Is the Bible the only sacred texts and why or why not.

[popsthebuilder]

It denies that the Word of GOD can die though the temple was destroyed. There are multiple verses that say out right He was killed physically and too ascended to GOD.

The Quran denies Christ's Resurrection though. It doesn't just not mention it, it denies it.

Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk

 

[Idolater]

It denies that the Word of GOD can die though the temple was destroyed. There are multiple verses that say out right He was killed physically and too ascended to GOD.

Sn rmm ooG()Pu sn aaak

The Quran denies Christ's Resurrection, upon which the whole Christian faith is founded. The Bible says that if Christ's Resurrection is fictional, then the Christian faith is vain. The Quran therefore says that the Christian faith is vain.

 

[popsthebuilder]

You would have to understand that though the temporal vessel or Holy Temple of GOD may be destroyed that in no way means that the Spirit died or even can die. The Quran does not deny the ressurection or the second coming of Christ or that Jesus is Messiah.

The Quran denies Christ's Resurrection, upon which the whole Christian faith is founded. The Bible says that if Christ's Resurrection is fictional, then the Christian faith is vain. The Quran therefore says that the Christian faith is vain.

Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk

 

[Idolater]

...The Quran does not deny the ressurection...

Do any Muslims agree with you? Do any Muslims believe in Christ's Resurrection?

 

[popsthebuilder]

I don't gennerally go around asking but I'm sure there are some somewhere; no doubt.

The issue is the Quran; not the people who can be swayed.

Do any Muslims agree with you? Do any Muslims believe in Christ's Resurrection?

Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk

 

[Idolater]

I don't gennerally go around asking but I'm sure there are some somewhere; no doubt.

The issue is the Quran; not the people who can be swayed.

Sn rmm ooG()Pu sn aaak

Then how can you reconcile the Quran's treatment of Christ's passion, with it not denying His Resurrection? Because it says that it only appeared that He died, but that He did not die at all. This obviates His Resurrection, and the Christian Gospel "HE IS RISEN."

 

[SonOfCaleb]

Then how can you reconcile the Quran's treatment of Christ's passion, with it not denying His Resurrection? Because it says that it only appeared that He died, but that He did not die at all. This obviates His Resurrection, and the Christian Gospel "HE IS RISEN."

Not only that they consider Jesus just to be just a prophet and NOT the Messiah. Mohammed is viewed essentially as the messenger of god in Islam and of greater significance than Christ. The two religions are diammetrical opposites of which Islams position on the birth, death, and resurrection of Christ is open to multiple different views by Islamic scholars depending on who you talk to.

Despite Christendoms fractured state at least most Christians agree Christ was born, lived, died and was resurrected. Islam cannot even agree on that. And im not trying to denigrate any here who are Muslims, but as i said earlier in the thread its pretty obvious popsthebuilder tendentious argument is based thoroughly on spurious reasoning and a fundamental lack of any knowledge on the topic at all. You cannot claim to be a Christian while having such a feeble grasp on its fundamental tenets, much less a zero knowledge of the other faiths and their sacred texts that he's in such great support of.

 

[popsthebuilder]

Like I said; it says in multiple spots that He was sacrificed or killed. That you gravitate towards the one that shows His Spirit didn't die but His vessel did is sorta like taking it out of context and twisting it to mean what you want.

How is one saved from the judgement of GOD by believing that Jesus has already been resurrected? Seems to me that whatever doesn't deny the Christ is on Christ's part. The Quran in no way denies that Jesus is Christ, Messiah, or judge.

Then how can you reconcile the Quran's treatment of Christ's passion, with it not denying His Resurrection? Because it says that it only appeared that He died, but that He did not die at all. This obviates His Resurrection, and the Christian Gospel "HE IS RISEN."

Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk

 

[popsthebuilder]

Wow.

