly speak to me about evidences?
here’s all I’ve seen you provide:
1) martyrs, even though every religion and many non-religions have them.
2) our very existence – which no one knows how that started, but even if you must land on god(s), you must go back to that book of claims to get to jesus.
3) there were miracles, but as it turns out, those dont happen today, and end up being more claims by the same men who claim they speak for god.
4) the fulfilled prophecies we’ve discussed weren’t really prophecies at all, or had to be viewed so figuratively that it’s difficult to show anything precise about them other than location (maybe) in order to claim they’re actually fulfilled.
5) 40 authors taking 1500 years to write the bible. But there’s nothing miraculous about men writing books, editing books, and being inspired to write a book or letter after reading an older book.
In addition to these, I’d like to ask something of both Kathy and Laurie (Matt or Hayden or portal001 (Ryan) can chime in as well):
The Bible defines God as being all-loving, all-merciful, fair, just, etc. It can also be read as promising an eternity in Hell for those who don’t serve him correctly. As a believer, how do you square those two statements?
Finding Truth 
@powellpowers:
Hi Powell,
In a true debate format, the burden of proof is on anyone making a claim. Therefore, both of us need to shoulder our burden of proof. I had already presented reasons that there were more apostles agreeing that they were not the same kind as the 12 apostles who symbolized the tribes of Israel. If you scroll up you will find it. (Or perform a “find” function and use apostle as keyword).
You said, “Unfortunately whatever Paul says about himself cannot be used as testimony isn’t it?”
The author of Acts testifies to Paul’s apostleship in ch:vs 14:14 and the author of 2 Peter (who claims to be Peter himself) affirms Paul’s letters in ch:vs 3:15. That’s 3 witnesses.
You said, “So why don’t you explain fully why he is one rather than shifting the onus to those who don’t believe?”
Like I said, I presented my reasoning, but no one ever responded with reasoning.
LikeLike
Interestingly, Laurie (if that IS your real name!), if there is a theme to 1 Corinthians, it would be, “leveling the playing field.” Throughout, he is encouraging the “strong” to basically relax their hold on power and admit the “weak” to their share of the sphere of influence. Until it comes to WOMEN, and then Pablo falls back on the old standard assumption that women are inferior to men, and should be seen as such. That’s always bothered me.
LikeLike
“I’m pretty conservative, as I’m sure you guessed”
What? No screams of “LIBERAL!”? It may take us a while to get used to that.
LikeLike
Laurie, it seems that you think I am passively-aggressively insulting you, but honestly I am not or at least what I write does not have that intention. I’m sorry if it came off that way, I try to be more careful.
I see that you posted Pauline writing on this subject and Acts and Revelation verses that you think are out of line with Paul. I am aware of all of these and don’t see any face value contradiction. So, I’m interested in what about Paul you think contradicts these other writers. It would help to provide a short exposition if you are interested.
LikeLike
Brandon, reasoning is defined as “thinking that is coherent and logical.” As a verb, it is to “draw or come to a conclusion.”
I feel that both Laurie and I have presented our views on Paul with reasoning. Why do you feel otherwise?
LikeLike
“The author of Acts testifies to Paul’s apostleship in ch:vs 14:14”
Fail – the Acts Seminar, carried out by the Weststar Institute, as I’ve previously mentioned, indicates that the author of Acts cannot be considered a reliable witness for Paul. Scratch one witness.
LikeLike
“if you don’t vote, I guess you can’t complain right?”
I side with the late George Carlin on this:
“I firmly believe that if you vote, you have no right to complain. Now, some people like to twist that around. They say, ‘If you don’t vote, you have no right to complain,’ but where’s the logic in that? If you vote, and you elect dishonest, incompetent politicians, and they get into office and screw everything up, you are responsible for what they have done. You voted them in. You caused the problem. You have no right to complain. I, on the other hand, who did not vote—who did not even leave the house on Election Day—I am in no way responsible for that these politicians have done and have every right to complain about the mess that you created.”
