Refutation of Pauline Controversy

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Cyberpi!

Originally Posted by cyberpi

juantoo3, I think I see your point... you have not come to refute your brother Victor, but to judge Paul in the same manner that Victor does. Very well. Or did you come to refute Victor's character analysis?

Let us not confuse the messenger with the message.

[juantoo3]

Bump so I don't lose sight of this thread.

A thought I had goes along with the quote, "When you're up to your arse in alligators, it's hard to remember the objective is to drain the swamp."

In a sense, I see the criticism of Paul's character as a collection of alligators. Not that the criticisms are untrue, or unreal, or have no merit; but that in the end analysis they are irrelevent to the objective. The objective being able to stand before the Great White Throne Judgement and pass muster.

I still have yet to hear what Christianity should look like in the absence of Pauline doctrine. Not trying to be a butthead about this...I think the question is simple enough, yet I have received no takers. Even a sample question, like how to mark and observe Easter for instance, just to get the subject started.

[Prober]

Originally Posted by juantoo3

Even a sample question, like how to mark and observe Easter for instance, just to get the subject started.

I'll take a small bite...

Easter is a pagan holiday and shouldn't be observed at all (in the strictest Christian sense)

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Prober!

Originally Posted by Prober

I'll take a small bite...

Easter is a pagan holiday and shouldn't be observed at all (in the strictest Christian sense)

Ah, very good!

Of course, I've gotta ask, are you a Pauline detractor?

If not, then giving them the answer doesn't help their cause any...

If so, you have hidden it well from me. (Not to imply I am anybody in particular...)

[Prober]

Originally Posted by juantoo3

Kindest Regards, Prober!

Ah, very good!

Of course, I've gotta ask, are you a Pauline detractor?

If not, then giving them the answer doesn't help their cause any...

If so, you have hidden it well from me. (Not to imply I am anybody in particular...)

I Love Paul! In his words I see no disagreement with the words of Jesus. He does a great job of explaining, but it seems like nobody got him then and nobody gets him now.

Sorry I let the cat out of the bag!

(The post was so long that I got lost and forgot who was for whom!)

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Prober!

Very well, and no problem. You've provided an important hint, now let's see if there are any takers...

[juantoo3]

bump for exposure

[Saltmeister]

Originally Posted by juantoo3

bump for exposure

Wakey wakey sunshines . . . Back from slumber? How was the long sleep?

Are we ready to talk again?

Just to re-ignite the discussion, I would like to say, in not so many words, that the problem may be that people assume that Paul was trying to, or claimed to capture the totality and entirety of the meaning of Christianity.

What may be contrary to what we think is that he did not claim or pretend to define Christianity precisely and completely for what it was, but explained what it meant for those who needed to hear his message. He made his own unique contribution to Christianity.

Paul's ideas may have been meant for a specific audience, not for the whole Christian population. Paul's ideas about "salvation" and "God forgiving their sins" may, for example, have been meant for those who were particularly worried that their moral shortcomings affected their relationship with God. Paul's aim was to give them the assurance that if they were serious about a relationship with God these things would not jeopardise that relationship.

Paul's ministry dealt specifically with legalities, while Peter, James, Jude and John dealt with other issues. The reason why Paul's ideas are so conspicuous and picked on for study and debate is that Christianity has so often been seen as a religion revolving around legalities. What you get is a vicious circle where new Christians, following the pattern of older, "veteran" Christians, get sucked into a culture excited about legalities -- about right and wrong behaviour and attitudes. A culture focused on legal and moral issues will naturally be led to writings that discuss those issues. Because Paul's writings are dominated by talk about legalities, the people tend to be attracted to Paul's writings and neglect Peter, James and John.

Peter, James and John's writings may have been way shorter in the New Testament, but it doesn't mean they don't have any value. The problem that arises is that people get so addicted to legalism when it comes to Christianity that they can't think of anything else.

To understand religion you must understand life's issues and the world around you. We make it harder for ourselves to understand Christianity when our minds are so focused on legalisms that we lose sight of everything else. There is more to life and this world than legalisms, rules, doctrines, protocols, formalities and technicalities. Read Paul's writings the wrong way and we will be restricting ourselves to legalist and technical thinking.