Not only that they consider Jesus just to be just a prophet and NOT the Messiah. Mohammed is viewed essentially as the messenger of god in Islam and of greater significance than Christ. The two religions are diammetrical opposites of which Islams position on the birth, death, and resurrection of Christ is open to multiple different views by Islamic scholars depending on who you talk to.

Despite Christendoms fractured state at least most Christians agree Christ was born, lived, died and was resurrected. Islam cannot even agree on that. And im not trying to denigrate any here who are Muslims, but as i said earlier in the thread its pretty obvious popsthebuilder tendentious argument is based thoroughly on spurious reasoning and a fundamental lack of any knowledge on the topic at all. You cannot claim to be a Christian while having such a feeble grasp on its fundamental tenets, much less a zero knowledge of the other faiths and their sacred texts that he's in such great suupport of.

3:45. (Recall the time) when the angels said, ‘O Mary! Allâh gives you good tidings through a (prophetic) word from Him (about the birth of a son) whose name is the Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary, (he shall be) worthy of regard in this world and in the Hereafter and one of the nearest ones (to Him),

4:171. O people of the Scripture! Do not go beyond the limits in the matter of your religion, nor say anything regarding Allâh except that which is perfectly true. The Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary was only a Messenger of Allâh, and His word which He communicated to Mary, and a mercy from Him. Believe, therefore, in Allâh and in all His Messengers, and do not say, ‘three.’ Refrain it will be better for you. Verily, Allâh is the One and only worthy of worship. He is Holy. Far above having a son. To Him belongs whatever is in the heavens and whatever is in the earth. And Allâh suffices as a Disposer of affairs. 4:172. The Messiah never disdains to be a servant of Allâh, nor do the angels who are nearest. And whoever disdains from His service and behaves arrogantly, He will gather them all together to Himself.

Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk

 

[freelight]

Zoroastrianism

Zoroastrianism

I used to have an app made by ishwar I think....it was called peace and had that symbol you often post...what I'm getting at is that it had the writtings ascribed to each of the symbols or Faith's and I can't find the anymore. I am trying to locate a free digital version of the Zend Avesta. Do you know where I might look? Thanks

Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk

Have you tried the Sacred Text site here,....or here? - I've yet to dive deeper into Zoroastrianism and their texts, - this ancient religion has influenced both Judaism and Christianity,..they were trailblazers. Do you have a kindle tablet to get kindle version books? some are free, and pdf files too.

"Zoroastrianism is the oldest of the revealed world-religions, and it has probably had more influence on mankind, directly and indirectly, than any other single faith." - Boyce, Zoroastrians, 1979, p. 1.

"Zoroaster was thus the first to teach the doctrines of an individual judgment, Heaven and Hell, the future resurrection of the body, the general Last Judgment, and life everlasting for the reunited soul and body. These doctrines were to become familiar articles of faith to much of mankind, through borrowings by Judaism, Christianity and Islam; yet it is in Zoroastrianism itself that they have their fullest logical coherence....” - Boyce, op. cit. p. 29.

 

[freelight]

Lets try again......

Lets try again......

This is a subjective view based on worldly philosphy that isnt compatible with Christianitys teachings. I believe your statement says more about your own personal disposition in line with what the Bible calls "teachings of men".

Hi SOC,

I'd gather that the Bible has a fair mix of 'teachings of men' in it as well,...and some books may be more or less inspired, with a mix of religious fiction/mythology thrown in for good measure.

The Bible is very black and white about spiritual matters and their origins. Anything outside of the Bible is inspired by the god of this world Satan. 1 John 5:19

I dont agree with that generalization, and the bible does not contain all the information or knowledge about all subjects, its limited to its own cultural-context and religious agenda further 'edited' by its scribes.

The Apostle Pauls admonition supports the Apostle Johns words where he says in 2 Corinthians 14-15

Belial being a reference to the Devil. Thus its clear from the Bible -Gods OWN very words- the origins of spiritual teachings that are contrary to the Bible as well as Gods viewpoint on their legitimacy and value.

