jsfisher
ETcorngods survivor
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2005
- Messages
- 24,532
Interesting bit of logic you have there. You claim a strengthened position based on a biblical passage that doesn't support you position.
-
Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more
Interesting bit of logic you have there. You claim a strengthened position based on a biblical passage that doesn't support you position.
bruto
Penultimate Amazing
Of course one can believe what one wishes, but it seems worthwhile to point out that, as far as I recall, Paul's assertion that he is speaking the words of the Holy Ghost is his own alone. One can, after all, say what one wishes. It's hardly a testable assertion, even if you believe in the quality of the words so much that you give it a pass. It's untestable even if your faith is correct, because that is what faith is. Your assessment of the reliability of Paul's assertions rests finally on your assessment of the reliability of Paul himself. Arguments about Paul's veracity will always be circular.
Shalamar
Dark Lord of the JREF
The Holy Ghost told me that that is incorrect. As long as two people love each other, it's all good. Homosexuality or not. Only hateful and evil beings deny love.
Slowvehicle
Membership Drive , Co-Ordinator,, Russell's Antin
I get it.
...just like the words in the BoM (especially the ones that contradict other words recorded elsewhere, also said to be said to be empowered by the "holy spirit", as well as contradicting known history, anthropology, biology, animal husbandry, archaeology, and anthropology);and the words in the BoA (which also contradict other words said to be said to be empowered by the "holy spirit", as well as contradicting known history, linguistics, egyptology, archaeology, and anthropology).
(BTW, you sidestepped jsfisher's question.)
Foster Zygote
Dental Floss Tycoon
- Joined
- Jun 24, 2006
- Messages
- 23,336
Well hey! If a ghost told him, it must be true.
Nay_Sayer
I say nay!
Well of course, In fact I'm using that the next time I go to court; "Your honor I never called that gentleman the N word twas the holy ghost that entered me."
arthwollipot
Limerick Purist Pronouns: He/Him
How do you know that?
halleyscomet
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 7, 2012
- Messages
- 10,259
There are a few problems with that claim.
1. The claim that Paul was speaking with the authority of the Holy Ghost is based upon a deliberate misinterpretation of scripture. Assigning Gospel authority to the epistles is an artifact of Catholic political ambition NOT supported by the texts themselves.
2. The idea that Paul was speaking against homosexuality is a common translation, but not one supported by the original Greek. If you look at the original Greek, Paul was CLEARLY speaking against hiring underage prostitutes, a practice common at the time among the Romans and Greeks. The fact that the words of Paul are being DELIBERATELY MISTRANSLATED TO CHANGE THEIR MEANING should be of concern to all Mormons. Mormons make a big deal about the authority of the Bible "so long as it is translated correctly" and here we have a clear example of the text being MISTRANSLATED.
Any faithful Mormon is faced with a difficult decision. Either jettison homophobia, as New Testament opposition to it evaporates, or deliberately accept an intentional mistranslation of Paul's words in order to support a cultural, but not New Covenant, opposition to homosexuality.
3. Paul also spoke against marriage in general. Anyone who is married has fallen as short of Paul's ideals of homelessness and celibacy.
I may be a bit rusty, but it seems Biblical scholarship is a bit like riding a bicycle. I guess those pre-seminary classes and lectures I attended weren't a total waste of time after all.
(I'm not suggesting Biblical scholarship itself is a waste of time. I'm just saying pre-seminary studies, both guided and independent, were a bit of a tangent as I never went on to attend seminary. It's a shame in a way. I could have been riding the cusp of the Megachurch boom. With the exception of one Liberal pastor, I was repeatedly told I have a gift for sermons. I'd be a very wealthy man by now if I'd become a member of the clergy.)
skyrider44
Muse
- Joined
- Jan 1, 2013
- Messages
- 979
You thoughtfully provide a textbook example of the shifting ground fallacy. Paraphrasing Madsen Pirie (How to Win Every Argument):
"People may . . . actually change the whole ground they were maintaining, while still claiming continuity." In other words, you find it expedient to insert irrelevant criticisms of LDS foundational documents into a discussion about what Jesus may or may not have said about homosexuality. Even if your criticisms have some validity, what have they to do with the issue under discussion? That question calls to mind your use of another fallacy: poisoning the well.
Foster Zygote
Dental Floss Tycoon
- Joined
- Jun 24, 2006
- Messages
- 23,336
That would pretty much wrap things up for the Book Of Abraham.
Indeed. Paul was writing to Christians with the expectation that Jesus was coming back very soon. Marriages, and many other worldly concerns, weren't even worth bothering with.
Last edited by a moderator:
skyrider44
Muse
- Joined
- Jan 1, 2013
- Messages
- 979
We must conclude, therefore, that all of the following statements in the KJV of the Bible are "deliberate misinterpretation(s) of scripture":
1) Acts 9:15 (26:16; 22: 14, 15): Jesus personally endorses Paul as a "chosen vessel" to preach His name.
