I’ve read enough of your posts to know you were magnificently hurt by twi. Those verses were wrongly taught and most certainly wrongly used. They could have focused on Habbakkuk and we would find those verses hard to cope with also.
There are verses that have driven me up the wall until I dug in, and figured out what was right (with the assistance of others).
I say, go with it, study it, and see what you uncover. I am not a fan of Paul's either, but I no longer view the Bible as being entirely "god breathed." I think God can be found in the Bible, but I see it as a history of mankind - a book with numerous lessons we can learn from.
Shifra,
I’ve read enough of your posts to know you were magnificently hurt by twi. Those verses were wrongly taught and most certainly wrongly used. They could have focused on Habbakkuk and we would find those verses hard to cope with also.
There are verses that have driven me up the wall until I dug in, and figured out what was right (with the assistance of others).
Shifra, I had a Presbyterian minister, fresh out of school, say nearly the same thing. Perhaps you might find some on the topics on liberal/progessive Christian sites.
Sheesh, I can almost remember the name of the college she came from.
yes your not the first to look into Paul's words like this and you will not be the last
but there nothing wrong with looking
Paul was a man with worldly bringing up while I believe he was trying to overcome his past
his past can be seen in his words but I believe there is mysteries hiding in what I believe God had him write
like
Rom 7:19 For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do.
others wise that which he tried to show the people who would listen he was not able but that which he wrote seem evil to him
its like the radio show today I listen to when some one paints a picture they do not all ways end up with what they picture within what they saw
why are Paul's words like this because they are not whole because Paul had not changed yet
Jesus Christ walked with out falling but Paul fall down all the time
that why I spend time looking for the heart of the words
I believe Paul's heart was to do good
I believe VPW heart was to get money
Paul was put in jail for his beliefs
VPW got rich for his beliefs
but back to the subject at hand this is how we grow looking at things from many views
in the Way we look at Paul as a great man but if Paul was here He would say "I was weak but at least I tried Today I tell you to reach out and write from your heart to the people of your time and age"
its all about trying to hear Christ and written what we hear
We must move forward to written our own songs, our own mysteries and our own love stories like how we try to walk like Christ did
words come from the left brain, right brain, outer brain, and inner brain if we let them flow
And lest I should be exalted above measure through the abundance of the revelations, there was given to me a thorn in the flesh, the messenger of Satan to buffet me, lest I should be exalted above measure.
Your theory provoked an entertaining thought on the heels of the “Lonnie Frisbee” thread . Could “Paul” have indeed been a spy who infiltrated the early Christian movement, steering it in a whole different direction (favorable to the Roman government) , in much the same way our desperate “martini-swilling-plaid-pant-squares-pretending-to-be-hip” middle-aged guys did with the 60s Jesus freaks - ultimately transforming this filthy hippy pool into an army of squeaky-clean, fundamentalist right-wingers of one mutated form or another?
And Could Wierwille ( and other pastors) have been on the FBI’s “lockbox” payroll at one time?
in much the same way our desperate “martini-swilling-plaid-pant-squares-pretending-to-be-hip” middle-aged guys did with the 60s Jesus freaks - ultimately transforming this filthy hippy pool into an army of squeaky-clean, fundamentalist right-wingers of one mutated form or another?
This is a developing line of thought - from me. I have never read this anywhere, or even talked about it before, so maybe you can help fill in the blanks. Or argue with me, if you'd like. It's a theory, just starting to brew in my brain.
I think I'll take the position of arguing with you, although I prefer calling it "challenging" your thinking. I've shared some "theories" of my own with others and it's been my experience that being "challenged" has helped me re-think and/or refine them. No disrespect intended but, your theory happens to be one of the most bizarre that I've come across.
<snip> The contrast (contradictions?) between him and Jesus are profound; Jesus freed the people from the law, and Paul pushed religion and legality. Jesus was inclusive of everyone, while Paul was exclusive (Paul invented "mark and avoid").
I can't imagine where you came up with the notion that "Jesus freed the people from the law." This doctrine comes only from Paul's teachings which is one of the reasons why Paul allegedly had some face to face confrontations with the leaders of the early Church. But we only know this from the book of Acts which was written by the Apostle Luke -- the author of the gospel of the same name. Which brings up a number of points.
The same author that chronicled the ministry of Paul did likewise with the ministry of Jesus. If Luke's witness and/or testimony of Paul is questionable then so too is his testimony of Jesus. How could it be said that God inspired Luke to write the gospel of the same name but, didn't inspire him to write Acts? Clearly the latter is a testimony to Paul's devotion to Jesus Christ.
The book of Acts was finalized after Paul had already written most of his "letters." Letters which are safe to assume Luke read. Was Luke duped by Paul? Or was he part of the conspiracy to dupe the believers?
Additionally the concept of "mark and avoid" was not Paul's "invention." This concept predates him by hundreds of years. And if one is to believe what Luke writes (in Acts) it was a practice which many of the early leaders – Peter being a prime example – followed. Remember the record of Peter's vision on the roof? You can even find examples of this practice in the Gospels. Looking at the Old Testament you'll find where even God essentially told His "people" to "mark and avoid" non-believers.