I have a different opinion. Paul freely shared his own 'opinions' as well....and his whole gospel was given by his own claim to revelation and an allegorical interpretation of scriptures,...as he denied he got it from no man (no true apostolic succession), so he was pretty much a lone wolf self proclaimed apostle. He deviated so far from Judaism and the original apostles in Jerusalem and infuses his own gospel with many different pagan elements and universal themes, quoting pagan poets and a good share of greek metaphysics, so I think he was more 'eclectic' and a universal 'maverick' than you think. Some of his letters are questionable, and near half ascribed to him are 'pseudographical'.

Lastly God is not Omnipresent. This is a pagan belief thats been absorbed into various 'Christian' denominations over the Centurys. The Bible explains in numerous places that God lives in Heaven. 1Ki 8:49, Joh 16:28, & Heb 9:24.

The classical definition of God in theism holds universally to God's OMNIPRESENCE. You quote only a few passages about a 'God' out there or in 'heaven', but there are plenty of passages that refer to God as dwelling within (even taught by Jesus), and in some sense being all-pervading, after all....'God' is an INFINITE SPIRIT. So, you cannot confine 'God' to some place in heaven, as if you could presume a form or location in space that 'God' is limited to. God is both immanent and transcendent, all-pervading and all-transcending. I think a pan-en-theistic model best represents a model of God's omnipresence, but this is another subject. 'God' may have a central or celestial abode so to speak, but his omnipresence is not limited by that, as His Spirit can permeate all space and time, all creation.

 

[freelight]

infinity...........

infinity...........

So you're accusing God of putting Himself in a box? Noted.

I said no such thing. Review. You can refer to 'God' from the perspective of a particular religious cult, system or tradition,....but I dont limit 'God' to any one particular program. My observation that one cannot put 'God' in a box, holds. You can recognize certain universal truths, principles, concepts, archetypes and patterns in creation, and trace them back to a 'Creator-Source', and this 'Source' would be universal to all.

God is God. God is not His creation.

Infinite Spirit and Consciousness by its own nature would pervade, fill and encompass the whole of creation. I did not go into specifics of any metaphysical sameness or distinction between Creator and Creation, which is its own special subject. I relate from a pan-en-theistic model, world-view...where 'God' is both 'immanent' and 'transcendent'.

Except we're not going by pagan standards. We're going by God's standards.

Well, some might find the Bible-God's standard pretty 'pagan', and pagan traditions or observations as universally true, because they observe the truth of Nature and her natural cycles and laws. Howevever, any religion that recognizes and practices universal laws, principles, ethics and values, may be positive and useful.

Trying to put pagan ideas into scripture ends up in hellfire. You should repent and ask God to forgive you of such.

'Repent' means a 'change of mind', and it may be good to repent if a certain belief is no longer valid by replacing it with better knowledge, so I'm all for 'repentance', since we are to be doing that moment to moment if necessary.

You mean "open my mind?" No thanks, I'd rather keep my brains inside my head.

I prefer to keep on open mind, and allow my own conscience and the spirit of God within to lead and guide. If you're following the divinity within you, and its directives...they will not conflict with any true law or practice in the external realm, so that inner and outer become harmonized as one. Jesus said the spirit of truth would lead, guide and teach, yes? So all things must come thru the filter and discernment of the spirit of truth, whereby we consider its teaching and what it communicates.

 

[freelight]

Some FOOD for thought......

Some FOOD for thought......

Not only that they consider Jesus just to be just a prophet and NOT the Messiah. Mohammed is viewed essentially as the messenger of god in Islam and of greater significance than Christ. The two religions are diammetrical opposites of which Islams position on the birth, death, and resurrection of Christ is open to multiple different views by Islamic scholars depending on who you talk to.

Despite Christendoms fractured state at least most Christians agree Christ was born, lived, died and was resurrected. Islam cannot even agree on that. And im not trying to denigrate any here who are Muslims, but as i said earlier in the thread its pretty obvious popsthebuilder tendentious argument is based thoroughly on spurious reasoning and a fundamental lack of any knowledge on the topic at all. You cannot claim to be a Christian while having such a feeble grasp on its fundamental tenets, much less a zero knowledge of the other faiths and their sacred texts that he's in such great support of.

