Paul Never Existed

[The Nice Centurion]

Additionally we got a good possibility that Paul never existed!

Yeah, sure.

Go with that.

Question for debate:

Is that true ?

What are the pro & contra ?

[TRANSPONDER]

It doesn't matter what sin means in a semantic definition way. It is doing what is wrong which we all know about even if we don't agree about it. Christianity wants to relate this to the religion, and the religion says it is because of the Eden event (however one wants to rewrite it) that we all have sin. It is a doctrine. If it isn't true, that all of Abrahamic doctrine collapses.

I have understood sin is to reject God, or to be apart from God. Can you explain why that is wrong and why would an atheist be the right person to define it?

If you are right that doing right naturally is enough to be saved, then we don't need the Bible, religion or Jesus.

Saved from what? If you have done everything right, you don't need to be saved.

The fiction that the Bible tells us how to be Good is a lie. It commands evil as much as good, or at least unhelpful orders, and even you have to excuse yourself from giving your stuff to the poor. Jesus ascended and is no longer here, so you don't have to follow his orders, it seems.

I don't care that you think I don't understand what is in the Bible, when you deny what is in there even when you do understand it.

I don't deny anything that is there, only your bad interpretations of it.

Trump wants to attack Poland?

Sorry, I meant Putin.

Point is that IF Putin gets to take over Ukraine, he'll be on the border with Nato - Poland, and it is will be far more dangerous...

If it is dangerous, why NATO wants to get closer to Russia?

It seems that you don't even understand your own dogma. Didn't you say that doing God's word (doing good) is enough to save and Not belief in God as such. So being apart from God is not a sin, but not doing good, whether or not one believes in any particular god.

And in your next line you seem to see this 'saved from what?' Saved from whatever God is going to do to you if you don't believe in Him. If you don't propose that God will do anything or with -hold anything, then you have invented your own brand of Christianity, and it is pretty much irreligious theism.

My 'bad interpretations' is what it actually says. Your take on it is to make stuff up to support what you prefer to believe.

ok. Thanks for that I was afraid I was the one who put Trump instead of Putin .

[1213]

Didn't you say that doing God's word (doing good) is enough to save and Not belief in God as such.

I don't think so.

And in your next line you seem to see this 'saved from what?' Saved from whatever God is going to do to you if you don't believe in Him.

Bible tells the wage of sin is death. So, the saving is from that judgment. If one has not sin, he doesn't have the wage coming and thus needs not to be saved.

[TRANSPONDER]

Didn't you say that doing God's word (doing good) is enough to save and Not belief in God as such.

I don't think so.

And in your next line you seem to see this 'saved from what?' Saved from whatever God is going to do to you if you don't believe in Him.

Bible tells the wage of sin is death. So, the saving is from that judgment. If one has not sin, he doesn't have the wage coming and thus needs not to be saved.

Then do you now say that doing God's word (good deeds) is Not enough to save and one needs to have Godfaith too - or rather as Paul chan ges it, Faith in Jesus? I don't mic nd which you say,nor that you keep changing what you say so as to escape being shown wrong.

The Bible also says that God set up the Eden situation. Original sin seems to be from the original eating from the fruit that ended eternal life for everyone as a sort of natural Law. But who decided that law unless God? In addition, there is further disobedience (sinning) for which punishment is (supposedly) dished out. Either one is what God hath decided and set up. There is no element of 'That is just what happens and God can't be to blame'.

But anyway you now seem to say that Not sinning is enough to save. But is that requiring also God/Jesus faith or not? If not the Jesus and God and Christianity is not necessary and the claim that Jesus' words (Gospels) are needed to have morality is just false.

This is ignoring that Death (from the Eden scenario) is imposed on all, and not ever doing wrong does not overcome that. I know of no provision in the Bible for a righteous person (even Abraham) somehow shedding original sin and gaining eternal life.

Though I must say that is implied by both Pharisee Judaism and by Paul. But it isn't Christian Doctrine. Though it is never made clear. Does a good Hindo arriving in heaven get let in on Deeds or is the right faith necessary? If it is not, Jesus is not necessary,at least after the resurrection.

[fredonly]

Allegedly atheism is only lack of belief, no doctrine, nothing else, so how can it bring anything else than emptiness to anyone's life? Be reasonable.