I'll leave off here and wait to see where this one will go.
Here's my Conspiracy Theory: I am proposing that Saul, the Christian-killer, devised an incredible scheme of infiltrating the early Christians, convincing them that he'd had a vision and was now a Christ-follower, and then traveled across the various geography where Christians were on the rise, and screwed up the teachings of Jesus. He even changed his name. My theory is that the purpose of Paul's work was to strategically undermine the early church - from the inside - and that he was likely commissioned by the powerful enemies of Christianity. He was so successful in this that even Peter and several of the others bought his BS, although not without some hesitation.
If it makes any difference, I had this thought a couple of times myself..
You don't see the legalism in his earlier letters so much.. but in Timothy it seems that he is asking for loyalty.. and condemning the position of those who "forsook" him. "God have mercy on them.." All Asia "turned away" from der great apostle paul..
maybe it was the "demand for loyalty" letter of the day..
There is a book called "The Mythmaker" the author is a Jewish rabbi. Can't tell you more than that because I am "here" and the book is home.
It discusses Paul from a Jewish perspective and why Paul, as represented in the epistles, does not "measure up".
It is very thought provoking.
The other thing to remember about Paul is all we have is the book of Acts, which most scholars regard as the work of several authors that have been combined, and the epistles. Not all of Pauls epistles, no third party accounts like we find with Christ in the gospels, just a few letters.
Judging the totality of Paul, just on this sketchy information, is very difficult. Most letters that are written are written to specific people addressing specific points that are pertainent [sic] to those people. So it is with the letters of Paul. Specific churches, specific problems, specific admonisions.
If I write a letter to my sister in Montana discussing problems on her ranch much of what I write will not be applicable to my cousin who lives in Washington whose boyfriend is out of work due to back problems.
The epistles are for our learning, the epistles outline some solutions to some problems. I have never believed that the specific instances were to be thought of as a blanket dictum for all generations in all situations to come (ie. women should not speak in church). What is for all generations is the attitude and heart we are to have toward Jesus Christ, His atoning work , The Holy Ghost, prayer etc.
There is a book called "The Mythmaker" the author is a Jewish rabbi. Can't tell you more than that because I am "here" and the book is home.
It discusses Paul from a Jewish perspective and why Paul, as represented in the epistles, does not "measure up".
It is very thought provoking.
The other thing to remember about Paul is all we have is the book of Acts, which most scholars regard as the work of several authors that have been combined, and the epistles. Not all of Pauls epistles, no third party accounts like we find with Christ in the gospels, just a few letters.
<snip>
TL are you aware that the same argument can be made for much more than just the Pauline letters? Some scholars have made some very good arguments for the non-existence of Jesus Christ. I suppose it comes down to a matter of "faith" -- as they say.
In the gospels, Jesus takes every opportunity to "short-circuit" the law at many turns.
How many times was He accused of “breaking the Sabbath” for one reason or another?
The Gospel of Marcion (of which our canonical Luke is a later, grotesque expansion) opens up with Jesus at Capernaum inaugurating His work on the Sabbath, the “day of rest” decreed by the God of this World. He touches and heals a man with leprosy, a menstruating woman, hangs out with tax collectors and sinners (He had no interest in “the Righteous”), blesses the poor, the outcasts, encourages love for ones enemy, overthrowing “an eye for eye, tooth for tooth” for His God is kind even “to the evil and the ungrateful” -even proceeding to demonstrate such love and compassion in healing a Roman Centurion’s sex-slave (an act which really outraged the Baptist to great doubt and indignation), and atop it all, He traveled with an entourage of “certain wealthy women”, which I don’t think was the cultural norm of the day.
And throughout all this, His disciples never really “got” Him. Between the gospels of Mark and Luke, I must confess as to actually feeling quite embarrassed for them.
“They had no understanding, because their heart was blinded” (Mk.6:45-52/Luke 8:22-25); when He sent them out to preach into the surrounding territories for the purpose of proclaiming His Kingdom, they completely garbled his message - they declared Him as “John [the Baptist] raised from the dead”, “Elijah”, a “Prophet of old” and even “The Messiah” (In Marcion‘s Gospel, Jesus rebukes them strongly for these assertions, rather than praising them -Peter in particular -as depicted in our canonical versions).Even after the Mount of Transfiguration, His disciples remain clueless to his sayings concerning his ransom that should transpire at Jerusalem - “They did not understand this word! It remained concealed to them, that they should never grasp it. They were even afraid to ask him…”
Further in the gospels, the twelve are depicted as bickering with one another over whom among them was “the greatest” , further on even encouraging Jesus to “command fire to descend from heaven” to fry those inhospitable Samaritans - to which Jesus replied “You do not understand the kind of Spirit…the Son of Man came not to destroy souls, but to save them”. They could not entirely leave all behind, and let go the old religion.
Which compelled Jesus to ultimately commission 70 new disciples, whose mission enjoyed great success, in contrast to the earlier failed mission of the twelve.
