Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire The Birth of Christ

This!^^^^^^^^^^

Some who profess to follow Jesus denigrate Paul and say he preached a religion that was not from Jesus. That's not true at all. Jesus came to the Jews and He taught a message specifically to them. All of the disciples were Jews because that's who Jesus came for initially. The OT says that the Jews would reject Him and that's exactly what they did. It was time to go beyond the Jews and Jesus picked Paul specifically to do the job.

After his conversion, Paul disappeared into the desert for 3 years. There are hints in the Bible that he spent that time being taught by Jesus personally. An apostle was, by definition, one who had been taught by Jesus to be a teacher and Paul claimed that title. When Paul came back, he was on fire and it never went out as long as he lived.

I'm not convinced Socrates did exist, and believe it's more likely he did not. They story of his death doesn't read like history, it reads like fiction, similar to sacrifice of other fictional exhausted beings.

It's still not what I choose to believe. It's the multiple lines of evidence that supports the existence of Socrates. He is not only written about by Plato, his student, but others who have no skin in the game, no vested interest, Socrates is not their Messiah, not someone they worship like a Prophet or God, just a philosopher who taught in the Agora.

Which doesn't mean that Plato did not embellish the story or that everything that is written about Socrates is a hundred percent accurate, just that it's highly likely that there was a Socrates, a Philosopher who taught in the Athenian Agora;

''Let us start with the evidence in works written in Socrates’ own lifetime. This has an advantage in that these works are most likely to be first-hand accounts, written from a fresh memory and for an audience familiar with Socrates himself and before any tradition could have arisen of the “Socratic discourse” as a literary genre that could take liberties with history. . . .

The most important single source is the satire by Aristophanes in his comedy the Clouds, produced in 423 and followed by a second edition some years later where the poet tells us (II. 518 If.) that the first edition was not successful and where certain features, notably the debate of the Just and Unjust Arguments and the final burning of Socrates’ school, were either added or radically revised.

How far can a comedian go? Whether Aristophanes’ real target was Socrates himself, the subversive tendencies of the Sophistic movement, the apparent absurdities of Ionian “science,” or just ‘long-haired intellectuals” in general (and the contrasts we find so obvious between these various elements may not have been at all so obvious to their contemporaries), his selection of Socrates as his chief butt must surely mean that Socrates was known to a fairly wide audience, and vaguely associated with the “modem” tendencies.''

Plato and Xenophon have much in common. They both knew Socrates personally (Xenophon [Mem. III 6.1] mentions Plato en passant in a way suggesting considerable intimacy with Socrates.) . . . . .

Plato himself, as we have seen, is naturally regarded as our main source for Socrates, though only in his earliest dialogues. This does not, however, mean that nothing in the later dialogues can be used. The change in Socrates’ role in the dialogues is a gradual one and the fact that he is sometimes abandoned shows that Plato thought of himself as in some sense following Socrates for the rest of the time. . . .

Finally we come to Aristotle, our only substantial later source. Barring pure invention, whatever Aristotle tells us about Socrates must come from further sources, and his value to us depends on what these sources were, and on how reliably, and so with what purpose, he used them. If he had only the sources that we also have ourselves his value would be only that of a highly intelligent modern colleague; his opinion would be just one among others. But this does not follow if it turns out simply that everything he tells us can be traced to some otherwise available source. Such a conclusion might be disappointing but it would still be valuable for us if Aristotle chose his material from sources far exceeding those available to us now. It would show which sources he thought reliable on the point in question, and would suggest that the lost ones were either not among these or did not contradict those we have. That his sources did vastly exceed our own no one would doubt, and though it is only natural that he should make much use of Plato’s writings, there are many things he tells us-such as that Plato, not Socrates, “separated” the Forms, or that Plato’s earliest teacher was Cratylus which it is hard to see how he can have got from the dialogues.

There is other evidence discussed by Lacey but it is less direct than the points I have copied above. So we have the testimony of contemporaries, each presenting his own perspective, two students, one satirist ridiculing the great man.''