By voting, you forfeit the right to complain, because you’ve expressed prior approval to be bound by the outcome of a process that grants legislative authority to someone based solely on their popularity, rather than their merit. I can think of no other vocation in which potential candidates are selected in such a haphazard manner.
LikeLike
Nan, when I say “reasoning” I mean that you should say more than just the conclusion of your study. I’m saying you’ve got to explain how and why you’ve come to this conclusion. Maybe from your perspective you are doing this but from mine you are not. From my perspective you’ve settled on a poor argument, but I still wonder if there is something I am missing. I assume that you know something I don’t, so I try to get it out of you.
@Arch: the Acts Seminar: proving that postmodernism is alive since its inception.
LikeLike
Brandon, may I turn this around? I believe you said you “reconverted.” So what was the reasoning you used to return to Christianity? What conclusions did you come to that changed your mind?
You have quoted and referenced some scriptures that, for you, define Paul. As I mentioned in another comment (and to which you agreed), we need to look at the history behind the bible as well as other material. As has been demonstrated in various books and articles, there are several contradictions between the teachings of Paul and Jesus. In a cursory review of scriptures, one would most likely never see these.
I can’t say for sure, but I think Laurie is trying to point out scriptures where she feels Paul’s teachings do contradict the teachings of Jesus. While you may not see any “face value contradictions,” apparently she does.
One last thing — why do you think numerous scholars believe that Christianity is based on Pauline theology rather than the teachings of Jesus?
LikeLike
Brandon,
What does this mean Brandon? You also said something similar the other day on this post about “squirmy postmodern”.
You were noting on my blog a few weeks ago that you considered your own thinking postmodern, so I’m confused. You speak here as if it’s something disdainful, but I got the clear impression you felt a connection to it on my blog.
LikeLike
Ruth, you’ve posted yet another failed and dishonest comment. It’s all about your pride and ego.. you reveal that every time.
And it’s truly sad that the only point you feel like you can debate is the one about Obama.
You are one of the few left who is actually still trying to defend him. This is ALSO proof of your pride and ego.. that’s the only reason anyone could possible have.. you cannot admit that you were wrong about him.. and even worse.. that you and probably every other liberal here actually voted for him. You don’t want to acknowledge that he used you, lied to you and fooled you.. and is STILL fooling you. fyi.. HE’S been the MOST divisive president in history.. it’s pure liberal propaganda to blame the GOP for Obama’s failures. Clinton had the same problems.. and he did the smart thing and worked with them. Obama hands are “tied” by HIS pride and ego.. and his blatant dishonesty.
You all aren’t the first to be fooled by politicians.. we all have been and probably currently are by many.. but when the facts are so overwhelming and you STILL refuse to acknowledge the truth, it’s your fault.. it’s your pride and ego that are controlling your life.. and ultimately helping to destroy the greatest country to ever exist.
” Your Henny Penny attitude contributes to the continued divisiveness of the country. If you want to solve anything maybe a better approach would be learning all you can about the different positions and trying to bring the sides together instead of driving them farther apart. ”
Yeah.. right.. it’s “my” divisiveness that’s ruining the country.. it couldn’t be Obama’s.. nahh.. that’s just silly.
“The extreme partisanship that has permeated his tenure in the White House is atrocious. It has rendered his presidency impotent.”
And THAT’S another critical part of the problem.. you all FAIL to realize that the BEST thing we can do for this country is to render Obama impotent.
You all don’t get it.. your pride and ego blinders won’t let you.
LikeLike
Wow, Kathy, you really don’t know the first thing about me. I’m not defending Obama per se. I’m trying to bring a bit of a moderate tone to this. That’s not the only point I felt I could debate. It’s just pointless with you because it seems that unless we all agree with your extreme right-wing propaganda we’re ruining the country. I’m not the one who is screaming about the demise of America here.
I’m not fooled by politicians. I don’t particularly like any of them. No sir, no way.
So, Kathy, since this country is in such terrible shape where are you moving to? Which country?