I subscribe to the possibility that Paul may have actually been among this wave of disciples mentioned in Luke 10, as opposed to the depiction of Paul in the material of “Acts”, which is extremely problematic for some reasons raised by others here.
Temple Lady’s “Paul the Mythmaker” (by Hyram Maccoby, I recall) points to the various contradictions between the “Paul” of Acts and what Paul himself writes in Galatians (though I would also recommend A. Powell Davies’ “The First Christian”, which no doubt influenced Rabbi Maccoby in his work).
The compilation of the canonical Luke-Acts probably emerged about the same time as the pseudo-Pauline works of 1 & 2 Timothy, about the middle of the second century, most specifically to counter the rival Marcionite movement, which had compiled and circulated the earliest known NT canon at the time.
"Acts" is somewhat of a prototype for the tall tales found in "The Way: Living in Love" centuries later - complete rubbish, produced by balding, middle-aged flunkies in checkered togas, using old wine bottles to shake their martinis.
Jiminy Crickets! All kinds of folks on board here! I'm trying not to be intimidated by the scholars, or even the Eeyore's in the bunch (That's you, Larry - "Tut tut, looks like rain"). I love you all.
Well, here goes ...
To begin with, his name was changed. Who did that anyhow? "Paul" means "little" or "small". Sorta reminds me of Peter's name, which meant "pebble". People back then knew the meanings of the names. Could be Paul was wanting to fit in, to seem like one of the guys, so he switched names to something similar to that of the hero of the group, which was Peter. "Saul", Paul's original name, meant "to be asked". Hmmmm. Asked by whom? Was he born to be a secret agent?
His parents adhered to the Pharisaic branch of Judaism (Acts 23:6) and he was a Roman citizen (Acts 22:26-28). He was schooled by Gamaliel, a Pharisee (Acts 22:3). Pharisees and Romans - bad guys, right? He spoke at least two languages (Acts 21:37-40). In the USA, we send our would-be spies to the Language Institute at Monterey. He approved of the murder of Stephen, and extended his persecution of Christians beyond Jerusalem, and procured written authorization from the high priest to search out Christians, to bind them, and bring them to Jerusalem for trial by the Sanhedrin. He wasn't just a hater of Christians; he had powerful connections with the big shot Jews.
Most of us who are here on GreaseSpot are aware of fake revelations being the basis for major decisions within TWI. The same thing could have been the explanation for Paul's vision. It looks like somebody got the details of that experience a little messed up, because in Acts 9:7, it says the men who were with him when he had this revelation heard a voice but saw no man, while in Acts 22:9 they saw a light but didn't hear a voice. Whatever really happened, the guy who came to the rescue and supposedly gave Paul back his sight is another bad guy, Ananias (Acts 9:17). I don't think this is the same Ananias as the one in the Ananias-&-Saphira story. I think this is the one in Acts 23, a high priest, a character in another funky story where Paul wimps out and claims his affiliation with the Pharisees in order to save his own butt. Anyhow, I am speculating that the vision or revelation that he had was all a big hoax, staged by Pual, Ananias, and whomever else was involved in this conspiracy. They needed some dramatic event to account for Paul's sudden flip-flop from Christian-killer to Apostle-hood.
Enough for now. Gee, maybe he looked like Tom Cruise in Mission Impossible. Nahhh, then he wouldn't have been celibate.
The contrast (contradictions?) between him and Jesus are profound; Jesus freed the people from the law, and Paul pushed religion and legality. Jesus was inclusive of everyone, while Paul was exclusive (Paul invented "mark and avoid"). There's a lot more here, but you get the idea.
I'm not sure where you got the idea that Paul pushed religion and legality, since so many of his writings were on the freedom wherewith Christ has made us free (notably Galatians, among others). Saul's namechange to Paul is covered in Acts 13:1-10, but there is not a great deal of detail about the reason why.
I was starting to percolate a theory based on what you posted on the Mirror thread, that possibly in the gospels we are told to be followers (akoloutheo) of Jesus Christ because he was still present in the flesh and Pentecost had not happened yet. In the epistles we are encouraged to be followers (mimetes) of Christ because it was after the day of Pentecost, and the new birth and the gift of holy spirit were available. This is just a thought on my part and I have very little at this point to back it up; also this is not an attempt to de-rail this thread, just following up on something you posted elsewhere.
Hi, and welcome back, Larry. I hope you had a good vacation.
I would think if one has a problem with Paul saying he was an apostle by the will of God, then there would also be a problem with Jesus saying that 'I am the way the truth and the life, no man comes to the father except by me'.
Truth is every way leads to Christ, if it's followed up to it's end and beginning.
Christ is the every way that the flaming sword turns in the garden of God.
But Paul, yeah, so much added one must go to God for answers.
As well as info from resources sometimes. Mainly listening.
Great post btw Danny. Interesting about Timothy, someone wrote it though.
WearWord, what's your point about that verse. Is there something you want to discuss or explain or are you making a statement that others are supposed to automatically understand. We all know that verse is there, why are you reprinting it? Curious....