Maybe Islam is a better religion or has more positive qualities than you subscribe to it.

Adding to what pops quoted from the Koran, - they venerate Jesus highly as Allah's messenger and prophet, and do assign him a special status as 'virgin born' even! - going even farther than a sanitized version of Christianity as to hold some of the apocryphal tales of Jesus miracles performed as a child as 'scripture'. - So there's more props for Jesus than you realize. Sure, they dont BUY that he is 'Allah'(God) or the 'Son' of God, since they hold a very singular view of Allah as having no relations, being singular and unitary unto himself, as 'God', a very extreme monotheism.

The Koran does teach the birth, life, ministry, some miracles and ascension of Jesus. Its enough to believe and DO as the messengers & prophets of God instruct, let alone believe if any particular mesesnger is a part of the Godhead or is 'God' himself, an absurd postulate on the surface, as far relating to the messenger in human terms, which is all many people feel is sufficient.

Also, it just so happens that human minds and bodies are temples of God's spirit, so 'God' is not so far away or seperate from us than is assumed.

 

[SonOfCaleb]

Hi SOC,

I'd gather that the Bible has a fair mix of 'teachings of men' in it as well,...and some books may be more or less inspired, with a mix of religious fiction/mythology thrown in for good measure.

This isnt true Freelight. The Bible is Gods inspired word. 2 Timother 3:16

All Scripture is inspired of God

Thus ALL the books were inspired by God. Books that were not inspired were not used by the Jews in formal religious instruction and the same is true of the 1st Century Christians.

So no there is ZERO mythology in the Bible and certainly no teachings of men as if there was the Bible would NOT be inspired of God. I think you're confusing secular reasoning, philosophical sophistry and the traditional teachings of Christendom, and conflating that with the Bible by measuring them all together.

I dont agree with that generalization, and the bible does not contain all the information or knowledge about all subjects, its limited to its own cultural-context and religious agenda further 'edited' by its scribes.

I never said it did. I'm saying its black and white on spiritual matters related to Gods word in the Bible. The Bible and thus Gods word is very clear on whats acceptable to God and whats not. It obviously doesnt and can't cover every single subject known to man but i never claimed it did nor do i see the relavence of this point again within the context of the Bible only. I think your viewpoint is limited greatly by your own philosophical leanings which you use to benchmark all religious scripture be that pagan scripture or God inspired. This kind of reasoning in the context of the Bible is flawed for the reasons i mentioned in my previous post.

I have a different opinion. Paul freely shared his own 'opinions' as well....and his whole gospel was given by his own claim to revelation and an allegorical interpretation of scriptures,...as he denied he got it from no man (no true apostolic succession), so he was pretty much a lone wolf self proclaimed apostle. He deviated so far from Judaism and the original apostles in Jerusalem and infuses his own gospel with many different pagan elements and universal themes, quoting pagan poets and a good share of greek metaphysics, so I think he was more 'eclectic' and a universal 'maverick' than you think. Some of his letters are questionable, and near half ascribed to him are 'pseudographical'.

Freelight im afraid this is complete nonsense. Paul wrote the bulk of the Greek scriptures. He was also a Pharisee trained by Gamaliel -a Rabban, which is even higher than a Rabbi of which Gamaliel was the first- who was VERY well versed in the 'law', so Pauls credentials on Judaism are without dispute. He was an Apostle as he was ordained by Christ himself on the road to Damascus. If you want to have a proper discussion on this point i suggest sticking to one topic or may be starting another thread as you've mentioned alot here, but again what you mention is based largely on your own personal biases and not the Inspired or indeed even the secular record.