LikeLike
Kathy, are you aware that what people tend to see in others are the very qualities they themselves possess? In case you haven’t notice, the opinions you express on this blog literally reek of self-importance (pride and ego) — which is undoubtedly why you tend to see it in others.
LikeLike
Just read a quote on FB by Cory Booker, Newark, New Jersey:
And to that, can you say Amen?
LikeLike
Nan, you asked: “So what was the reasoning you used to return to Christianity? What conclusions did you come to that changed your mind?”
It was an incredibly complex process that is hard to summarize. I think there were certain barriers that had to be overcome. The first was realizing it is possible that the bible is not immoral. That may seem trivial but it was a huge barrier for me. Then, the next phase was overcoming the barrier of the science and religion rhetoric and then getting past deism. And, it required a lot of growth and humility. I had to wrestle with all sorts of confirmation bias and old scars from my prior stent in Christianity. And now here I am. Sorry that’s so vague.
I understand why people see contrast between Jesus and Paul (the first was the leader of a Jewish sect and second was the missionary of a cult by sociological definitions), but concluding that these two logically contradict or that Paul was not sent by God is wholly different. I also understand there are some webpages or books out there that seem to “prove” it, but I could show you a webpage or book “proving” almost anything: God doesn’t exist, Jesus didn’t exist, the Old Testament is immoral, we can’t trust the New Testament, evolution is true or false, Islam is true, Mormonism is true, nothing is true, everything is true, and so on. There is a radical diversity of views out there and they are all backed up with “reasoning”. If I adopted everyone’s “reasoning” I would believe everything and nothing, it would be totally meaningless and incapacitating.
That’s why I approach a disagreement like this. I ask for the best argument. And, in this case I also provided several counterarguments because I’m familiar with the material. For example, you must have concluded that Paul was “for” eating meat sacrificed to idols for some reason. I don’t see the reason, and I have read all of relevant passages. Therefore, you would need to exposit the passage like I did above. Like how would you exposit 1 Corinthians 8 differently than me?
You asked: “why do you think numerous scholars believe that Christianity is based on Pauline theology rather than the teachings of Jesus?”
I’m not sure what the relevant distinction is. For example, I could ask, why do you think numerous scholars think Pauline theology is based on the teachings of Jesus and his resurrection? Like NT Wright who thinks that Paul reinterpreted Judaism through the lens of the resurrection something that obviously Jesus couldn’t have done during his earthly life!
-B
LikeLike
@Howie,
Yeah I can see how it appears that I disdain postmodernism! I was being snarky with Arch because I’m sure Arch rejects the tenets of postmodernism. And, I did use the term “squirmy postmodernism” which is sounds pejorative.
I still espouse a weak postmodernism which acknowledges a good deal of subjectivity is required to hold any view at all. At the same time I draw the line somewhere. I still think there are differences in argument strength. If you could scientifically prove that Paul was not sent by Jesus, that would be difficult to escape. If you could prove a logical contradiction between Paul and Jesus teachings, that would be pretty strong. If you could only show a vague prophecy. . . well that’s getting more flimsy because there are too many ways to interpret something vague and we are likely to follow our prejudice here. So, saying “squirmy postmodernist” was a way of saying someone who would not be able to escape their own confirmation bias, that they would rationalize. I’m not saying this person would do this intentionally, as in not upholding the ethics of truth-seeking, but that it might happen because something bendable will be bent.
-B
LikeLike
Nan,
I agree with you.. people often criticize others for things they see and dislike in themselves.
I don’t deny that I have pride and ego issues.. and I dislike those things.
As per your quote.. can you give specifics about what I’m doing wrong? My exact words.. with
explanations possibly?
Ruth,
“It’s just pointless with you because it seems that unless we all agree with your extreme right-wing propaganda we’re ruining the country. I’m not the one who is screaming about the demise of America here. ”
“..it seems…” Why does it seem Ruth? Please use my exact words. What you’ll find (hopefully) is that I have an opinion.. and I WELCOME your opinion.. but just not about me personally.. that’s not productive Ruth.. please make it about THE points.. we ARE allowed to have our own opinions.. and we are allowed to believe certain things, especially when NO counter argument has been give. Again, this is how it all works.. it’s called “debating”.. and nothing in the definition includes addressing people’s personal shortcomings unless it’s hindering progress.. and that requires that you actually BACK UP the assertions… like I have done with my assertions of your pride and ego issues.