An interesting observation is that if there was Pharisees today, there home is The Way International as well as many "churches". We were trained to be Pharisees. For some it didn't take and for some it did. But on both ends of this spectrum many have broken that enslavement and abuse of themselves and others.
And I think Romans 1 is about breaking away from one's self and taking a mirror and getting a good look at yourself. Not about homosexuals in particular but to anyone that can hear what is being said. Taking a good look at yourself and find that life that is hidden in the inner man or woman of course.
Usages of man and woman, tend to refer to masculine and feminine qualities in both sexes imo.
And not targeting either sex but the individual.
This can apply to all the talk about marriage and virgins and other things as well.
On the surface it seems to be dictating what a man should do and what a woman should do-or not do for both.
When it's actually describing our very nature and spirit and life for each person....in part.
Because you will not get it from these scriptures. The Lord must open the eyes to 'it'.
Which would be much more then that which we have in print.
The person is the home of God, not the bible.
God didn't move into a book and live there.
He lives in us, that is where the Word is, the Christ.
A tough road to go and find it, but worth it.
Not that I know much, but enough to know there is always more.
If not Paul then who else in the world has revealed the great mystery to the extent that Paul did?
God used Paul to reveal the ministry of Christ Jesus and the conditions of our salvation.
As with any law of liberty the balanced walk is up for scrutiny.
One cannot relinquish the law too far as they may become so liberal that they offend sensible morality. So we defeat sin in a riddle that provokes consideration, tolerance and moderation. Create a conundrum.
It is a hard task to teach cultural moderation in such a tumultuous time as the first century and then to be scrutinized for it two thousand years later. Try teaching moderation and freedom from the law to the middle east today...
The book of Romans reads as clear as a bell, our freedom from the law and our walk of the spirit is detailed abundantly within it's pages. How much more clear does one need to be? We war against the flesh and whenever law is removed for a greater law we are then free to walk by the spirit in the law of liberty and gratitude. When we apply the same law of liberty that Jesus practiced we see that moderation is the result. Liberation and obedience to the walk of the holy spirit come with the mind of Christ.
Two is company and three is a crowd. There is no need to throw a guest out because we have a better guest to entertain. We just learn to please both guests by pleasing God.
Paul walked with the same image of God that Jesus Christ radiated.
Both guests had holy spirit and they both walked in liberty and grace.
Geeeez, that's really wild! Are you saying that all the teachings about homosexuality are actually referring to adoring one's self, and NOT referring to sexual relations with the same sex? Oh my goodness! Now, THAT is material for a thread of its own.
And WW -
Are you giving the credit for comprehension of the Great Mystery ... to Paul? I thought VPW was the one who figured it out! Ha! Just kidding. But what if ... just what if ... OUR Way-brain understanding of the Great Mystery is wrong? My dearest friend is a Sioux sundancer who speaks of the Great Mystery too, and this friend is not knowledgable of the Bible, not a Christian, and yet lives a more Christian lifestyle than anyone I know. How "mysterious" is that?
And, by the way, I'm not narrowing down the star of the show to just Jesus, ie eliminating Paul, as you suggest. Actually in my personal roster of hero's and spiritual leaders, there are several - including St. Luci, Martin Luther, Crazy Horse, and Boudica.
What I'm doing here is enjoying a little input from those I admire - you guys - as I theorize on the possibility that Paul was the main culprit, the villian, the outstanding trickster who took the simplicity of Christ's teaching (specifically the purity and beauty and freedom of the two Big Commandments), and twisted them up, intentionally, in order to maim Christianity for generations to come.
No conclusions yet, just playing with a possibility.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
34
23
45
50
Popular Days
Jul 25
48
Jul 27
32
Jul 22
22
Jul 24
16
Top Posters In This Topic
Abigail 34 posts
Shifra 23 posts
Larry N Moore 45 posts
DrWearWord 50 posts
Popular Days
Jul 25 2007
48 posts
Jul 27 2007
32 posts
Jul 22 2007
22 posts
Jul 24 2007
16 posts
TheEvan
*DING*
"INVISIBLE DAN TO THE COURTESY DESK, PLEASE!"
:)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
another spot
Shifra,
I’ve read enough of your posts to know you were magnificently hurt by twi. Those verses were wrongly taught and most certainly wrongly used. They could have focused on Habbakkuk and we would find those verses hard to cope with also.
There are verses that have driven me up the wall until I dug in, and figured out what was right (with the assistance of others).
My best to you,
Deb
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Abigail
Shifra,
I say, go with it, study it, and see what you uncover. I am not a fan of Paul's either, but I no longer view the Bible as being entirely "god breathed." I think God can be found in the Bible, but I see it as a history of mankind - a book with numerous lessons we can learn from.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bramble
Shifra, I had a Presbyterian minister, fresh out of school, say nearly the same thing. Perhaps you might find some on the topics on liberal/progessive Christian sites.
Sheesh, I can almost remember the name of the college she came from.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
cman
Getting hung up on scrptures is certainly not uncommon.
