Political Crossfire Forums

[cap'n queasy]

Clara Listensprechen wrote: There is no context to legitimize any of it, not even the context given. Same is true of Saul/Paul conjuring up Satan and contradicting Jesus. No context legitimizes hiring Satan for anything, nevermind what Paul hired him to do.

Paul conjuring up Satan?

WTF are you talking about? :lol:

Unbelievable.

[Clara Listensprechen]

cap'n queasy wrote: :lol:

Quite humorous.


And BTW there is no credible scholar who claims that the Epistles predate the Gospels.

Nobody is credible unless they believe as you do. That's a rather recursive definition of scholarship.

[cap'n queasy]

Clara Listensprechen wrote: psholtz wrote: Clara Listensprechen wrote: psholtz wrote: Clara Listensprechen wrote: Jesus said that children could understand. Quit whining about simpletons, quit calling me names, then stand and deliver.
That would be in the Gospels now wouldn't it?

Not in the Epistles..

My, how you grasp at such mere straws...
No, it's not grasping at straws.. In fact, it's the sum and total of the whole point I'm trying to make, a point which you yourself have proven for me quite nicely.


Which is that you're grasping at straws because you don't have command of the facts. When desperate for facts, the desperate turn to namecalling. Everybody knows that.

Excuse me, as much as I hate to say Sholtz is right. You are just so wrong I have to interject.

The passage about children understanding the message of Y'shua is indeed found in the Gospels.

And that, my dear, makes it you who are grasping at straws.

Yet again. :lol:

You are a very silly person who references words and concepts you do not understand.

[Clara Listensprechen]

cap'n queasy wrote: Clara Listensprechen wrote: There is no context to legitimize any of it, not even the context given. Same is true of Saul/Paul conjuring up Satan and contradicting Jesus. No context legitimizes hiring Satan for anything, nevermind what Paul hired him to do.

Paul conjuring up Satan?

WTF are you talking about? :lol:

Unbelievable.

You've seen the scripture I've posted elsewhere. You just want me to repeat myself.


Quote: When you are assemled in the name of our Lord Jesus and I am with you in spirit, and the power of our Lord Jesus is present, hand this man over to Satan, so that the sinful nature may be destroyed and his spirit saved on the Day of the Lord
1 Corinthians 5:5 Paul hires Satan and Satan is performing good works--tis an oddity, no?
Quote: ...Some have shipwrecked their faith. Among tem are Hymenaeus and Alexander, whom I have handed over to Satan to be taught not to blaspheme.
1 Timothy 1:20 Another odd job Paul found for Satan.

And now you're going to conjure up some rationalization that makes this conduct acceptable.

Satan is never acceptable for any job.

[cap'n queasy]

Clara Listensprechen wrote: cap'n queasy wrote: :lol:

Quite humorous.


And BTW there is no credible scholar who claims that the Epistles predate the Gospels.

Nobody is credible unless they believe as you do. That's a rather recursive definition of scholarship.

It was more to do with internal and external references that prove it than it does with what I believe.

I happen to believe it because I understand the situation is impossible to rectify otherwise.

[cap'n queasy]

Unless you think somehow Paul directtly quoted from books that were to be written a couple hundred years later.

:lol:

[Clara Listensprechen]

cap'n queasy wrote: Clara Listensprechen wrote: cap'n queasy wrote: :lol:

Quite humorous.


And BTW there is no credible scholar who claims that the Epistles predate the Gospels.

Nobody is credible unless they believe as you do. That's a rather recursive definition of scholarship.

It was more to do with internal and external references that prove it than it does with what I believe.

I happen to believe it because I understand the situation is impossible to rectify otherwise.

There is a limit to your rationalizations. Good to know.

[Clara Listensprechen]

cap'n queasy wrote: Unless you think somehow Paul dircetly quoted from books that were to be written a couple hundred years later.

:lol:

Real scholars refer to Paul's quotations of non-existant scripture "agrapha". In other words, that book you believe in is either incomplete or Paul has to be acknolwedged as really being off his nut, bigtime.

Me, I say both.