For example, why would anyone defend Obama at this point?? He’s been CAUGHT lying, intentionally misleading, making costly decisions for this country, playing golf and vacationing when he SHOULD be giving his full attention to the serious problems presently going on.. you accuse me of watching “biased” news sources that don’t give the full story.. that’s truly laughable.. most of the media is overwhelming liberal driven.. believe me, it’s YOUR sources who are not giving you the full story. When are you all going to wake up to this?? You’re being used like pawns. The evidence is overwhelming.
LikeLike
Brandon, I would never suggest your reasoning (and the resulting conclusions) related to your re-conversion are vague because to you, they were the determining factors in your decision. By the same token, I reached my conclusions about Paul through my own reasoning powers. They may not seem substantial to you but obviously, they are to me.
I think all of us have our “reasons” for why we believe as we do. And it’s not always easy to explain our thinking to others.
I respect that you’ve made a decision to return to God. (I can certainly identify with your comment about wrestling with all sorts of confirmation bias and old scars!). But for me, it will never happen. Ever. And yes, I can say that with confidence. Far too much water has passed under the bridge.
BTW, I’m not copping out. At this point, I feel I’ve presented my best arguments against Paul. To do more would be too time-consuming, plus the fact that I’ve outlined everything in my book. Besides, I’m quite sure it would not be an “argument” I would “win.”
P.S. Laurie was the one who talked about the meat and idols. Altho’ I agree with her, my reasons against Paul are different than hers.
LikeLike
Kathy,
Your political opinions have nothing to do with the questions of whether the bible and Jesus are of divine origin. Even if (by some stretch of the imagination) you were completely right about the politics, it would all follow from beliefs–none of it is foundational to the questions at hand.
Do you have any intention of getting back on topic, and addressing the content of this post itself? Now some 700+ comments later–never mind those thousands preceding…
LikeLike
And please–no more claims of “the evidence is out there”. Put up or shut up.
LikeLike
Kathy, I actually just posted that quote by Cory Booker because I liked it … and totally agree with what he says. It wasn’t directed at you or anyone.
However, since you asked …
Cory said, “first show it to me in how you treat other people …” From this blog, I only know your words and not your actions, but to me, when you refer to other people with derogatory terms, I don’t feel you are treating these people with respect. Nor is it showing the love that you repeatedly point out is from God.
You have a right to defend your beliefs. You even have a right to get angry with others when they say things that you feel are untrue. But there is a way to respond that doesn’t offend the other person. Even though the old adage says, “Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me,” I think every person knows this isn’t true. We are affected by derogatory words.
So I guess what I’m saying is, in future comments, try to use a little more discretion and temper your words with the loving spirit that you believe comes from God.
LikeLike
Hi Brandon,
I still think you got it the other way round.
Basically I’m asking this question: looking at scriptures that Laurie states, it does seem that Paul contradicts what Jesus has said (or purported to have said in the 4 gospels). Furthermore given that Paul’s own conversion came through dubious means, and has ever mentioned any miracles that Jesus did nor talk even about the virgin birth, I’m extremely curious why Christians actually believe that Paul is a true apostle.
Unless you say that there is no contradiction even at face value from the verses that Laurie used. Then I would say our difference in opinion would be too large for any real discussion to be had.
And I agree with nan, I can see Laurie and Nan’s reasoning/logic on this matter. I’m not sure why you keep insisting that none was given. Don’t get me wrong, but this almost sounds like what the namesake of this post kept doing – claiming that nobody showed her good evidence and unbiased/objective observations.