Legalistic Christianity is a downsized version of Christianity. By restricting ourselves to a particular way of thinking (legalism) we become narrow-minded and in doing so, we find ourselves with a downsized concept of Christianity.

If Paul's ideas are just a small part of Christianity, and we start believing that Paul's ideas define the wholeness and fullness of Christianity, what we have is a downsized version of Christianity. We can't appreciate Christianity fully for what it is and what it means if we concentrate on a downsized version of the faith and neglect the rest.

If Paulinism is only a small portion of Christianity, then it only deals with a fraction of the Christian population at any time and place. The idea is not that Paul's belief's aren't universal. I believe they are universal, but only in specific times and places. Paul's writings were penned in a particular context.

The way I see it is that Paulinism is only seen as controversial when people try and fit it into the whole of Christianity. If Paulinism has limited context there is no problem.

[cyberpi]

Originally Posted by juantoo3

Let us not confuse the messenger with the message.

I would say that Paul was the messenger and the Pauline epistles was the message... from Paul who clearly studied Christianity and took it on the road. I did not see Victor comparing his words with the words from Jesus in the gospels.

I have talked with some Muslim friends who refute parts of the teaching from Paul, and to an extent I have agreed with some of their points; however unlike Victor's Pauline character attack they actually talk about the content and compare it with the Gospels, and the OT. Hard for them to compare with the Qur'an since Paul didn't have that at the time. If Victor could provide some comparisons to the OT and Jesus's words in the Gospels then there would be something more to talk about.

One of the biggest rounds of discussion I have with Muslims relative to Paul is in Romans dealing with Law. With them I tend to refer to what Jesus said of Faith in Law, whereas there is a strong trend in Islam to adhering to laws made by Fatwas from scholars, etc... I feel then law becomes a life of worrying about what is good or bad from a website, with submission to the scholars or religously elected instead of to Allah (swt). So I come back to Christianity and the OT and test the definition of Faith that I understand in law as an agreement between people, and the required judgement and forgiveness thereof... but it gets equally derailed. Anyhow it seems to me that LAW in the Pauline epistle Romans is one of the most refuted. I refute some of Paul's words too, but would by comparison with the teaching from Jesus in the gospels.

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by cyberpi

I would say that Paul was the messenger and the Pauline epistles was the message... from Paul who clearly studied Christianity and took it on the road. I did not see Victor comparing his words with the words from Jesus in the gospels.

I have talked with some Muslim friends who refute parts of the teaching from Paul, and to an extent I have agreed with some of their points; however unlike Victor's Pauline character attack they actually talk about the content and compare it with the Gospels, and the OT. Hard for them to compare with the Qur'an since Paul didn't have that at the time. If Victor could provide some comparisons to the OT and Jesus's words in the Gospels then there would be something more to talk about.

One of the biggest rounds of discussion I have with Muslims relative to Paul is in Romans dealing with Law. With them I tend to refer to what Jesus said of Faith in Law, whereas there is a strong trend in Islam to adhering to laws made by Fatwas from scholars, etc... I feel then law becomes a life of worrying about what is good or bad from a website, with submission to the scholars or religously elected instead of to Allah (swt). So I come back to Christianity and the OT and test the definition of Faith that I understand in law as an agreement between people, and the required judgement and forgiveness thereof... but it gets equally derailed. Anyhow it seems to me that LAW in the Pauline epistle Romans is one of the most refuted. I refute some of Paul's words too, but would by comparison with the teaching from Jesus in the gospels.

Isn't it ironic that Muslim and Jewish shepards have different concepts about how to deal with wayward sheep. One kills the sheep as an example, while the other puts the sheep over his shoulders. One is quite logical in the approach, while the other sees potential therefore disables and cares for the sheep...yet both approaches stop the wayward from leading others astray...

Like I said...ironic.

I think I would rather be pained by a Jew, than killed by a Muslim.

[cyberpi]

Originally Posted by Quahom1

Isn't it ironic that Muslim and Jewish shepards have different concepts about how to deal with wayward sheep. One kills the sheep as an example, while the other puts the sheep over his shoulders. One is quite logical in the approach, while the other sees potential therefore disables and cares for the sheep...yet both approaches stop the wayward from leading others astray...