Especially as deep as Paul gets with what he said.
If we could look at some particular verses we might be able to handle.
That would help, or chapters, whatever.
I think things are not what they seem on the surface as well.
But with an idea to understand a bit better.
And free ourselves from the entrapments that are on the surface of these writings.
Which I think are intentional, turning away many who do not want to proceed further.
I think of these writings as being coded in a sort of fashion that only the Lord can open the eyes to.
Moving on to better things and not held back by the letter, the schoolmaster, the scriptures.
Progressing past governing writ into freedom of life and spirit.
Which is thought by many to be the way to go and see.
Understanding that there are many ideas about these writings.
But just letting it come and go, again and again.
Bringing peace to the heart and life to the soul.
This would be a goal of such an undertaking in my opinion.
Certainly Jesus' words can be seen in the same fashion.
As many fumble with his words as well. And the rest of the scriptures.
Doubt we could hold it all in understanding and wisdom.
But just a taste of that freedom that is spoken of in Christ is worth a look.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
year2027
God first
Beloved Shifra
God loves you my dear friend
yes your not the first to look into Paul's words like this and you will not be the last
but there nothing wrong with looking
Paul was a man with worldly bringing up while I believe he was trying to overcome his past
his past can be seen in his words but I believe there is mysteries hiding in what I believe God had him write
like
Rom 7:19 For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do.
others wise that which he tried to show the people who would listen he was not able but that which he wrote seem evil to him
its like the radio show today I listen to when some one paints a picture they do not all ways end up with what they picture within what they saw
why are Paul's words like this because they are not whole because Paul had not changed yet
Jesus Christ walked with out falling but Paul fall down all the time
that why I spend time looking for the heart of the words
I believe Paul's heart was to do good
I believe VPW heart was to get money
Paul was put in jail for his beliefs
VPW got rich for his beliefs
but back to the subject at hand this is how we grow looking at things from many views
in the Way we look at Paul as a great man but if Paul was here He would say "I was weak but at least I tried Today I tell you to reach out and write from your heart to the people of your time and age"
its all about trying to hear Christ and written what we hear
We must move forward to written our own songs, our own mysteries and our own love stories like how we try to walk like Christ did
words come from the left brain, right brain, outer brain, and inner brain if we let them flow
so yes take a new look then look again and again
take it from a fan of Paul being human
thank you
with love and a holy kiss blowing your way Roy
Link to comment
Share on other sites
DrWearWord
2Corinthinas 12:7
And lest I should be exalted above measure through the abundance of the revelations, there was given to me a thorn in the flesh, the messenger of Satan to buffet me, lest I should be exalted above measure.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheInvisibleDan
Hi Shifra,
I heard my name being paged over the Worldmart loudspeaker, and came rushing up to the GS courtesy booth as fast as I could.
Robert Eisenman’s “James the Brother of Jesus: The Key to Unlocking the Secrets of Early Christianity and the Dead Sea Scrolls” is a good (very long) read , if you haven’t got a copy already.
Your theory provoked an entertaining thought on the heels of the “Lonnie Frisbee” thread . Could “Paul” have indeed been a spy who infiltrated the early Christian movement, steering it in a whole different direction (favorable to the Roman government) , in much the same way our desperate “martini-swilling-plaid-pant-squares-pretending-to-be-hip” middle-aged guys did with the 60s Jesus freaks - ultimately transforming this filthy hippy pool into an army of squeaky-clean, fundamentalist right-wingers of one mutated form or another?
And Could Wierwille ( and other pastors) have been on the FBI’s “lockbox” payroll at one time?
It’s so insane…that it just might be true.
Look forward to hearing more on your theory.
Edited by TheInvisibleDanLink to comment
Share on other sites
TheEvan
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Larry N Moore
I think I'll take the position of arguing with you, although I prefer calling it "challenging" your thinking. I've shared some "theories" of my own with others and it's been my experience that being "challenged" has helped me re-think and/or refine them. No disrespect intended but, your theory happens to be one of the most bizarre that I've come across.
I can't imagine where you came up with the notion that "Jesus freed the people from the law." This doctrine comes only from Paul's teachings which is one of the reasons why Paul allegedly had some face to face confrontations with the leaders of the early Church. But we only know this from the book of Acts which was written by the Apostle Luke -- the author of the gospel of the same name. Which brings up a number of points.
The same author that chronicled the ministry of Paul did likewise with the ministry of Jesus. If Luke's witness and/or testimony of Paul is questionable then so too is his testimony of Jesus. How could it be said that God inspired Luke to write the gospel of the same name but, didn't inspire him to write Acts? Clearly the latter is a testimony to Paul's devotion to Jesus Christ.
The book of Acts was finalized after Paul had already written most of his "letters." Letters which are safe to assume Luke read. Was Luke duped by Paul? Or was he part of the conspiracy to dupe the believers?
