Should Paul be removed from the NT?

[lunamoth]

Hi AdD, I previously missed this post of yours.

Originally Posted by Abogado del Diablo

Not exactly. The Church teaches an external, anthropomorphic God judging the good and the evil and by "grace" withholding judgment on those who have "faith" or belief in the literal, historical occurence of the events of the Passion.

Uh oh, this is not my understanding of faith or grace. Are you sure you're not being overly harsh on the Church? I'm not a Roman or EO Catholic, but I thought that the Anglican Church follows much of the doctrine of RC. Infant baptism is a sign of the radical grace of God, not reserved for those who believe in a certain way or otherwise reason their way to God. Apart from the creeds I feel pretty free to believe the events of the Passion and Jesus' teaching pretty much as I am moved by the Spirit. Must say though that I get much more from scripture when using the lamp of tradition. And even within the creeds I feel perfectly confident using the term 'I believe' to mean 'I give my heart to' or 'I accept upon faith' rather than 'I give intellectual assent to the literal factual events as they are described.'

For the Gnostic, grace is found by experiencing Christ within and really has nothing to do with whether there even was an historical Jesus Christ.

This is helpful to know. Do you mind if I ask if Gnostics have liturgy or a practice or rule of life?

What I consider a "leap of faith" is quite a bit different experience than what the orthodox church teaches.

I'd like to hear more about this, if you are willing.

They are. I would agree with that.
For those who have ears to hear, yes, there is Gnosis in Orthodox Christianity.

Cool.

Those things are more Gnostic philosophy written as metaphor. The meaning is the key. And knowing how to draw that meaning out of your own inward journey is the secret knowledge.

Thank you.

lunamoth

[Abogado del Diablo]

Originally Posted by lunamoth

So true!

Above I said not just a community of believers (i.e., those who share to one degree or another your particular understanding of Christ/God/Truth), but a Body as in 'we are one.' But ha! As soon as you draw a line you've made a division and are no longer one. That's why to me heterodox beliefs are not what some of my Christian friends like to call 'a salvation issue.' And this extends from our neighbor to all creation to God.

When I look at different religious metaphors, I continue to see in every one an attempt to express that inexpressible and paradoxical experience that in knowing one's self you lose yourself in the inexpressible All.

[lunamoth]

Originally Posted by Abogado del Diablo

When I look at different religious metaphors, I continue to see in every one an attempt to express that inexpressible and paradoxical experience that in knowing one's self you lose yourself in the inexpressible All.

I would agree with that. For this discussion I've just been thinking about Christianity.

[Abogado del Diablo]

Originally Posted by lunamoth

Uh oh, this is not my understanding of faith or grace. Are you sure you're not being overly harsh on the Church? I'm not a Roman or EO Catholic, but I thought that the Anglican Church follows much of the doctrine of RC. Infant baptism is a sign of the radical grace of God, not reserved for those who believe in a certain way or otherwise reason their way to God.

I don't think I'm being harsh. I don't approach Orthodoxy as an unrelated outside observer. I was raised Catholic and became a fervent Evangelical Christian for better than a decade.

As far as infant baptism (a Catholic practice, but not generally a Protestant one), what is its purpose? The imagery I recall from my Catholic background is that it is a ritual intended to save newborn babies born into Catholic families from literally being sent to torment by a vengeful God because of their "original sin." Moreover, it wasn't a complete safeguard against torment, as one's sins, unless ritually confessed, were tallied against one by this same vengeful God for punishment in the afterlife.

The result is that the religion, when approached literally, tends based around guilt under the Law rather than freedom from the Law. The Law of Love that is rooted in not judging/forgiving, tolerated, sacrificing and non-violence, although mentioned, becomes secondary. And then the ritual is divorced from its meaning.

Originally Posted by lunamoth

Must say though that I get much more from scripture when using the lamp of tradition.

My experience has been the opposite.

