Should Paul be removed from the NT?

[cosmo]

A quick review of Paul’s letters shows that all his readers questioned or heard questions about his authority/apostleship. Keep in mind that when a person’s authority is accepted (i.e. the president, senators, governors, etc.), they do not feel the need to repeatedly remind their listeners, “I am the president and I can prove it,” or “I am the governor, and here are my credential to back it up.” Only people whose positions are questionable and fragile exhibit this type of behavior. They constantly remind others of their “credentials” to bolster their authority. They might even “name, names” of highly esteemed individuals whom they publicly rebuked/corrected. This, too, would buttress their reputation by eroding the reputation of others. This list does not include the introductory claims to apostleship typically found in the first sentence or two.

continued................

[cosmo]

Romans 15:15-16, 19 – he felt compelled to back up his authority to reprimand and teach the Roman congregation by reminding his readers, “of the grace God gave me to be a minister of Messiah Yeshua to the Gentiles with the priestly duty of proclaiming the gospel of God …” and reminding them that he could prove he had been commissioned by God, “by the power of signs and miracles, through the power of the Spirit” (v. 19).

· 1 Corinthians 9:1-2– Paul’s authority has been seriously undermined in Corinth, and he reminds his listeners, “Am I not an apostle? Have I not seen Yeshua our Lord? Are you not the result of my work in the Lord? Even though I may not be an apostle to others, surely I am to you!” Paul acknowledges that his apostleship is not universally accepted. He then claims that his “proof” of apostleship is the Corinthian’s conversions. “For you are the seal of my apostleship…” (v.2).

· 2 Corinthians 11:5-6, 11:22-12:12 – Evidently, Paul’s authority/apostleship was still under attack in Corinth at the time of his second letter. He spends three chapters defending himself and his authority. One of the most revealing comments, however, occurs in v. 5-6. “But I do not think I am in the least inferior to the most eminent apostles.” I may not be a trained speaker, but I do have knowledge.” Evidently people were calling him an “inferior apostle.” He then uses his “foolish” boasting to remind his listeners that he was qualified in every way to be an apostle because of his lineage, background, education, and present-day sufferings.

· Galatians 1:11-2:2; 6:17 – Paul knew that he couldn’t prove his apostolic claims. To be an apostle, he would have needed to be trained under Yeshua and he was not. Therefore, he had to prove that he at least “saw” Yeshua – but Luke clearly states Paul only heard a voice identifying himself as Yeshua and nothing else. So Paul then claims that Yeshua directly taught him – but this, too, is contrary to the events recorded by Luke. Paul was sent to Ananias, and then lived amongst the disciples in Damascus. There is no record of Paul ever receiving any further “enlightenment” directly from Yeshua. To the contrary, his writings repeatedly reference receiving enlightenment through the study of the sacred texts. These claims were solely designed to bolster his fragile reputation and authority amongst the Galatians. He would not have needed to make these claims if the Galatians didn’t doubt his apostleship.

“Now in what I am writing to you, I assure you before God that I am not lying.” Evidently, people were accusing him of lying about his conversion experience. In Galatians 2:9, Paul makes a snide remark about James, Peter, and John. He states, “James and Peter and John, who were reputed to be pillars, gave to me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship.” To use modern day slang, this would read, “the so-called pillars.” This antagonistic comment, when combined with an earlier one, “But from those who were of high reputation (what they were makes no difference to me; God shows no partiality) – well, those who were of reputation contributed nothing to me” (cf. Peter – Acts 15:7-11; James – Acts 15:13-21) from Galatians 2:6, indicates that Paul harbored bitter feelings towards at least these three apostles. This reveals that a very strained relationship existed between these men.

Lastly, in Galatians 2:12 Paul claims that the disciples of James led Peter astray. Paul then talks about how he had openly rebuked Peter (and, by insinuation, James) – indicating a desire to “bring down” Peter and James’ reputation/authority over the Galatian community, while elevating his own reputation/authority over them. The remainder of the letter appears to an extensive diatribe against the teachings of James and Peter.

· Ephesians 3:1-6; 4:1 – Again Paul reminds his readers that he received a “revelation” (referring back to the Damascus road experience) that commissioned him. He then uses that experience to justify his unique interpretation of sacred texts. He also frequently refers to his imprisonment, “for the sake of you Gentiles” almost as a manipulative tool: to make them feel obligated because of his sufferings, to heed his words. As mentioned below (in Colossians), this is an effective combination of ideas.

· Philippians 3:4-6 – Again, Paul uses “foolish” boasting to bolster his reputation amongst the Philippians (as he had done with the Corinthians). He reminds them of his lineage, background, education, and righteousness, as a tool for diminishing the reputation of those who were disputing his authority (“beware of …”).

· Colossians 1:23-26 – as with Ephesians, Paul reminds his readers of his special commission from God. He also reminds them that he is suffering for their sake (1:24). This is an effective combination: claiming that God commissioned him, and (as proof that one was ordained by God and not man) willingness to suffer in carrying out that commission.