Additionally the concept of "mark and avoid" was not Paul's "invention." This concept predates him by hundreds of years. And if one is to believe what Luke writes (in Acts) it was a practice which many of the early leaders – Peter being a prime example – followed. Remember the record of Peter's vision on the roof? You can even find examples of this practice in the Gospels. Looking at the Old Testament you'll find where even God essentially told His "people" to "mark and avoid" non-believers.
I'll leave off here and wait to see where this one will go.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
If it makes any difference, I had this thought a couple of times myself..
You don't see the legalism in his earlier letters so much.. but in Timothy it seems that he is asking for loyalty.. and condemning the position of those who "forsook" him. "God have mercy on them.." All Asia "turned away" from der great apostle paul..
maybe it was the "demand for loyalty" letter of the day..
Link to comment
Share on other sites
templelady
There is a book called "The Mythmaker" the author is a Jewish rabbi. Can't tell you more than that because I am "here" and the book is home.
It discusses Paul from a Jewish perspective and why Paul, as represented in the epistles, does not "measure up".
It is very thought provoking.
The other thing to remember about Paul is all we have is the book of Acts, which most scholars regard as the work of several authors that have been combined, and the epistles. Not all of Pauls epistles, no third party accounts like we find with Christ in the gospels, just a few letters.
Judging the totality of Paul, just on this sketchy information, is very difficult. Most letters that are written are written to specific people addressing specific points that are pertainent [sic] to those people. So it is with the letters of Paul. Specific churches, specific problems, specific admonisions.
If I write a letter to my sister in Montana discussing problems on her ranch much of what I write will not be applicable to my cousin who lives in Washington whose boyfriend is out of work due to back problems.
The epistles are for our learning, the epistles outline some solutions to some problems. I have never believed that the specific instances were to be thought of as a blanket dictum for all generations in all situations to come (ie. women should not speak in church). What is for all generations is the attitude and heart we are to have toward Jesus Christ, His atoning work , The Holy Ghost, prayer etc.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Larry N Moore
TL are you aware that the same argument can be made for much more than just the Pauline letters? Some scholars have made some very good arguments for the non-existence of Jesus Christ. I suppose it comes down to a matter of "faith" -- as they say.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
cman
Larry,
Are you aware that for the most part your posts are intended to contradict without another alternative?
This is the language you are speaking.
Like some kind of Jerry Springer show.
Instead of presenting anything of value to an individual.
Make a point please, so perhaps it can be discussed.
And not from the standpoint of what others believe but what you believe.
Or continue as you are, for as long as you like.
Discussing or arguing or communication involves the person.
Involves the person's beliefs as well as what that person does not believe.
We can all reference material to debate the reference works.
Pitting someone else's work against a person without being involved from the heart is a waste of time.
Or you could fancy pitting references against references from all sorts of sources and still have very little.
Anyway, this is what I have observed from your first post till now.
And certainly allowable here at gsc.
But without you then your language is not present, just others.
But I do hope there will come a time where speech can be utilized as it was designed to do.
As you speak of definitions, there is definitions, interpretations, revelations and more.
These are being missed by you, to hear, listen and speak from your mind and not someone else's.
And also people do know what they have posted, it's really not necessary to quote and attack.
(though it does help if making a point)
That is not communicating in any form, but it is an attempt to shut down another.
Without even asking what they mean, but using a range of meanings at will to contradict without substance from you.
If you want a reference work battle, then the people are not involved.
And there is no progress at all.
A constant stalemate for you.
Peace.
Edited by cmanLink to comment
Share on other sites
TheInvisibleDan
In the gospels, Jesus takes every opportunity to "short-circuit" the law at many turns.
How many times was He accused of “breaking the Sabbath” for one reason or another?
The Gospel of Marcion (of which our canonical Luke is a later, grotesque expansion) opens up with Jesus at Capernaum inaugurating His work on the Sabbath, the “day of rest” decreed by the God of this World. He touches and heals a man with leprosy, a menstruating woman, hangs out with tax collectors and sinners (He had no interest in “the Righteous”), blesses the poor, the outcasts, encourages love for ones enemy, overthrowing “an eye for eye, tooth for tooth” for His God is kind even “to the evil and the ungrateful” -even proceeding to demonstrate such love and compassion in healing a Roman Centurion’s sex-slave (an act which really outraged the Baptist to great doubt and indignation), and atop it all, He traveled with an entourage of “certain wealthy women”, which I don’t think was the cultural norm of the day.
And throughout all this, His disciples never really “got” Him. Between the gospels of Mark and Luke, I must confess as to actually feeling quite embarrassed for them.
“They had no understanding, because their heart was blinded” (Mk.6:45-52/Luke 8:22-25); when He sent them out to preach into the surrounding territories for the purpose of proclaiming His Kingdom, they completely garbled his message - they declared Him as “John [the Baptist] raised from the dead”, “Elijah”, a “Prophet of old” and even “The Messiah” (In Marcion‘s Gospel, Jesus rebukes them strongly for these assertions, rather than praising them -Peter in particular -as depicted in our canonical versions).Even after the Mount of Transfiguration, His disciples remain clueless to his sayings concerning his ransom that should transpire at Jerusalem - “They did not understand this word! It remained concealed to them, that they should never grasp it. They were even afraid to ask him…”
Further in the gospels, the twelve are depicted as bickering with one another over whom among them was “the greatest” , further on even encouraging Jesus to “command fire to descend from heaven” to fry those inhospitable Samaritans - to which Jesus replied “You do not understand the kind of Spirit…the Son of Man came not to destroy souls, but to save them”. They could not entirely leave all behind, and let go the old religion.