2) 2 Peter 3:15, 16: Peter places Paul's writings alongside other scripture. Peter therefore posits that Paul's writings are true, including Paul's claim (made in some of his epistles) to be an apostle.
3) Galatians 2:7-9; Acts 15:22-32: Other prophets and apostles affirm Paul's claim that he is an inspired preacher.
4) Acts 13:1-4: Luke states that Paul was recognized by the Holy Spirit as having been called to preach.
5) Revelation 2:2: Jesus commends the church at Ephesus for exposing men who claimed to be apostles. Jesus's statement obviously did not encompass Paul, who taught extensively at Ephesus. Note that Paul wasn't rejected by the Ephesians; hence, it is reasonable to conclude that Jesus Himself accepted Paul as an apostle.
6) Acts 26:16: Jesus states that he appeared to Paul to make him a witness. (See also Acts 9:1; Corinthians 15:4-8; 9:1-5).
Efforts to make Paul someone other than who he was are destined to fail.
Slowvehicle
Membership Drive , Co-Ordinator,, Russell's Antin
First off, it is you, and no-one else, in a thread about what your sect beleives, who continue to bring up Pirie. I get it. You read his book.
My relevant observation that your approach to the canon strongly resembles your approach to the BoM and the BoA is, in fact, a facet of the heart of the matter.
It pleases you to uncritically pretend that standard Egyptian funerary tests include Abraham's autographic travelogue of his "time in Egypt", despite the facts that there is no evidence that Abraham ever visited Egypt; that the text of the included illustration (for instance) is demonstrably fraudulent; and that the "translation" of the "special language" offered for the pages of the common funerary test has produced not one authentic piece of information about Egyptian rite or history, and has been accepted by not one egyptologist, archaeologist, anthropologist, historian, or linguist. Where was your "holy spirit" when that fraud was perpetrated?
In the same way, it pleases you to uncritically pretend that the BoM substantiates the ahistorical idea that the civilizations of the pre-Colombian Americas wrought steel, and husbanded domestic cattle, and kept (and used) horses; and cultivated domestic wheat & barley, and knew the elephant; all without the slightest hint of evidence. Where was your "holy spirit" when this mistake was codified into doctrine?
It equally pleases you to uncritically pretend that a "holy spirit" "empowered" the words said to be said to be authentically attributed to Paul (and to whoever wrote I Timothy), which supports, in your mind, the idea that the "authentic" message of Jesus (you know, him said to be said to be "the christ") actually includes condemnation of homosexuality. It pleases you to pretend that, since you claim that the "holy spirit" guided Paul (and whoever wrote I Timothy), the words in the canon are, in effect, the words of Jesus, even where they conflict with, or add to, the canonic κήρυγμα.
Do note that this has nothing to do with your uncritical acceptance of poor scholarship about the meaning of, for instance, ἀρσενοκοίτης. It has, instead, everything to do with your unsupportable claim that the words said to be said to be attributed to Paul (and to whoever wrote I Timothy) are things that Jesus can be said to have said, or taught, or endorsed.
You are, of course, free to claim that your "holy spirit" told you to practice homoodium; this claim is as descriptive of reality as are your treatments of the BoM and the BoA. It is not "poisoning the well" to point out that you persist in a particular type of erroneous claim when you do, in fact, so persist.
All of which takes us rather far afield from C"JC"LDS dogma. I wonder, sometimes, how you interact with the practitioners of your sect who (for instance) do not condemn homosexuality; who do not condemn divorce; and do not claim that the BoA is authentic history.
I further wonder when, if ever, you will address the question of why you feel the unrecorded words you claim cannot be demonstrated not to be authentically attributable to Jesus have any sway or suasion over anyone but you. You are free to adopt your beliefs, and to regulate your life by them. Where you do err is in your conviction that your version of your beliefs has any authority over any one but you. As long as you practice your rites in the fastness of your ebenezers, with like-minded consenting adults, your activities no more affect me, or anyone not involved, than the delightful activities that have gone on, this morning, among consenting adults here in my demesne, affect you.
In the meantime, ponder what Pirie would say about supporting an assertion of the authority of teachings that are nowhere recorded by asserting the authority of an imaginary entity.
halleyscomet
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 7, 2012
- Messages
- 10,259
Let's take a look at those scriptures. They aren't really relevant, as I've already demonstrated that Paul NEVER ACTUALLY SPOKE AGAINST HOMOSEXUALITY unless you deliberately mistranslate scripture, but I'll humor this tangent.
That's a pretty standard "calling." Just about every pastor or priest claims to have felt a similar calling at some point in their lives. Using a call to evangelism as a declaration of Gospel level authority is absurd at best.