The classical definition of God in theism holds universally to God's OMNIPRESENCE. You quote only a few passages about a 'God' out there or in 'heaven', but there are plenty of passages that refer to God as dwelling within (even taught by Jesus), and in some sense being all-pervading, after all....'God' is an INFINITE SPIRIT. So, you cannot confine 'God' to some place in heaven, as if you could presume a form or location in space that 'God' is limited to. God is both immanent and transcendent, all-pervading and all-transcending. I think a pan-en-theistic model best represents a model of God's omnipresence, but this is another subject. 'God' may have a central or celestial abode so to speak, but his omnipresence is not limited by that, as His Spirit can permeate all space and time, all creation.

Honestly Freelight this is again philosophical mumbo-jumbo. Classical defintions mean nothing in the context of the Bible as they're merely pagan 'teachings of men'. Nowhere does the Bible say God is everywhere and in everything at all times. Its simply untrue. Conversely theres a WEALTH of information on the pagan origins of this teaching as well as evidence on how these pagan philsophies were reconciled into Christendom. None of which changes the fact that they have ZERO origin in the Bible. The Jews never believed in omniprescence. Neither did the first century Christians. The Bible is equally quiet on the matter outside of wildly subjective misinterpretations of the text -as you have done- claiming to support omnipresence.

 

[SonOfCaleb]

Maybe Islam is a better religion or has more positive qualities than you subscribe to it.

Adding to what pops quoted from the Koran, - they venerate Jesus highly as Allah's messenger and prophet, and do assign him a special status as 'virgin born' even! - going even farther than a sanitized version of Christianity as to hold some of the apocryphal tales of Jesus miracles performed as a child as 'scripture'. - So there's more props for Jesus than you realize. Sure, they dont BUY that he is 'Allah'(God) or the 'Son' of God, since they hold a very singular view of Allah as having no relations, being singular and unitary unto himself, as 'God', a very extreme monotheism.

None of this matters. As Islam and Christianity are not compatible theologically. They're literally chalk and cheese when compared side by side theologically.

Wether Islam attributes miracles Jesus alledgedly performed as a child is irrelavent to me also as the Koran is not "Inspired of God" as in the God of the Bible, Jehovah. The pertinent word you raised is "Apocryphal". Im not going to waste my time delving into a 'scripture' of a spurious and doubted origin that has nothing to do with the Bible. Therefore unlike yourself i don't view those Apocryphal works as further support for Jesus but rather as further evidence as to the uninspired -Of Jehovah God- origins of the Koran and the spurious nature of these claims that have no further support outside of the Koran.

I am a Christian. That is my theocratic preference. Therefore I only care about one religious text and thats the Bible. NO OTHER so called scripture matter to me.

 

[popsthebuilder]

This isnt true Freelight. The Bible is Gods inspired word. 2 Timother 3:16 Thus ALL the books were inspired by God. Books that were not inspired were not used by the Jews in formal religious instruction and the same is true of the 1st Century Christians.

So no there is ZERO mythology in the Bible and certainly no teachings of men as if there was the Bible would NOT be inspired of God. I think you're confusing secular reasoning, philosophical sophistry and the traditional teachings of Christendom, and conflating that with the Bible by measuring them all together.




I never said it did. I'm saying its black and white on spiritual matters related to Gods word in the Bible. The Bible and thus Gods word is very clear on whats acceptable to God and whats not. It obviously doesnt and can't cover every single subject known to man but i never claimed it did nor do i see the relavence of this point again within the context of the Bible only. I think your viewpoint is limited greatly by your own philosophical leanings which you use to benchmark all religious scripture be that pagan scripture or God inspired. This kind of reasoning in the context of the Bible is flawed for the reasons i mentioned in my previous post.




Freelight im afraid this is complete nonsense. Paul wrote the bulk of the Greek scriptures. He was also a Pharisee trained by Gamaliel -a Rabban, which is even higher than a Rabbi of which Gamaliel was the first- who was VERY well versed in the 'law', so Pauls credentials on Judaism are without dispute. He was an Apostle as he was ordained by Christ himself on the road to Damascus. If you want to have a proper discussion on this point i suggest sticking to one topic or may be starting another thread as you've mentioned alot here, but again what you mention is based largely on your own personal biases and not the Inspired or indeed even the secular record.