Which compelled Jesus to ultimately commission 70 new disciples, whose mission enjoyed great success, in contrast to the earlier failed mission of the twelve.
I subscribe to the possibility that Paul may have actually been among this wave of disciples mentioned in Luke 10, as opposed to the depiction of Paul in the material of “Acts”, which is extremely problematic for some reasons raised by others here.
Temple Lady’s “Paul the Mythmaker” (by Hyram Maccoby, I recall) points to the various contradictions between the “Paul” of Acts and what Paul himself writes in Galatians (though I would also recommend A. Powell Davies’ “The First Christian”, which no doubt influenced Rabbi Maccoby in his work).
The compilation of the canonical Luke-Acts probably emerged about the same time as the pseudo-Pauline works of 1 & 2 Timothy, about the middle of the second century, most specifically to counter the rival Marcionite movement, which had compiled and circulated the earliest known NT canon at the time.
"Acts" is somewhat of a prototype for the tall tales found in "The Way: Living in Love" centuries later - complete rubbish, produced by balding, middle-aged flunkies in checkered togas, using old wine bottles to shake their martinis.
Danny
Edited by TheInvisibleDanLink to comment
Share on other sites
templelady
Thanks Dan , for providing the complete title and author
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Shifra
Jiminy Crickets! All kinds of folks on board here! I'm trying not to be intimidated by the scholars, or even the Eeyore's in the bunch (That's you, Larry - "Tut tut, looks like rain"). I love you all.
Well, here goes ...
To begin with, his name was changed. Who did that anyhow? "Paul" means "little" or "small". Sorta reminds me of Peter's name, which meant "pebble". People back then knew the meanings of the names. Could be Paul was wanting to fit in, to seem like one of the guys, so he switched names to something similar to that of the hero of the group, which was Peter. "Saul", Paul's original name, meant "to be asked". Hmmmm. Asked by whom? Was he born to be a secret agent?
His parents adhered to the Pharisaic branch of Judaism (Acts 23:6) and he was a Roman citizen (Acts 22:26-28). He was schooled by Gamaliel, a Pharisee (Acts 22:3). Pharisees and Romans - bad guys, right? He spoke at least two languages (Acts 21:37-40). In the USA, we send our would-be spies to the Language Institute at Monterey. He approved of the murder of Stephen, and extended his persecution of Christians beyond Jerusalem, and procured written authorization from the high priest to search out Christians, to bind them, and bring them to Jerusalem for trial by the Sanhedrin. He wasn't just a hater of Christians; he had powerful connections with the big shot Jews.
Most of us who are here on GreaseSpot are aware of fake revelations being the basis for major decisions within TWI. The same thing could have been the explanation for Paul's vision. It looks like somebody got the details of that experience a little messed up, because in Acts 9:7, it says the men who were with him when he had this revelation heard a voice but saw no man, while in Acts 22:9 they saw a light but didn't hear a voice. Whatever really happened, the guy who came to the rescue and supposedly gave Paul back his sight is another bad guy, Ananias (Acts 9:17). I don't think this is the same Ananias as the one in the Ananias-&-Saphira story. I think this is the one in Acts 23, a high priest, a character in another funky story where Paul wimps out and claims his affiliation with the Pharisees in order to save his own butt. Anyhow, I am speculating that the vision or revelation that he had was all a big hoax, staged by Pual, Ananias, and whomever else was involved in this conspiracy. They needed some dramatic event to account for Paul's sudden flip-flop from Christian-killer to Apostle-hood.
Enough for now. Gee, maybe he looked like Tom Cruise in Mission Impossible. Nahhh, then he wouldn't have been celibate.
Edited by ShifraLink to comment
Share on other sites
Abigail
ROFLMAO - Preach it, Shifra!!! It is a pleasure to meet you down here in the basement where so few seem brave enough to venture! :)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Larry N Moore
*SIGH*
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jeaniam
I'm not sure where you got the idea that Paul pushed religion and legality, since so many of his writings were on the freedom wherewith Christ has made us free (notably Galatians, among others). Saul's namechange to Paul is covered in Acts 13:1-10, but there is not a great deal of detail about the reason why.
I was starting to percolate a theory based on what you posted on the Mirror thread, that possibly in the gospels we are told to be followers (akoloutheo) of Jesus Christ because he was still present in the flesh and Pentecost had not happened yet. In the epistles we are encouraged to be followers (mimetes) of Christ because it was after the day of Pentecost, and the new birth and the gift of holy spirit were available. This is just a thought on my part and I have very little at this point to back it up; also this is not an attempt to de-rail this thread, just following up on something you posted elsewhere.