Again, this is a standard call to witness. I really don't see why you quoted it as evidence that Paul's witness was somehow more authoritative than that of anyone else.
What was your point in quoting these verses? There's NOTHING in these passages to suggest Paul's words have ANY authority above those of any other person called up to preach about their faith and experiences. It's simply Paul being called upon to preach about what he has seen. It isn't granting him any special authority.
I'm not unfamiliar with these passages. They're often quoted in discussions of God calling Christians to witness to others. Paul's commission, to preach about what he has seen, has been used as a model for how ALL Christians should see their role in the body of Christ.
Did you glance at the Incident at Antioch Wikipedia article I've repeatedly linked to?
Resorting to 2 Peter is a theologically desperate measure, given how disputed it's authenticity is.
https://bible.org/seriespage/second-peter-introduction-argument-and-outline
Even if genuine, the passage is hardly elevating Paul to the same level as Jesus. At best it elevates Paul to the same level as Peter, something seen by most scholars as an indication of a reconciliation between the two of them on the question of Jewish Christians and Gentile Christians.
It's easy to misunderstand the "scripture" reference Peter makes, as modern Christians don't understand how the term was far more inclusive to first century Christians. It wasn't the hard and fast "God stamped it with his approval" term modern evangelicals think of. It was a fuzzier term that included what we would call the Talmud, words of wisdom to be sure, but hardly divinely inspired.
The passage is ambiguous at best, largely indicating that Peter thinks Paul the equal of the most respected rabbis, a level of respect he also assigned to himself with the passage. Humble? Peter? Perish the thought!
Again, we have passages clearly indicating a calling to preach being twisted to somehow claim that the words of Paul are being set on the same level as Jesus. This passage merely catalogs the division between Peter and Paul on the populations to whom they preach and who they consider divinely appointed assistants in their evangelism. I hadn't though of this passage in years, but I've seen it referenced in discussions of people who felt called to travel to foreign lands to preach.
How exactly does a commission to preach equate to having your words assigned the same level of authority as Christ? I'd REALLY like to hear an explanation.
It says nothing of the kind. It merely lists him among the people sent to deal with some issues in Antioch and declared Paul and Barnabas "Dear Friends" and "men who have risked their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ."
Again, Paul is called to be a preacher, but his words are not assigned any authority above those of any other preacher. One of the CRITERIA for being ordained in most Protestant denominations is believing the Holy Spirit has called upon you to preach. Just about EVERY Lutheran, Baptist, Methodist, Presbyterian, or other pastor believes they have received a similar calling.
So? You seem to be arguing that Paul's elevation to the status of an Apostle means his words are transmuted into something on par with those of Christ, but I've been pointing out that the ENTIRETY of the epistles lack that level of authority. Verses placing Paul on par with the other apostles are not relevant.
Let's use a political example. Assume you're tyring to argue that the Speaker of the House has the same level of authority to write a binding Executive Order as the President of the Untied States. I'm arguing that NOBODY in Congress has that power. Verses like Revelation 2:2 are equivalent to countering by arguing that the speaker of the House House has the same authority as Senate's president pro tempore.
Let's use an automotive example. I'm saying that no Toyota Camry can outrace a Porsche 911 on a straightaway. Revelation 2:2 and most the other verses mentioned here are the equivalent of trying to argue that the Toyota Camry CAN outrace a Porsche 911 by claiming the Camry is at least as fast as a Ford Escort. You'd need to first establish equivalency between the Escort and the 911 before you could use the Escort a a benchmark for arguing equivalence between the Camry and the 911.
Yes, yes, Paul claimed to have been called by Jesus. No, that does not mean his words have authority equal to those of Christ unless you're willing to concede that ALL pastors claiming a similar calling preach with equal authority to Christ.
That had to be a typo. What verse did you MEAN to reference?
There is no "Corinthians" in the Bible. There's "I Corinthians" and "II Corinthians" however, so I'll wait for you to post the correction. I'm not going to presume to know which one you meant.
I agree. There's simply no Biblical justification for equating his words with those of Christ.
Before you post another list of Bible verses, keep in mind, I WILL read them and I WILL comment on them and I WILL use my training in Biblical scholarship and commentary to discuss them.
halleyscomet
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 7, 2012
- Messages
- 10,259
From Black Panther to Mormon: The Case of Eldridge Cleaver
Before he became a noteworthy Mormon convert, Eldridge Clever was a "Presidential candidate, writer, political activist, a prominent early leader of the Black Panthers, oh and inventor of the penis pants."
I'm not going to hotlink the photos of the pants because I'm not sure if the moderators would consider them appropriate for the forum. Suffice it to say, SOME companies might consider photos of the pants NSFW.
Before he became a noteworthy Mormon convert, Eldridge Clever was a "Presidential candidate, writer, political activist, a prominent early leader of the Black Panthers, oh and inventor of the penis pants."