Originally Posted by lunamoth

And even within the creeds I feel perfectly confident using the term 'I believe' to mean 'I give my heart to' or 'I accept upon faith' rather than 'I give intellectual assent to the literal factual events as they are described.'

Can you elaborate on this distinction?

[lunamoth]

Originally Posted by Abogado del Diablo

I don't think I'm being harsh. I don't approach Orthodoxy as an unrelated outside observer. I was raised Catholic and became a fervent Evangelical Christian for better than a decade.

Yes, I remember this from your other thread. I am the outsider here, it appears.

As far as infant baptism (a Catholic practice, but not generally a Protestant one), what is its purpose? The imagery I recall from my Catholic background is that it is a ritual intended to save newborn babies born into Catholic families from literally being sent to torment by a vengeful God because of their "original sin." Moreover, it wasn't a complete safeguard against torment, as one's sins, unless ritually confessed, were tallied against one by this same vengeful God for punishment in the afterlife.

This is not the imagery of baptism I am familiar with. This is not what I've been taught. Actually, the imagery of baptism used in the Episcopal Church is that of dying and rising again in Christ, a rebirth. The emphasis is on life and rebirth, not sin and torment. And confession of sins is not to appease a vengeful God but a blessing to the person, a chance to renew one's relationship with God by repentance, which I take in the sense of not just 'feeling really really guilty' and then go back out into the world untransformed, but a revitalized attempt to live the life of Christ. But I admit, if I were taught this vengeful God of fear I would reject it with all of my soul as well.

The result is that the religion, when approached literally, tends based around guilt under the Law rather than freedom from the Law. The Law of Love that is rooted in not judging/forgiving, tolerated, sacrificing and non-violence, although mentioned, becomes secondary. And then the ritual is divorced from its meaning.

I agree (about what can happen when approached literally), but the religion of fear and guilt and Law is not the Christian religion I've experienced. Thank God.

Can you elaborate on this distinction?

Well, I'll try. The creeds affirm the Trinity, which is a Mystery and one can not understand a Mystery with one's head alone. That's why I like the description "The More" for God. Where reason falls short I rely upon faith, not because of fear but because of the salvation it provides in this life. I don't know if these things happened, but I know that they are True.

I'm falling far short representing Christianity here, I'm sure. I'm not a deepened Episcopalian to begin with and lots of folks think we Piskies are going to hell in a handbasket anyway. But, the Anglican Communion is not really Protestant either. Kind of in the middle.

lunamoth

[Abogado del Diablo]

But you have to admit that it is this notion of the vengeful God punishing humanity with eternal torment that has driven the orthodox church for the better part of two millenia. We have been haunted by blood atonement ever since Ireaneus decided that dissent was punishable by eternal torment in Hell. The fathers of orthodoxy wrote and acted with hatred, judgment and fear (particularly toward women), and the Church inherited that "anti-heretical" approach through its adoption by the Roman Empire. It may not be your experience, but it is the story of Orthodoxy.

We are the author of our own judgment. The "sin" of believing we know "good" from "evil" is the thing that separates us. It is a return from reason - a rejection of "knowledge of Good and Evil" that is the path of Love. Unlimited forgiveness, unconditional love and tolerance flows from shedding the artificial line between self and other, human and God, nature and man, man and woman, and every other illusory "knowing." The return from reason is the path back to the Garden.

[lunamoth]

Originally Posted by Abogado del Diablo

But you have to admit that it is this notion of the vengeful God punishing humanity with eternal torment that has driven the orthodox church for the better part of two millenia. We have been haunted by blood atonement ever since Ireaneus decided that dissent was punishable by eternal torment in Hell. The fathers of orthodoxy wrote and acted with hatred, judgment and fear (particularly toward women), and the Church inherited that "anti-heretical" approach through its adoption by the Roman Empire. It may not be your experience, but it is the story of Orthodoxy.