Honestly Freelight this is again philosophical mumbo-jumbo. Classical defintions mean nothing in the context of the Bible as they're merely pagan 'teachings of men'. Nowhere does the Bible say God is everywhere and in everything at all times. Its simply untrue. Conversely theres a WEALTH of information on the pagan origins of this teaching as well as evidence on how these pagan philsophies were reconciled into Christendom. None of which changes the fact that they have ZERO origin in the Bible. The Jews never believed in omniprescence. Neither did the first century Christians. The Bible is equally quiet on the matter outside of wildly subjective misinterpretations of the text -as you have done- claiming to support omnipresence.

You are lying outright.

Jeremiah 23:23-24"Can a man hide himself in hiding places So I do not see him?" declares the LORD "Do I not fill the heavens and the earth?" declares the LORD. "Am I a God who is near," declares the LORD, "And not a God far off?

Proverbs 15:3
The eyes of the LORD are in every place, Watching the evil and the good.

1 Kings 8:27
But will God indeed dwell on the earth? Behold, heaven and the highest heaven cannot contain You, how much less this house which I have built!

Acts 17:24
"The God who made the world and all things in it, since He is Lord of heaven and earth, does not dwell in temples made with hands;

Colossians 1:17
He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together.

Matthew 18:20
For where two or three have gathered together in My name, I am there in their midst."

Isaiah 57:15
For thus says the high and exalted One Who lives forever, whose name is Holy, "I dwell on a high and holy place, And also with the contrite and lowly of spirit In order to revive the spirit of the lowly And to revive the heart of the contrite.

Hebrews 4:12
For the word of God is living and active and sharper than any two-edged sword, and piercing as far as the division of soul and spirit, of both joints and marrow, and able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart.

Psalm 139:3
You scrutinize my path and my lying down, And are intimately acquainted with all my ways.

Psalm 139:5
You have enclosed me behind and before, And laid Your hand upon me.

Psalm 139:7-10
Where can I go from Your Spirit? Or where can I flee from Your presence? If I ascend to heaven, You are there; If I make my bed in Sheol, behold, You are there. If I take the wings of the dawn, If I dwell in the remotest part of the sea,read more.

Isaiah 66:1
Thus says the LORD, "Heaven is My throne and the earth is My footstool Where then is a house you could build for Me? And where is a place that I may rest?

Psalm113:4-6
The LORD is high above all nations; His glory is above the heavens. Who is like the LORD our God, Who is enthroned on high, Who humbles Himself to behold The things that are in heaven and in the earth?

Acts 17:27
that they would seek God, if perhaps they might grope for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us;

Matthew 6:6
"But you, when you pray, go into your inner room, close your door and pray to your Father who is in secret, and your Father who sees what is done in secret will reward you.

Psalm 32:8
I will instruct you and teach you in the way which you should go; I will counsel you with My eye upon you.

Job 34:21
"For His eyes are upon the ways of a man, And He sees all his steps.



Sent from my Nokia 6.1 using Tapatalk

 

[popsthebuilder]

None of this matters. As Islam and Christianity are not compatible theologically. They're literally chalk and cheese when compared side by side theologically.

Wether Islam attributes miracles Jesus alledgedly performed as a child is irrelavent to me also as the Koran is not "Inspired of God" as in the God of the Bible, Jehovah. The pertinent word you raised is "Apocryphal". Im not going to waste my time delving into a 'scripture' of a spurious and doubted origin that has nothing to do with the Bible. Therefore unlike yourself i don't view those Apocryphal works as further support for Jesus but rather as further evidence as to the uninspired -Of Jehovah God- origins of the Koran and the spurious nature of these claims that have no further support outside of the Koran.