I'm not going to hotlink the photos of the pants because I'm not sure if the moderators would consider them appropriate for the forum. Suffice it to say, SOME companies might consider photos of the pants NSFW.
skyrider44
Muse
- Joined
- Jan 1, 2013
- Messages
- 979
In your statements that follow, you studiously avoid quoting the language that is in the applicable Bible passages—language that indicates Paul's calling was anything but routine or standard.
They may claim to have received a "similar calling," but where does it appear in scripture?
An undocumented "call to evangelism" is one thing; a specific, documented directive is another.
There is nothing "standard" about it, unless you are willing to dismiss Paul's leadership role in taking the gospel of Jesus Christ to the gentiles.
I understand why you actually believe what you write above, but I won't "go there."
You trip over yourself here. Why has Paul's preaching been used as a model for other Christians?
It's "theologically desperate" only because it poses a cherry-picked challenge to your position.
Where did you get the idea that I believe Paul was on the same level of Jesus?
That's fine with me; note, however, that "most scholars" are not the same as all scholars.
Perhaps.
All of the apostles were questionable characters—right?
I haven't made any such claim. Moreover, inasmuch as you are positive that Paul never spoke against homosexuality, why does it matter to you?
* * *
The explanation is found by considering who issues "a commission to preach" and whether or not it is documented.
As I note at the outset of my response, you omit the passage about which you are commenting. Consequently, your comment is irrelevant on contextual ground.
You can say that because you do not believe he was divinely commissioned.
Of course, but are they able to produce the requisite documentation?
Not quite. Paul was commissioned by Jesus Christ to advance the cause of Christianity, particularly among the gentiles. Your strawman insistence that I believe Paul's words were "on par with those of Christ" is easy to see through.
* * *
I have never said (sigh) that his words are equal in authority to those of Christ. I have said--or at least implied--that there is reason to believe Christ was comfortable with them.
Why don't you make an educated guess?
* * *
And your training is, of course, infallible.
jsfisher
ETcorngods survivor
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2005
- Messages
- 24,532
Merely comfortable with them is it now? Early you said Paul's words were provided by the Holy Ghost. Which is it? Jesus was merely confident in Paul's preaching abilities, or was Jesus the vantriloquist?
skyrider44
Muse
- Joined
- Jan 1, 2013
- Messages
- 979
My point was that Paul's words were not equal to those of Jesus. No mortal's words were, nor have ever been. When Jesus told the apostles He would send them the Comforter, he didn't say that the Comforter would be a mouthpiece for Himself, but rather that the Comforter would tell them what to say when they were in peril.
I find it interesting that the faithless often attack incidents in the Bible as lacking in plausibility, yet they fully accept the notion that Paul, an arch enemy of the Christian church (who applauded the stoning of Steven), suddenly does a 180-degree turn and becomes a formidable defender of the church--devotes the remainder of his life to it. How plausible is that?
You cannot prove that Paul did not have an encounter with the risen Jesus in which he was commissioned an apostle.
bruto
Penultimate Amazing
True enough, but if that's a valid argument, it's valid all the way. You cannot prove anything at all about matters of faith. That is, after all, what faith is.
Slowvehicle
Membership Drive , Co-Ordinator,, Russell's Antin
Except, as has been pointed out to you, we do not have "the 'words' of 'Jesus' ". We have the collection of things that are said to be said to be words attributed to Jesus; collections of dubious (at best) provenance.
Particularly problematic are your "citations" from Acts, for instance:
You claim that the 9th Chapter of the Acts of the Apostles records 'god's' claim that Paul was "called"; oddly enough, whoever wrote the book was not present at the Damascene Road experience, and was not present when 'god' "spoke" to Anaias. It is, in fact, hearsay about hearsay, of no probative value.
You claim that the 26th chapter of the same book records Jesus appointing Paul. In reality, the 26th chapter of AoA records words said to be said to be attributed to whoever wrote the book (who was not at the Damscene event), purporting to claim that Paul made claims about the words of Jesus. It's hearsay about hearsay about hearsay; of even less probative value.
I cannot speak for the "faithless", but I, for one, find the myth of Saul getting knocked off his ass on his ass and becoming Paul no less fantastical (and no less historically problematical) than the myths of the census that "caused" Jesus to be born "in Bethlehem"; or the myths of the full-moon solar eclipse and the zombi infestation of Jerusalem.
Nor can you prove that he did, in fact, have such an encounter. And the canon does contain words said to be said to be attributed to Paul, in which he brags about meeting Jesus only after said Jesus was supposedly killed.
While we are on the subject of Paul only meeting Jesus in his hallucinations, when do you expect to address this post?
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=10046130#post10046130
I look forward to reading what you have to say.
pakeha
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2009
- Messages
- 12,331
Not so, skyrider.
It's theologically desperate because it depends on a forged text.