Hi, and welcome back, Larry. I hope you had a good vacation.
Edited by JeaniamLink to comment
Share on other sites
cman
I would think if one has a problem with Paul saying he was an apostle by the will of God, then there would also be a problem with Jesus saying that 'I am the way the truth and the life, no man comes to the father except by me'.
Truth is every way leads to Christ, if it's followed up to it's end and beginning.
Christ is the every way that the flaming sword turns in the garden of God.
But Paul, yeah, so much added one must go to God for answers.
As well as info from resources sometimes. Mainly listening.
Great post btw Danny. Interesting about Timothy, someone wrote it though.
WearWord, what's your point about that verse. Is there something you want to discuss or explain or are you making a statement that others are supposed to automatically understand. We all know that verse is there, why are you reprinting it? Curious....
An interesting observation is that if there was Pharisees today, there home is The Way International as well as many "churches". We were trained to be Pharisees. For some it didn't take and for some it did. But on both ends of this spectrum many have broken that enslavement and abuse of themselves and others.
And I think Romans 1 is about breaking away from one's self and taking a mirror and getting a good look at yourself. Not about homosexuals in particular but to anyone that can hear what is being said. Taking a good look at yourself and find that life that is hidden in the inner man or woman of course.
Usages of man and woman, tend to refer to masculine and feminine qualities in both sexes imo.
And not targeting either sex but the individual.
This can apply to all the talk about marriage and virgins and other things as well.
On the surface it seems to be dictating what a man should do and what a woman should do-or not do for both.
When it's actually describing our very nature and spirit and life for each person....in part.
Because you will not get it from these scriptures. The Lord must open the eyes to 'it'.
Which would be much more then that which we have in print.
The person is the home of God, not the bible.
God didn't move into a book and live there.
He lives in us, that is where the Word is, the Christ.
A tough road to go and find it, but worth it.
Not that I know much, but enough to know there is always more.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
DrWearWord
If not Paul then who else in the world has revealed the great mystery to the extent that Paul did?
God used Paul to reveal the ministry of Christ Jesus and the conditions of our salvation.
As with any law of liberty the balanced walk is up for scrutiny.
One cannot relinquish the law too far as they may become so liberal that they offend sensible morality. So we defeat sin in a riddle that provokes consideration, tolerance and moderation. Create a conundrum.
It is a hard task to teach cultural moderation in such a tumultuous time as the first century and then to be scrutinized for it two thousand years later. Try teaching moderation and freedom from the law to the middle east today...
The book of Romans reads as clear as a bell, our freedom from the law and our walk of the spirit is detailed abundantly within it's pages. How much more clear does one need to be? We war against the flesh and whenever law is removed for a greater law we are then free to walk by the spirit in the law of liberty and gratitude. When we apply the same law of liberty that Jesus practiced we see that moderation is the result. Liberation and obedience to the walk of the holy spirit come with the mind of Christ.
Two is company and three is a crowd. There is no need to throw a guest out because we have a better guest to entertain. We just learn to please both guests by pleasing God.
Paul walked with the same image of God that Jesus Christ radiated.
Both guests had holy spirit and they both walked in liberty and grace.
People rarely perceive the middle path.
liberty = self
law = law
law of liberty = spirit of God
Edited by DrWearWordLink to comment
Share on other sites
cman
Well whatever you are saying there, if it works for you go for it.
But I will not be limited by fear of immorality.
Or a law that can be misleading in it's meaning.
In fact wisdom has been better lately, which may be the 'morality' your saying.
But I don't know what you mean by morality.
That would be pretty much one's own making imo.
Depending on their understanding and wisdom.
Which should leave self behind and be selfless.
And I'm not saying to not take care of yourself either.
Probably have to cover a lot of bases with some......
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Shifra
Cman -
Geeeez, that's really wild! Are you saying that all the teachings about homosexuality are actually referring to adoring one's self, and NOT referring to sexual relations with the same sex? Oh my goodness! Now, THAT is material for a thread of its own.
And WW -
Are you giving the credit for comprehension of the Great Mystery ... to Paul? I thought VPW was the one who figured it out! Ha! Just kidding. But what if ... just what if ... OUR Way-brain understanding of the Great Mystery is wrong? My dearest friend is a Sioux sundancer who speaks of the Great Mystery too, and this friend is not knowledgable of the Bible, not a Christian, and yet lives a more Christian lifestyle than anyone I know. How "mysterious" is that?
And, by the way, I'm not narrowing down the star of the show to just Jesus, ie eliminating Paul, as you suggest. Actually in my personal roster of hero's and spiritual leaders, there are several - including St. Luci, Martin Luther, Crazy Horse, and Boudica.
What I'm doing here is enjoying a little input from those I admire - you guys - as I theorize on the possibility that Paul was the main culprit, the villian, the outstanding trickster who took the simplicity of Christ's teaching (specifically the purity and beauty and freedom of the two Big Commandments), and twisted them up, intentionally, in order to maim Christianity for generations to come.
No conclusions yet, just playing with a possibility.
Edited by ShifraLink to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.