11-02-2004, 08:31 PM
Who said he was inspired of God? And what is "inspiration?"
Paul was a leader of the community writing a letter to a congregation....he was not a prophet who yelled "Thus saith the LORD." He neither claimed to be a prophet, nor did he ever say that God was dictating what he was writing.
Well he obviously didn't have a Pharisee's logic either.
Likewise, the Gospels are 2 personal accounts (in the age-old Semitic tradition of "2 or 3 witnesses"), and two non-personal accounts, of what happened during the ministry of Jesus.
Matthew was not written under the oil lamp in front of two live disciples, nor was it reread by two to three live disciples. Consider the following:
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.americancatholic.org/Newsletters/SFS/an0196.asp">http://www.americancatholic.org/Newslet ... an0196.asp</a><!-- m -->
According to the author of this article
Such texts were presented to the community, reflected on, discussed and improved upon. Then Christian scribes well-versed in the Hebrew Scriptures refined the scriptural references. Gentile Christians sharpened the universal implications.
Ah---that's why there are gnostic elements throughout the entire NT.
The Church of the East are not like Muslims, who believe their holy books to be the literal "word-for-word" word of Alaha. Not even Jews believe that, except for the first five books of the OT.
The Jews believe that the Torah was transmitted to Moses from Alaha at Mt. Sinai alongside the Talmud (excluding Karaites).
You are basing your argument against beliefs held by some Evangelical American Christian groups....but remember, I'm not part of that movement.
Paul was "the ringleader of the Nazarenes." Therefore, such a man's rhetoric should be questioned if he could have not discerned the subtlety of the Paradox. That's my point.
Paul was a leader of the community writing a letter to a congregation....he was not a prophet who yelled "Thus saith the LORD." He neither claimed to be a prophet, nor did he ever say that God was dictating what he was writing.
Well he obviously didn't have a Pharisee's logic either.
Likewise, the Gospels are 2 personal accounts (in the age-old Semitic tradition of "2 or 3 witnesses"), and two non-personal accounts, of what happened during the ministry of Jesus.
Matthew was not written under the oil lamp in front of two live disciples, nor was it reread by two to three live disciples. Consider the following:
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.americancatholic.org/Newsletters/SFS/an0196.asp">http://www.americancatholic.org/Newslet ... an0196.asp</a><!-- m -->
According to the author of this article
Such texts were presented to the community, reflected on, discussed and improved upon. Then Christian scribes well-versed in the Hebrew Scriptures refined the scriptural references. Gentile Christians sharpened the universal implications.
Ah---that's why there are gnostic elements throughout the entire NT.
The Church of the East are not like Muslims, who believe their holy books to be the literal "word-for-word" word of Alaha. Not even Jews believe that, except for the first five books of the OT.
The Jews believe that the Torah was transmitted to Moses from Alaha at Mt. Sinai alongside the Talmud (excluding Karaites).
You are basing your argument against beliefs held by some Evangelical American Christian groups....but remember, I'm not part of that movement.
Paul was "the ringleader of the Nazarenes." Therefore, such a man's rhetoric should be questioned if he could have not discerned the subtlety of the Paradox. That's my point.
???Do not give up, for that is ignorance and not according to the rules of this art... Like the lover, you cannot hope to achieve success without infinite perseverance.???