[cap'n queasy]

Quote: Clara Listensprechen wrote: cap'n queasy wrote: Clara Listensprechen wrote: There is no context to legitimize any of it, not even the context given. Same is true of Saul/Paul conjuring up Satan and contradicting Jesus. No context legitimizes hiring Satan for anything, nevermind what Paul hired him to do.

Paul conjuring up Satan?

WTF are you talking about? :lol:

Unbelievable.

You've seen the scripture I've posted elsewhere. You just want me to repeat myself.


Quote: When you are assemled in the name of our Lord Jesus and I am with you in spirit, and the power of our Lord Jesus is present, hand this man over to Satan, so that the sinful nature may be destroyed and his spirit saved on the Day of the Lord
1 Corinthians 5:5 Paul hires Satan and Satan is performing good works--tis an oddity, no?
Quote: ...Some have shipwrecked their faith. Among tem are Hymenaeus and Alexander, whom I have handed over to Satan to be taught not to blaspheme.
1 Timothy 1:20 Another odd job Paul found for Satan.

And now you're going to conjure up some rationalization that makes this conduct acceptable.

Satan is never acceptable for any job.

That does not say anything about Paul hiring Satan. Or conjuring him.

That is the interpretation of a petulant child.

Handing some one over to Satan refers to the practice of taking someone aside for misconduct and reproving them. The first time privately, then as a small group, and if this does not have any effect on the miscreant's behavior having nothing to do with them until they get their act together.
[quote Mat 18:15-17 (Jesus)

15 If your brother sins against you, go to him and show him his fault. But do it privately, just between yourselves. 16 If he listens to you, you have won your brother back. But if he will not listen to you, take one or two other persons with you, so that ‘every accusation may be upheld by the testimony of two or more witnesses,’ as the scripture says. 17 And if he will not listen to them, then tell the whole thing to the church. Finally, if he will not listen to the church, treat him as though he were a pagan or a tax collector.


Do you really think you are exhibiting any intelligence with this type of blatant and obvious misrepresentation?

As I can see you are a person who is intelligent, but misdirected, I am going to ask you to reconsider the error of your ways.

Now you may not believe the Bible, or dislike Christianity all you like, but for your own good try not to be so shallow so we can debate some actual issues, instead of posting inflammatory garbage.

Thank you.

[Clara Listensprechen]

Satan's name is in there. If it was a matter of kicking somebody to the curb, they would have said they were kicked out, not handed over to Satan. Like I said--I can read English. Wish youse guys could. As it stands, you people consider bringing Satan into it legitimate. Says a whole lot about what you REALLY believe in.

[sLiPpY]

Clara Listensprechen wrote: cap'n queasy wrote: :lol:

Quite humorous.


And BTW there is no credible scholar who claims that the Epistles predate the Gospels.

Nobody is credible unless they believe as you do. That's a rather recursive definition of scholarship.

I think what the Capn' meant to say, is there is no "Conservative" scholar who is willing to admit that many of the Epistles pre-date the Gospels. I could rattle about six off the top of my head. :lol:

[Clara Listensprechen]

Yes, that would make more sense. Conservative scholars deny the age of the earth, too.

Yup, it all figures.

[cap'n queasy]

Clara Listensprechen wrote: cap'n queasy wrote: Unless you think somehow Paul dircetly quoted from books that were to be written a couple hundred years later.

:lol:

Real scholars refer to Paul's quotations of non-existant scripture "agrapha".

You mean pseudo intellectual kooks, like yourself, even the many credible scholars who do not hold the Bible in any authority or even believe in God know that you have to confine your argument within the parameters of factual graphic and historical evidence.

They do not mention any important events like the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD etc. Therefore they were written before this point in time.

[cap'n queasy]

sLiPpY wrote: Clara Listensprechen wrote: cap'n queasy wrote: :lol:

Quite humorous.


And BTW there is no credible scholar who claims that the Epistles predate the Gospels.

Nobody is credible unless they believe as you do. That's a rather recursive definition of scholarship.

I think what the Capn' meant to say, is there is no "Conservative" scholar who is willing to admit that many of the Epistles pre-date the Gospels. I could rattle about six off the top of my head. :lol:

Probably, and I could just as easily destroy their thesis.