Yes it is. Clearly. You choose to believe what you’ve copied and pasted. Bart Ehrman believes the non-Christian historical record that mentions Jesus. And I believe the non-Christian historical record that mentions Jesus.

The Jews were under the Law and Jesus represented that law. The Gentiles were NOT under it and never had been. Paul didn't teach the Law to them because it didn't apply to them. The Jews and Gentiles were entirely different and had to be approached differently. That's where the conflicts came. The other apostles (all Jews) were all under the Law and had to be taught that it didn't apply in the case of the Gentiles. It took some compromising before they accepted that fact. Peter ran into it head on when he met Cornelius. The idea that a Gentile could be a spirit filled believer shocked their systems and entirely changed the church. But, it prepared them for sending Paul out into the Gentile world. God used Cornelius to prepare them for what He was gonna to do.

It’s been said by some that Paul invented the things he'd done and how he'd been converted. However, Luke investigated carefully what he wrote in Luke and Acts. Luke didn't get his information from Paul. He got much of it from the people he talked to, eyewitnesses to the events. He would have talked to Ananias about how Jesus sent him to restore Paul's eyesight and how Jesus said that he would teach Paul what he must suffer for Jesus’ ministry. Luke has been called the greatest historian in history because of his thorough methods of investigation. His words can be trusted.

Some say they rely on the 4 gospels alone because that's what Jesus taught. That's fine if you're a Jew. The rest of us are not Jews. We're Gentiles and God sent us our message through Paul and the other NT authors. Everyone benefits from the 4 gospels, but us Gentiles also benefit from the rest of what God's telling us.

But even for the Jews, the Law was no longer necessary after Jesus' death and resurrection. Jesus fulfilled…as in ended…the necessity of the Law. He didn’t abolish the Law by fulfilling it...He just made it obsolete by fulfilling it. Jesus said that nothing in the Law would “disappear” until everything in it was “accomplished.” It ‘was’ accomplished, and then the Law began to disappear. Jews throughout the Roman world started abandoning strict adherence to the Law to follow the resurrected Jesus.

That transition came to an abrupt end on August 6 in AD70. Ancient Judaism ended…wholly and completely…signaled by the temple’s destruction...just as Jesus predicted. The Old Covenant wasn’t needed anymore...it had been fulfilled and replaced with a new, and better covenant.

Les Feldick, said Paul took the Gospel to the East, the religions of opium dens, not rights for women or any minorities.

That's just a bunch of word play.

I copied and pasted useful information relating to why Socrates most likely existed. You ignored all that was explained in the article, only to repeat your mantra 'you choose to believe'

It is the evidence that counts, not belief.

The funny thing is, you don't appear to accept multiple independent accounts relating to Socrates - Plato, Xenophon, Aristotle, Aristophanes and others.....yet try to invoke the words of Josephus, who didn't know Jesus, had never seen him, wrote about what he had heard, some of which was modified by Christian Scribes to suit their ends, as evidence for the existence of Jesus.

Can you see the absurdity and double standard of taking this line?

No.

So the devil made you do it ?

Free will has nothing to do with it ?

I know youhave a reason for saying no just trying to figure why.

Like my doctor said about my heart event, the lucky ones have symptoms.

That may hold for sin as well.

The term "free will" tells us nothing about human behaviour, the means, drivers, how we are able to think, what we do think or why, or why we do whatever it is we do.

Nope. Those are your words, not mine. I never made that assertion.

Nope. But I’m cool with you believing whatever you choose to believe.

You clearly choose to believe the evidence that suits your agenda, and you clearly choose to deny the evidence that doesn’t suit your agenda.

Have you ever told a lie?

It's based on what you said about independent sources that support the existence of Jesus.

Are you saying that you don't accept Josephus, Tacutus, et al, as being reliable?

I don't believe anything, I look at the evidence. "Choose to believe" is your Strawman.

I'm sure Bristoe has told a whopper or two in his lifetime, but it is definately your specialty.