Suppose it's true that there is a creator of the universe, and make no additional assumption about this being. That (supposed) fact fills no personal "voids", so there's no reason to think the converse belief is any different.

I suspect it is the full suite of your religious beliefs that "fills" you- it is central to your world-view. Mentally subtracting that encompassing part of your world view implies to you a void. But that's not the way it works with atheists. We have a complete world-view as well, without voids. My world view keeps me practical, and (as much as possible) behaving pretty rationally.

[1213]

Allegedly atheism is only lack of belief, no doctrine, nothing else, so how can it bring anything else than emptiness to anyone's life? Be reasonable.

Suppose it's true that there is a creator of the universe, and make no additional assumption about this being. That (supposed) fact fills no personal "voids", so there's no reason to think the converse belief is any different. ..

...We have a complete world-view as well, without voids. My world view keeps me practical, and (as much as possible) behaving pretty rationally.

Nice, but it doesn't come from atheism. And I don't claim atheists can't then have anything else, only that atheism itself doesn't bring anything.

And even if we would know only only that there is a creator of the universe, but nothing else about him, it would bring the idea about something more than in atheistic world view. However, I am not claiming the idea of God necessary fills personal "voids". The point was just to say, that atheism itself is only like emptiness, there is no doctrine in it, "no belief", nothing. Theism has usually doctrines, teachings and ideas that may bring something to ones life.

[TRANSPONDER]

Allegedly atheism is only lack of belief, no doctrine, nothing else, so how can it bring anything else than emptiness to anyone's life? Be reasonable.

Suppose it's true that there is a creator of the universe, and make no additional assumption about this being. That (supposed) fact fills no personal "voids", so there's no reason to think the converse belief is any different. ..

...We have a complete world-view as well, without voids. My world view keeps me practical, and (as much as possible) behaving pretty rationally.

Nice, but it doesn't come from atheism. And I don't claim atheists can't then have anything else, only that atheism itself doesn't bring anything.

And even if we would know only only that there is a creator of the universe, but nothing else about him, it would bring the idea about something more than in atheistic world view. However, I am not claiming the idea of God necessary fills personal "voids". The point was just to say, that atheism itself is only like emptiness, there is no doctrine in it, "no belief", nothing. Theism has usually doctrines, teachings and ideas that may bring something to ones life.

Atheism isn't required to bring anything other than a disbelief in any god - claim. That said, there should be reasons not to accept the god - claim, and that usually devolved onto the database of science or the materialist default.

That is not in itself atheism, but in understanding the evidence and the logic is something that being an atheist apologist brought to me, much more than religion ever offered me. I still think back with bemusement and even anger to the religion classes (where i got good marks, I may say and began an interest in ancient history) where a teacher, supposedly intelligent and educated, talked the most arrant bosh, fell into logical traps (e.g explaining away miracles as naturally workable) and insulted our intelligence with a condescending smile.

[fredonly]

And even if we would know only only that there is a creator of the universe, but nothing else about him, it would bring the idea about something more than in atheistic world view.

What does the belief in a creator bring?

However, I am not claiming the idea of God necessary fills personal "voids". The point was just to say, that atheism itself is only like emptiness, there is no doctrine in it, "no belief", nothing. Theism has usually doctrines, teachings and ideas that may bring something to ones life.

Non-sequitur. Atheism is neutral with regard to everything else. It doesn't entail "emptiness" any more than a hypothetical creator entails something fulfilling.

Religious doctrines indeed provide a ready-made panacea, but the absence of that panacea just means atheists have to learn to accept reality. I've found that the process of facing reality has strengthened me, and led me to become more rational. By contrast, I see many religious people as being gullible and self-righteous.

[1213]

And even if we would know only only that there is a creator of the universe, but nothing else about him, it would bring the idea about something more than in atheistic world view.

What does the belief in a creator bring?

For example the idea that there is something greater than us.

...By contrast, I see many religious people as being gullible and self-righteous.

That sounds quite self-righteous.

[TRANSPONDER]

And even if we would know only only that there is a creator of the universe, but nothing else about him, it would bring the idea about something more than in atheistic world view.

