inhumility
Active Member
- Messages
- 26
- Reaction score
- 2
- Points
- 0
From :Junatoo3
Kindest Regards, Inhumility.
Would it interest you to know I have already refuted Mr. Garaffa's article? In direct conversation with him, no less. To which I am still patiently awaiting a reply. So no, the Pauline Conspiracy is not truth, not in the sense you suggest. It is an opinion, an opinion in which I found many many holes in the logic.
Refutation of Pauline Controversy
If you would be so kind as to carefully look for yourself, Inhumility, perhaps you might learn some truth.
Hi
Junatoo3
Sir
I have gone through your refutation of Pauline Conspiracy and I maintain in most of the part that perhaps you have not even touched the points mentioned by Victor in his article. Please don’t mind; you might have just commented on the article and its contents yet it cannot be termed as refutation proper, unless you demolish the arguments and points made by him, one by one, not in a generalized way but specific for each point on merit. My own simple observation when I study NTBible is that Paul hijacked Christianity. Nevertheless I don’t find any animosity towards him.
1. Paul introduced new concepts and beliefs which Jesus never had declared overtly or covertly.
2. Present Christianity is not based on the concepts of Jesus; rather they have named it after Jesus Christ, while inside it is absolutely a new thing. It is Paulism disguised under the title Christianity; inside it is Paul and Paul and Paul, it has absolutely nothing to do with Jesus.
3.This has been established by Victor and he has been successful in doing that. Even if he had not written his article, that was a fact known to anybody who reads NTBible deeply with open eyes. Brother Victor’s area of expertise is that he has cracked the outer-shell and opened it for everybody to observe inside. Let Paul be judged in the light of his own words, which has been done by Victor.
4. As I have stated earlier I am not interested in Paul bashing, or if someone starts Victor bashing. You have most of the time discussed that without Paul, Christianity would have not progressed. This is not my concern or my worry or perhaps that of Victor’s. What would have happened to Christianity (or more correctly Paulism) without Paul is not an issue with the article; perhaps it is better if it is kept separately.
5. Victor has established that Paul’s narrations of the vision in different books are different. The witnesses are not consistent. He was blind when he saw the vision. This was not a temporary disability but almost permanent as Paul later had been complaining about them many times afterwards.
6. Paul was called by the disciples in Jerusalem for his weird concepts but he never went there.
7. He or his men at his behest coerced, man-handled, twisted arms of others who did not subscribe to Paul’s views; this would have never been done by Jesus.
8. There is a long list of such things which have been mentioned by Victor but not touched by you in the refutation. So, to me, your refutation has not penetrated deep enough into his arguments; therefore it does not change my opinion. I would request you to first please make out a list of the issues taken on by him and established by him and then every issue should be demolished and refuted separately
9. Unless you do that; the things established by him in his article would remain valid; the imprint and impression of the same would last longer if no done so.
10. While reading Victor’s article, I had been highlighting the points, the arguments or important lines/passages in the article for my own use only; that could be useful for one who intends to do the refutation work. I may e-mail if somebody is interested. The refutation would require a lot of time undoubtedly. Is there some lover of Paul who would embark on this project, reasonably and rationally?
11. Christians who think that without Paul, there would be no Christianity; in my opinion they are not justified in a sense. Victor is still a Christian, a follower of JesusYeshuaIssa, he has neither converted to Judaism nor to Islam, that proves that Christianity would have survived without Paul and his epistles, and then to many it would have been a more truthful or more real entity.
Victor made some good suggestions as to how the refutation work should be done, that have not been attended. Another approach would be to mention, one by one, the points established by Victor and everybody join discussion on that under separate threads.
Thanks
I am an Ahmadi - a peaceful faith in Islam
Kindest Regards, Inhumility.
Would it interest you to know I have already refuted Mr. Garaffa's article? In direct conversation with him, no less. To which I am still patiently awaiting a reply. So no, the Pauline Conspiracy is not truth, not in the sense you suggest. It is an opinion, an opinion in which I found many many holes in the logic.
Refutation of Pauline Controversy
If you would be so kind as to carefully look for yourself, Inhumility, perhaps you might learn some truth.
Hi
Junatoo3
Sir
I have gone through your refutation of Pauline Conspiracy and I maintain in most of the part that perhaps you have not even touched the points mentioned by Victor in his article. Please don’t mind; you might have just commented on the article and its contents yet it cannot be termed as refutation proper, unless you demolish the arguments and points made by him, one by one, not in a generalized way but specific for each point on merit. My own simple observation when I study NTBible is that Paul hijacked Christianity. Nevertheless I don’t find any animosity towards him.
1. Paul introduced new concepts and beliefs which Jesus never had declared overtly or covertly.
2. Present Christianity is not based on the concepts of Jesus; rather they have named it after Jesus Christ, while inside it is absolutely a new thing. It is Paulism disguised under the title Christianity; inside it is Paul and Paul and Paul, it has absolutely nothing to do with Jesus.
3.This has been established by Victor and he has been successful in doing that. Even if he had not written his article, that was a fact known to anybody who reads NTBible deeply with open eyes. Brother Victor’s area of expertise is that he has cracked the outer-shell and opened it for everybody to observe inside. Let Paul be judged in the light of his own words, which has been done by Victor.
4. As I have stated earlier I am not interested in Paul bashing, or if someone starts Victor bashing. You have most of the time discussed that without Paul, Christianity would have not progressed. This is not my concern or my worry or perhaps that of Victor’s. What would have happened to Christianity (or more correctly Paulism) without Paul is not an issue with the article; perhaps it is better if it is kept separately.
5. Victor has established that Paul’s narrations of the vision in different books are different. The witnesses are not consistent. He was blind when he saw the vision. This was not a temporary disability but almost permanent as Paul later had been complaining about them many times afterwards.
6. Paul was called by the disciples in Jerusalem for his weird concepts but he never went there.
7. He or his men at his behest coerced, man-handled, twisted arms of others who did not subscribe to Paul’s views; this would have never been done by Jesus.
8. There is a long list of such things which have been mentioned by Victor but not touched by you in the refutation. So, to me, your refutation has not penetrated deep enough into his arguments; therefore it does not change my opinion. I would request you to first please make out a list of the issues taken on by him and established by him and then every issue should be demolished and refuted separately
9. Unless you do that; the things established by him in his article would remain valid; the imprint and impression of the same would last longer if no done so.
10. While reading Victor’s article, I had been highlighting the points, the arguments or important lines/passages in the article for my own use only; that could be useful for one who intends to do the refutation work. I may e-mail if somebody is interested. The refutation would require a lot of time undoubtedly. Is there some lover of Paul who would embark on this project, reasonably and rationally?
11. Christians who think that without Paul, there would be no Christianity; in my opinion they are not justified in a sense. Victor is still a Christian, a follower of JesusYeshuaIssa, he has neither converted to Judaism nor to Islam, that proves that Christianity would have survived without Paul and his epistles, and then to many it would have been a more truthful or more real entity.
Victor made some good suggestions as to how the refutation work should be done, that have not been attended. Another approach would be to mention, one by one, the points established by Victor and everybody join discussion on that under separate threads.
Thanks
I am an Ahmadi - a peaceful faith in Islam