Watching MHP smack down Joe Watkins every time he tried to claim the Bible bans homosexuality
was a thing of beauty. Every time the good Reverend tried to say certain proclamations were made, she said,'Nope. Not true.'
He finally had to fall back on that reliable hater Paul. She gave him the skank eye for that. (IMHO Paul needed another trip on the road to Damascus,)
She also smacked him down when he said that Jesus backed the Old Testament Levitical views.
Guess what Joe? There is a New Testament because of Jesus, and it's not a rerun of the first one.
If you don't believe, fine. However, fighting these religious ideas with different interpretations is necessary in a country as religious as this one. It is a crucial front in many battles that those like MHP are equipped and willing to fight.
Colbert King wrote a great column in the WaPo about how the Bible has been used to deny many people their rights:
'Equality Is Bigger Than The President'
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/equality-is-bigger-than-the-president/2012/05/11/gIQAyjjNIU_story.html?wprss=rss_colbert-king
= new reply since forum marked as read
realized she has been and is a seminary student(when she can fit it in.) I'd bet cash money that she could run circles around him on any religious topic.
Not only did Paul take the lead in spreading Christianity across the Roman world, but he was the major author of the New Testament, including its earliest books. The gospels were written later, to spread the need for a definitive story of Jesus among the churches that Paul guided. Without Paul, it is doubtful that there would be a Christian religion, beyond some small, ancient Jewish sect that soon would have been forgotten. Or had it lasted, there is no telling what it now would look like.
Paul wrote the word and spread the word. The historical Jesus is unknown, lost in the myst of history. The Jesus we know is the Jesus that Paul's church fashioned.
Mind, I'm not saying you should like or believe Paul. Any more than I'm saying you should like or believe Joseph Smith. I'm just pointing out that excising Paul from Christianity is much like excising Joseph Smith from Mormonism.
Always like to learn!
...WOW! Just WOW! Here's someone else who actually studied some bible scripture. Hats off to Michelle Blackledge: "Of the 22 times in the Bible where Paul is referred to as an "apostle", only twice is he referred to as an apostle by someone other than himself! These two instances came from the same person. Not from Yahshua, or any of the original apostles, but from Paul's close traveling companion and personal press secretary Luke. Both accounts are found in Luke's record of the Acts of the Apostles, (chapter 14:4,14). Here Paul is referred to as an apostle along with Barnabas. By this time in the story, Luke would have been very accustomed to Paul calling himself an apostle, and he would no doubt have been in agreement with Paul's assessment of himself. By these statistics alone, it is evident that Paul is by far his own biggest fan... and his side kick Luke was his number two fan. This leaves no one else anywhere in the Bible going on record recognizing his apostleship!"
But we have the account of Jesus' appearance and conversion of Paul...oh wait, that was Paul's own account. Hmmm, me thinks this would not stand up in a Jewish court of law since accepted testimony requires TWO witnesses at a minimum and extraordinary claims require extraordinary proofs. Seeing as that was Jewish law and Jesus never broke with Jewish law, wouldn't the savior have ensured two independent witnesses were available to testify in order to legitimize Paul's claim. The cop out answer from apologists is that we have to take it on faith (Sorry but that explaination employs faulty circular logic and it serves no purpose besides making the speaker/writer feel self important.) Seeing as no such testimony of any of the witnesses present at his conversion ever made it into the bible, it sort of negates his own, self-serving testimony. Self serving confessions or revelations weren't allowed you see. And since his doctrine departed radically from what Jesus was reported to have preached and taught to his other disciples, do we really know if Paul's testimony wasn't all just a big old power grab by Saul (Paul's old preconversion nom de plume). There is even some evidence that old Saul was working as a collaborator with the Romans. Of course that kind of talk just totally destroys some people's world so they will totally close there eyes and ears at this point if they haven't already done so, then turn off their frontal lobe and begin muttering "lalalalala...I can't hear you!"....