I am a Christian. That is my theocratic preference. Therefore I only care about one religious text and thats the Bible. NO OTHER so called scripture matter to me.

Wrong again.

They are actually theologically very similar.



Sent from my Nokia 6.1 using Tapatalk

 

[freelight]

Paul taught by Gamaliel? ......not much historical support for such

Paul taught by Gamaliel? ......not much historical support for such

Freelight im afraid this is complete nonsense. Paul wrote the bulk of the Greek scriptures. He was also a Pharisee trained by Gamaliel -a Rabban, which is even higher than a Rabbi of which Gamaliel was the first- who was VERY well versed in the 'law', so Pauls credentials on Judaism are without dispute.

There is no historical proof for this claim, and Paul himself in his own letters never alludes to being taught by Gamaliel. (likely a fictive addition by Luke to bolster Paul's reputation). Also, some doubt Paul was even a Pharisee but only claimed such to champion his cause and reputution. There is much to support this view.

See: Paul as a Pharisee? Too many inconsistencies to be a Pharisee

Rabbi Tovia Singer hits the nail on the head here below, ...but there are more problems with Paul, but he touches on some basics, at least from a Jewish perspective. Also see Hyam MaCoby's book, 'The Mythmaker: Paul and the Invention of Christianity'.

 

[SonOfCaleb]

There is no historical proof for this claim, and Paul himself in his own letters never alludes to being taught by Gamaliel. (likely a fictive addition by Luke to bolster Paul's reputation). Also, some doubt Paul was even a Pharisee but only claimed such to champion his cause and reputution. There is much to support this view.

See: Paul as a Pharisee? Too many inconsistencies to be a Pharisee

Rabbi Tovia Singer hits the nail on the head here below, ...but there are more problems with Paul, but he touches on some basics, at least from a Jewish perspective. Also see Hyam MaCoby's book, 'The Mythmaker: Paul and the Invention of Christianity'.

Acts 22:3

“I am a Jew, born in Tarsus of Ci·liʹcia, but educated in this city at the feet of Ga·maʹli·el, instructed according to the strictness of the ancestral Law.."

Wether there is secular evidence to cooberate this is irrelavent. The fact of the matter is this is a widely accepted fact in theological & academic circles.

Acts 23:6

Now Paul, knowing that the one part was made up of Sadducees but the other of Pharisees, cried out in the Sanʹhe·drin: "Men, brothers, I am a Pharisee, a son of Pharisees.."

You dont get to teach in the Sanhedrin nor speak in the Areopagus unless you were a Pharisee. Your opinions on the historicity of Paul are wildly speculative and grossly inaccurate. I'm afraid i just dont have the inclination nor patience to debunk opinion.

 

[Idolater]

Per repeated request in am starting this thread. It will no doubt cause many to turn their backs on me, but that does not matter to me. I have been alone my whole life pretty much, yet never really was.

I believe that all core sacred monotheistic texts are profitable for scripture unless they outright plainly deny the Christ. This even goes for a few writings that are generally seen as polytheistic yet in actuality show themselves to ultimately glorify One merciful Creator of all existence.

These writings include but are not limited to the Bible, Quran, book of Enoch, the Torah, the Zend Avesta, writings ascribed to the Baha'i faith, the Gita, upinishads and other writings.

Let the fun begin.

I will actually be surprised if I get any intelligible coversation from this except for from maybe one person.

Regardless...

peace

Please leave your negativity and name calling at the door.

Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk

In the 1500s, it was revealed precisely the canon that the Apostles themselves told their bishops, were the actual Christian scriptures, authorized by and mentioned by Peter in 2nd Peter 3:16 KJV. The Catholic and the Protestant Bibles have identical New Testaments, the only differences are in the Old Testament, between Catholic and Protestant Bibles. Christ's Resurrection at once confirms all authorized Christianity, and falsifies every other religion, so there are really no other sacred writings that are not already Christian Scripture, unless they witness to Christ's Resurrection, like the Mormon scriptures.