There is no substance to those claims, even most non-conservative scholars don't take that approach, because it is so weak.

[Clara Listensprechen]

cap'n queasy wrote: Clara Listensprechen wrote: cap'n queasy wrote: Unless you think somehow Paul dircetly quoted from books that were to be written a couple hundred years later.

:lol:

Real scholars refer to Paul's quotations of non-existant scripture "agrapha".

You mean pseudo intellectual kooks, like yourself, even the many credible scholars who do not hold the Bible in any authority or even believe in God know that you have to confine your argument within the parameters of factual graphic and historical evidence.

They do not mention any important events like the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD etc. Therefore they were written before this point in time.
Wrong again. Revelations reported that destruction after the fact, while failing to forsee its second destruction during 132 - 135 AD. Today's Jerusalem is just an overhauled Aolia Capitolina and the sheeple who think they're walking down a legitimate Via Dolorosa are just a bunch of idjits snookered by the Israel Office of Tourism.

[garyd]

Um actually agrapha are supposed quotes of Jesus taken from non canonical books such as the Gnostic Gospels.

It took me all of five minutes to look that up. They've nothing to do with Paul.

[John]

Clara Listensprechen wrote: cap'n queasy wrote: Clara Listensprechen wrote: cap'n queasy wrote: Unless you think somehow Paul dircetly quoted from books that were to be written a couple hundred years later.

:lol:

Real scholars refer to Paul's quotations of non-existant scripture "agrapha".

You mean pseudo intellectual kooks, like yourself, even the many credible scholars who do not hold the Bible in any authority or even believe in God know that you have to confine your argument within the parameters of factual graphic and historical evidence.

They do not mention any important events like the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD etc. Therefore they were written before this point in time.
Wrong again. Revelations reported that destruction after the fact, while failing to forsee its second destruction during 132 - 135 AD. Today's Jerusalem is just an overhauled Aolia Capitolina and the sheeple who think they're walking down a legitimate Via Dolorosa are just a bunch of idjits snookered by the Israel Office of Tourism.

Really? Where does the book of Revelation (as in the Revelation of Jesus Christ) mention the destruction of the Temple. Of course, Revelation isn't an epistle (you seem to be confused) and was in fact written after 70 AD, but please show me this "mention" that you claim exists. I’d love to see it.

[Gilbert1908]

Clara Listensprechen wrote: cap'n queasy wrote: Unless you think somehow Paul dircetly quoted from books that were to be written a couple hundred years later.

:lol:

Real scholars refer to Paul's quotations of non-existant scripture "agrapha". In other words, that book you believe in is either incomplete or Paul has to be acknolwedged as really being off his nut, bigtime.

Me, I say both.

Agrapha are specific not to Paul but to Jesus. Real Scholars know that agrapha are;

"A name first used, in 1776, by J.G. Körner, for the Sayings of Jesus that have come down to us outside the canonical Gospels. After Alfred Resch had chosen the expression, as the title for his learned work on these Sayings (1889), its technical meaning was generally accepted.


The Agrapha must satisfy three conditions:

they must be Sayings, not discourses;
they must be Sayings of Jesus;
they must not be contained in the canonical Gospels."

Catholic Ency- Wikipedia-American Heritage Dictionary-Merriam Webster Dictionary-Encyclopedia Brittanica

[Clara Listensprechen]

garyd wrote: Um actually agrapha are supposed quotes of Jesus taken from non canonical books such as the Gnostic Gospels.

It took me all of five minutes to look that up. They've nothing to do with Paul.

Paul has agrapha, and Paul's agrapha, by definition, aren't those of Jesus. Try again.

[cap'n queasy]

Clara Listensprechen wrote: garyd wrote: Um actually agrapha are supposed quotes of Jesus taken from non canonical books such as the Gnostic Gospels.

It took me all of five minutes to look that up. They've nothing to do with Paul.

Paul has agrapha, and Paul's agrapha, by definition, aren't those of Jesus. Try again.

What part of this do you not understand?
Quote: The Agrapha must satisfy three conditions:

they must be Sayings, not discourses;
they must be Sayings of Jesus;
they must not be contained in the canonical Gospels."