What does the belief in a creator bring?

For example the idea that there is something greater than us.

...By contrast, I see many religious people as being gullible and self-righteous.

That sounds quite self-righteous.

It's fine to believe in something greater, or indeed know it as we klnow there is far more than we can know. But it is indantile to think we know it through Faith when really we don't, and is not a benefit to be told we are all sick and need a spiritual cure.

At best, religion is entertaining, and an art form. At worst, it is a scam, or a political tool.

[oaroloye]

SHALOM!

You need to understand that lying is a High Sin, and that lying in these matters will irreparably cost you your Eternal Destiny. What I am telling you is that repentance won't Save you now.

Paul was a Sanhedrin Mole, embedded to destroy Christianity from within, even at the cost of his own Soul- his words, not mine.

He boasted of being the highest paid Bounty Hunter.

The Pharisees entrapped people in word games, then, called for their on-the-spot stoning as an Enemy-of-Y'srael.

His killers would then go to his house, and, with a pious prayer, divide the loot, and impoverish his widow.

Lord Yeshua blasted them for this with both barrels and a magazine! The principles of every teaching that Lord Yeshua exposed as a Scribe/Pharisee Heresy/Insanity is found in Paul's Epistles.

They were first compiled by MARCION OF SINOPE, who was denounced by "Apostle Yochannan" as "the firstborn of Satan."

All of the Hebrew Apostles were more or less licensed by the Sanhedrin. They all swore Blood Sacrifice Oaths before the Chief Priests at Yasharaylim, that they would never Teach nor Preach Lord Yeshua's Teachings ever again.

They turned over the Book Lord Yeshua wrote, and betrayed the names and locations of everyone that had copies. The Sanhedrin ordered them to order the First Christians to return to their Synagogues, reversing their previous ruling to ban Christianity, so that their marshals could catch them easily.

Only the Apostles could pull that off. That was how they bought themselves decades of time, while their Lord and Master was executed in his first week.

How much coverage does this massive betrayal get?

ONE VERSE!

Obviously, people who went into further detail died with their testimonies. It is not well understood that the 30 pieces of silver that Yudah of Iscariot got for Lord Yeshua was "the going rate." Betraying Christians was a veritable gold mine!

Paul probably used his money to further his research, finding stray Christians, and scraps of notes.

His rare knowledge of Greek Culture led him to fake his conversion, using a legend, of how a more or less wicked king, Pentheus, persecuted and killed followers of the god Dionysus, until the deity came to meet him in person.

[See: THE BACCHAE, by Euripedes (450BC).]

This best explains Festus' outburst against Paul, accusing him of going crazy from reading too much!

His story would sound like someone in our time claiming to have come to Earth in a Space Capsule, or to have been bitten by a radioactive Spider!

When he convinced the demented Emperor Nero that he was serious, he surely gave him a Sign to prove that he, too, would get to meet a god: he probably predicted that he would see Rome burning

This explains the claim that Nero fiddled while Rome burned. It is speculated that Nero himself set the fire. There has never been any accusation that Paul himself had the fire set. It is standard procedure for the FBI to arrest any "Prophets of Doom," predicting disasters that could be staged by their own followers.

High levels of Roman Catholicism and Freemasonry probably know that Paul set the Great Fire of Rome, and that Nero reacted as any ruler would be expected to do, and immediately proscribed Christianity.

This is the only way Cephas would have left Yasharaylim to be executed at Rome. Nero should have demanded and received the records of Lord Yeshua's original teachings from Herod and Pilate, compared them with Cephas and Paul's teachings, and inevitably concluded that Christianity was created to destroy the Roman Empire.

Much is made of Cephas and Paul's endorsements of Slavery. All those accusers ignore Lord Yeshua's condemnationa of Slavery.

Nero should have banned Christianity on that point alone.

Paul started a persecution against Christianity that should have destroyed it completely. He could not have predicted the rise of the "mule" Constantine, who totally messed up his plan. Satan never told him that part. He probably improvises too.

There can be no doubt that Paul Existed.

Several of the Churches he visited still exist, and if they don't, we still have their direct and indirect records.

Your attempt to revise History will not help you in Eternity, and will hang about that your rubber neck all the way to your grave, like an albatross.