Like I said...ironic.

I think I would rather be pained by a Jew, than killed by a Muslim.

In the country where I live the wayward sheep are put in handcuffs, judged by a person or a jury of 12 people unrelated to the victim and possibly condemned by them to either pay money, die in a cell for a time, or be killed. That is regardless of whether the wayward sheep repents and seeks forgiveness or not, whether the victim forgives or not, and despite what it says in the bible. So by your words I figure I must live in a country of Muslims; except, the word Muslim means a person who submits to God.

I would personally dislike being no better than Victor. In the same manner that I oppose Victor for his approach with judging Paul, I oppose judging Islam or the Qur'an without reading, learning, and comparing it verse by verse with the gospels. It is legitimate to do so because the Qur'an references the Gospels, Jesus, and claims to be from God. It is NOT in my religion to NOT hear from someone who claims to be a messenger from God... let alone a wayward sheep.

[Saltmeister]

Originally Posted by cyberpi

I would say that Paul was the messenger and the Pauline epistles was the message... from Paul who clearly studied Christianity and took it on the road. I did not see Victor comparing his words with the words from Jesus in the gospels.

I have talked with some Muslim friends who refute parts of the teaching from Paul, and to an extent I have agreed with some of their points; however unlike Victor's Pauline character attack they actually talk about the content and compare it with the Gospels, and the OT. Hard for them to compare with the Qur'an since Paul didn't have that at the time. If Victor could provide some comparisons to the OT and Jesus's words in the Gospels then there would be something more to talk about.

One of the biggest rounds of discussion I have with Muslims relative to Paul is in Romans dealing with Law. With them I tend to refer to what Jesus said of Faith in Law, whereas there is a strong trend in Islam to adhering to laws made by Fatwas from scholars, etc... I feel then law becomes a life of worrying about what is good or bad from a website, with submission to the scholars or religously elected instead of to Allah (swt). So I come back to Christianity and the OT and test the definition of Faith that I understand in law as an agreement between people, and the required judgement and forgiveness thereof... but it gets equally derailed. Anyhow it seems to me that LAW in the Pauline epistle Romans is one of the most refuted. I refute some of Paul's words too, but would by comparison with the teaching from Jesus in the gospels.

Hmmmm . . . speaking of refutations.

Let me show you things from another angle.

You can only refute reasoning that is logical, mathematical or has formal semantics. Reasoning that isn't logical, mathematical or has formal
semantics cannot be refuted.

If Paul was arguing logically, he opens himself up to be refuted. But if Paul was using something other than logical reasoning, his ideas can't be refutated as that falls outside the domain of logical reasoning.

What other kinds of reasoning could Paul be using apart from logical reasoning? It can't be mathematical reasoning as there are no equations in Paul's writings. I don't see any formal semantics either, as obviously Paul's ideas are not expressed in formally structured expressions.

The only other kind of reasoning I can think of is emotional reasoning, which has no inherent structure. If Paul's ideas were meant to provoke an emotional response from the Christian community by discussing their relationship with God, then it's certainly not logic and therefore can't be refuted as only logic and maths can be refuted.

Logical/mathematical reasoning is quantitative while emotional reasoning is qualitative. I would agree that there is a "sense of correctness" in both kinds of reasoning, but out of the two, only logical/mathematical statements can be labelled as definitely correct or incorrect. In emotional reasoning, there is still a "sense of correctness" but that is subjective. The "correctness" of any emotional sentiment is measured by how much emphasis it puts on the important things (the big rocks) in life.

A very common "anecdote" is the process of putting a collection of rocks of different sizes in the same container as few bucket-fulls of sand. If you put the sand in first, then the small rocks, you won't be able to fit the big rocks in. But if you start with the big rocks first, it might be easier to get the small rocks in and the sand afterwards.

Logical/mathematical reasoning is a structured approach that tries to fit everything inside a uniform, elegant model. Emotional reasoning does not confine itself to uniform, elegant models, but is driven first by what's important -- one's priorities. Get the big rocks in first and the small rocks and little grains of sand will happily fit in afterwards.

There's a way in which Paul's ideas might work even if you can't find any logical consistency in what he says. a simple resolution may be that Paul wasn't trying to use logic at all!!!