Also to add on, I find what you say about many things on the Internet proving this and that disingenuous. Sure there are websites that proved moon landing didnt happen, but it is easy to show evidence that it certainly did. Same thing goes for Obama being a Muslim and what not. If you hold the ultimate truth, I’m quite sure you can prove conclusively about the apostleship of Paul, at the very least we can agree that the evidences you have soon are not conclusive but we can agree to disagree, or conclude that you’re taking it by faith (which is by no means saying that you are wrong or deluded).
Hence, I would really like to see you addressing at least some of the verses that Laurie brought up and explain why do you think Paul is not contradicting jesus, or you can simply hand wave it away and claim we are illogical and lack proper understanding and hence there is no need to even dignify Laurie’s questions.
LikeLike
Rata,
You post comments based on YOUR reasoning, and I’ll do the same.
Don’t worry about what I’m commenting about.. you can easily skip/ ignore my comments.
Just because you don’t see the connection… I.. let me reinforce that because I can’t emphasize with capitalization..I! DO see a huge connection between MY religion, Christianity, and politics. That’s why I.. I! am addressing the political issues.
The political events are intertwined in Christianity in that it is elemental to fulfillment of Biblical
prophecy. Which is just further EVIDENCE of the Truth of Christianity!
And I’m also going to note that this is ALSO extremely common among liberals (surprise!).. they are always trying to “regulate”.. aka CONTROL what THEY don’t like.. as if it’s all about them… other people’s rights and views are of no importance.
LikeLike
Kathy, why would I believe you on anything you’ve said. You provide no data to back up your arguments and then you call anyone else with whose opinion you disagree dishonest.
George W. Bush said there were WMD’s in Iraq. Where are they? Oh, yeah. There weren’t any. They all lie, Kathy. I’m only defending points where I think you’ve got it wrong.
Kathy I’m asking you to just stop. We are never going to agree and if your only desire is to tell me how wrong my opinion is then we’re wasting our time. I’ve provided data. I’ve given sources. I’ve developed my own opinion on the matters. I don’t tout a liberal agenda nor a conservative one. The only thing you can do is recite right-wing bull.
Fine. It doesn’t “seem” anything. You’ve proven over and over that you have no intention of having rational dialogue. All you know how to do is question people’s honesty and call them liberals. You haven’t an original thought in your head.
LikeLike
Nan,
“From this blog, I only know your words and not your actions, but to me, when you refer to other people with derogatory terms, I don’t feel you are treating these people with respect. Nor is it showing the love that you repeatedly point out is from God. ”
I see that you are sincere.. but this is why I asked for my exact words. If you can please take the time to find an example that supports your belief that would go a long way.
I acknowledge that my tone or attitude often leaves a lot to be desired but again, it’s a reflection of what is directed at me. re: Arch as a great example.
But when you say use “derogatory terms”.. I honestly don’t know where I’ve done that.. I am tempted all the time.. believe me.. but I try hard to restrain myself. The words I do us, are not meant to be “derogatory”.. they are meant to point out a truth. Again, this is what I’m trying to get across.. and have been for so long now with liberals/ liberal minded people.. those who’ve been brainwashed by liberal political correctness.. you cannot deal with a problem if you first do not identify it. This is just simple logic. And to me, I can easily defend the problem of liberal beliefs and views. So, when I identify people as liberal or liberal minded, I can defend that assertion and it’s harmfulness to them and to society. It’s not meant to insult, it’s meant to identify.. to POINT OUT.. so it can be addressed/ resolved.
I’m sorry but here I go again.. this is another great example of liberal confusion that is destroying society.
Look at England.. because of liberal political “correctness”.. they never said anything “derogatory” about Muslims… they even promoted Muslim “rights”.. and today, they are
paying the price of not being outspoken when things weren’t right. Do some quick research. I just learned the other day that England and other European countries are no longer ALLOWING Muslims to immigrate to their countries! They NOW recognize what is going on.. but NOW it’s too late. There are actually Islamic courts of law in England.. and liberals PROMOTED this out of their confused desire to be politically “correct”.. and not be “derogatory” against Muslims.
So, please point out where I’m being “derogatory” so I can see if your accusation is correct.. I contend that that is not the case, although, I do acknowledge there might be a few exceptions..
LikeLike