Religion is a manmade instrument, and humans are fallible, and dare I say, fallen. We are capable of our greatest evil when we think we can speak for others with divine authority. This is the story, or part of the story, but my view is that religion evolves. I do not know that the orthodox church was only driven by fear, but I will agree what I do know is far from pretty and laden with what I can only call avarice. I am not making excuses for this. I do not think it had to be this way.

We are the author of our own judgment. The "sin" of believing we know "good" from "evil" is the thing that separates us. It is a return from reason - a rejection of "knowledge of Good and Evil" that is the path of Love. Unlimited forgiveness, unconditional love and tolerance flows from shedding the artificial line between self and other, human and God, nature and man, man and woman, and every other illusory "knowing." The return from reason is the path back to the Garden.

I agree with this, and the closer we get to this ideal the closer we get to the Garden/Kingdom. We don't know good from evil, I'm starting to get that the more I think about it. Interesting that in a way it is a more literal interpretation of the Story of the Fall than most Christians talk about. But I'm still a soul with a body making my way through this imperfect life making choices that are almost always shades of grey.

peace,
lunamoth

[lunamoth]

Just need to add that what you say about the path of Love, I so fully agree with you. Guess the only difference is is that in my ignorance I have been able to find the thread of this path in the Church.

lunamoth

[ghufranakahmad]

Originally Posted by WolfgangvonUSA

Should Paul be removed from the NT?

Absolutely!!

I don't think his letters should be anywhere in the Bible as he corrupted the true gospels with his own revisionism. He is the great Usurper!

I am a new membe.I was reading some of the earlier posts written by the members of the forum.
I agree with you that Paul did not represent Jesus.

[wil]

bump for interest...I just read through this entire quite interesting thread. Found it all so interesting I can't comment.

[China Cat Sunflower]

I'm not sure how Paul could have corrupted the gospels when his stuff was written before them.

Chris

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by China Cat Sunflower

I'm not sure how Paul could have corrupted the gospels when his stuff was written before them.

Chris

"chuckle" excellent point Chris...

[China Cat Sunflower]

I skimmed the entire thread, but I still don't see a valid argument for dismissing Paul. Admittedly I'm an admirer of Paul, but I've tried to consider the issue open mindedly, and I don't see anything compelling in the emphasis placed on narrow readings of the turns of phrases in the Gospels. In my opinion Paul is one of, if not the most eloquent of voices in the entire Bible.

Chris

[Jeannot]

Originally Posted by China Cat Sunflower

I skimmed the entire thread, but I still don't see a valid argument for dismissing Paul. Admittedly I'm an admirer of Paul, but I've tried to consider the issue open mindedly, and I don't see anything compelling in the emphasis placed on narrow readings of the turns of phrases in the Gospels. In my opinion Paul is one of, if not the most eloquent of voices in the entire Bible.

Chris

Yes, Paul can be eloquent. And he is obviously sincere. I too am an admirer of most of his writing, though not all.

One thing that makes him very human is his attitude toward the Jews, his own people. He must now reject the Jewish way of salvation--the works of the Law--but yet he can't bring himself to condemn Israel as lost. So he twists and turns in his attitude toward his former co-religionists, and ends up saying that Israel will be saved, presumably by mass conversion.

BTW, about Paul and "the gospel." He's always talking about "the gospel"--but what does he mean? Obviously not the four canonical gospels we have, since they weren't written yet. Does he mean a written document? If so, what? The fabled "Q"?

Or does he just mean the "kerygma," the proclamation of faith that Jesus is the first born of the dead, and shows the path to salvation?

PS: One of the very few overlaps between Paul and the canonical gospels is his repeating Jesus' words at the Last Supper.

[truthseeker]

Should Paul be removed from the NT, there would be no NT. Maybe it would be entitled, 'A Stir in Rome' or just a point in history like the books of the Apocrypha. Of the 27 books of the NT, 14 are the epistles of Paul.