If Paul was reasoning about people, their relationships with each other and their personal feelings for themselves and each other, then he was using emotional reasoning. The question is whether Paul addressed the big rocks in life. Paul wasn't trying to make up rules for our relationship with God, as the curtain veiling the Holy of Holies was torn open, removing all obstacles between as and God.

What were Paul's big rocks? The big rocks were the assurance that we were free from "the Law." The question is what he meant by "the Law." The idea that Paul was probably trying to convey was that we were barred from a direct, personal and intimate relationship with God by rules, doctrines, protocols and technicalities that made that relationship impersonal. This was "the Law."

"The Law" as Paul depicted it could have been a combination of both God's Law as given to Israel and man-made rules. God's Law bound Israel to a Covenant, an agreement. The man-made rules could have been an application of that Law. Regardless, I think Paul's reasoning was that this was a temporary measure. He was perhaps suggesting that Christ's death was a way of annulling the authority of those man-made rules, as well as the impersonal aspects of the Law revealed to Moses.

The personal aspects of the Law (ie. Ten Commandments, Sabbath) may actually still be valid, and the impersonal aspects of the Law were perhaps what was dissolved by Christ's death. That was probably what Paul was really trying to say. It really depends what we mean by "Law" when we use the word.

But the point is that Paul wasn't necessarily making rules (that someone had to die for us). That seems to be the kind of objection that a lot of people have about Paul's ideas -- that we needed someone to sacrifice himself to save us.

Paul's message was probably meant more for those who were worried that their failure to conform to the rules they were taught would disqualify them from being one of God's people. So Paul sought to assure them. Nevertheless, his message might become valid for the rest of us at different stages in our lives.

But . . . my point? Well, I don't think it's really up to us to say whether Paul is wrong or not. Because Paul's reasoning is probably not driven by logic, it can't be refuted. Whatever we say about Paul's writings will pretty much always by subjective. The idea that Paul's ideas can be refuted is itself subjective as that assumes Paul was reasoning by logic.

[cyberpi]

Originally Posted by Salt

You can only refute reasoning that is logical, mathematical or has formal semantics. Reasoning that isn't logical, mathematical or has formal semantics cannot be refuted.

False.

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by cyberpi

In the country where I live the wayward sheep are put in handcuffs, judged by a person or a jury of 12 people unrelated to the victim and possibly condemned by them to either pay money, die in a cell for a time, or be killed. That is regardless of whether the wayward sheep repents and seeks forgiveness or not, whether the victim forgives or not, and despite what it says in the bible. So by your words I figure I must live in a country of Muslims; except, the word Muslim means a person who submits to God.

I would personally dislike being no better than Victor. In the same manner that I oppose Victor for his approach with judging Paul, I oppose judging Islam or the Qur'an without reading, learning, and comparing it verse by verse with the gospels. It is legitimate to do so because the Qur'an references the Gospels, Jesus, and claims to be from God. It is NOT in my religion to NOT hear from someone who claims to be a messenger from God... let alone a wayward sheep.

My reference was to a parable spoken of in the Bible, and the standards of shepards today. You are implying secular law concerning wrongs done by people. I am speaking of the Mercy of God where justice is deserved, concerning His laws.

The Qu'ran is contradictory in dealing with people not of the faith of Islam. In one area it states to respect those that follow the Book. In another however, it instructs the subjugtion, enslavement or execution of those who do not pay hommage or convert to Islam.

In current world news it is quite obvious that there are a significant number of those who prefer to follow the latter, rather than the former.

There is no place in Pauline teachings that even remotely instructs the Christian to treat others with anything but civility.

v/r

Joshua

[juantoo3]

Originally Posted by Saltmeister

But . . . my point? Well, I don't think it's really up to us to say whether Paul is wrong or not. Because Paul's reasoning is probably not driven by logic, it can't be refuted. Whatever we say about Paul's writings will pretty much always by subjective. The idea that Paul's ideas can be refuted is itself subjective as that assumes Paul was reasoning by logic.

I am undecided per whether or not a logical basis is required in order to be refuted. Having said this, I do think yours is a very astute and profound observation, Saltmeister.