· 1 Thessalonians 2:4-10– Paul talks about his rights as an apostle to exert authority over the Thessalonian congregation (e.g., receive pay). He reminds them that he did not exercise his rights, but preferred to labor and serve amongst them “working day and night so as not to be a burden on you, as we proclaimed the gospel of God” (v. 9). Once again, this is an effective combination for creating a sense of obligation in the readers. Surely God called him to be an apostle since he worked so hard for free amongst them.

· 1 Timothy 1:12-14; 2:7. As before, Paul reminds his readers in Ephesus that Yeshua called him to serve. “For this I was appointed a preacher and an apostle (I am telling the truth, I am not lying) as a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and truth.” Here, as with the Galatian congregation, Paul’s declares that he is not lying – indicating that people were accusing him of doing so.

· 2 Timothy 1:11-12 – Though considered his “dear son,” Paul still reminds Timothy that, “I was appointed a preacher and an apostle and a teacher. For this reason I also suffer these things …” Again, Paul combines his commission with suffering, and then tells Timothy to guard the “sound words which you have heard from me” (v. 13). He also mentions that a large number of people in Asia have deserted him (v. 15). Because these ideas are all combined into one long thought, it suggests that many people doubted his apostleship, authority, and message. He also sharply condemns others who left him alone in prison or disagreed with him (2 Timothy 4:10, 15).

· Titus 1:3 – Paul reminds Titus that he was “entrusted” with his message by the commandment of God through Yeshua.



Philemon 1:1, 13 – this is the only letter where Paul does not appeal to his apostleship, but only to his sufferings in prison, as the reason for Philemon to do as Paul requests.

continued..................

[cosmo]

Paul repeatedly introduced himself in his letters by affirming his apostolic status, and referring to his experiences, insights, power, etc. as further proof that he was an apostle. He also frequently combined references of his commission with his sufferings. In these passages, we see him openly acknowledging that many denied his apostleship, or considered him an inferior apostle, or even a liar. He made spiteful remarks about the leadership of the Jerusalem Council (specifically, James, Peter, and John), and revealed residual hostility and antagonism towards their authority/reputation. Many people deserted him, probably due to his controversial conversion and message. He and Barnabus even separated because of Paul’s inability to forgiven Mark (Acts 15:37-39).

It is readily evident that Paul’s authority was widely questioned, and repeatedly under attack (“even though I am not an apostle to others” – 1 Corinthians 9:2). Under such a strong cloud of doubt, it is understandable that he needed to add weight to his letters (“padding his resume” per se) before issuing his commands, charges, and dictates. His constant reminders about "suffering" and being "persecuted," were designed to silence anyone who would disagree with him. "Let no one make trouble for me, because I bear on my body the brand marks of Yeshua," Galatians 6:17. In the Galatians examples, he not only padded his own reputation, he directly disputed (and discounted) the authority and reputation of the two greatest voices in the Jerusalem Council – two men who had walked with Yeshua for years, as well as his friend Barnabus.

Is it any wonder, then, that in Romans 2:16, 16:25 and 2 Timothy 2:8; Paul calls the gospel, “my gospel,” not “the gospel of Yeshua the Messiah,” and in 2 Corinthians 4:3, 1 Thessalonians 1:4, and 2 Thessalonians 2:14, he calls it, “our gospel?” He had personalized the message and now “owned” it. It belonged to him. He could teach it as he understood it. He had found the “secret” and “hidden” messages in the Tanakh regarding Yeshua: “according to the revelation of the mystery hidden for long ages past, but now revealed and made known through the prophetic writings by the command of the eternal God…” (Romans 16:25b-26, NIV). He believed – even if it was contrary to all the apostles – that he was privy to these insights because he possessed the same spirit and mind as Yeshua. 1 Corinthians 2:7-10, 16: “No, we speak of God’s mysterious wisdom, a hidden wisdom, which God predestined for our glory before the ages: … As it is written, ‘The eye has not seen, nor ear heard, neither has it entered into the heart of man, the things that God has prepared for them that love him. But God has revealed them unto us by his spirit: for the spirit searches all things; even the deep things of God…. But we have the mind of Messiah.” Notice that Paul is claiming direct revelation from God – seemingly an audible experience; but it was not. As seen in Ephesians 3:4-6, 9; Romans 16:25-26, 2 Timothy 3:15-16; et al, his “gospel” and his “wisdom” came from studying the existing sacred texts. It was so powerful that he felt as though God spoke/revealed it to him personally. He could claim to speak with God’s authority and God’s wisdom even though God had not audibly spoken to him, because God had spoken already … through the prophets before him. It may have been Yeshua’s gospel, but now it was his gospel. It may have been God’s wisdom, but now it was his wisdom. It may have been God’s authority, but now it was his authority. He had been delegated/commissioned with a task and was therefore endowed with all the rights and responsibilities thereof – including demanding the same obedience to his own words as they would give to God Himself.

“I charge you …;” “I command you …;” “we instructed you …;” “See to it …;” “Submit …;” “Obey …;” “Do …;” “Do not …;” “Be …;” “Give …;” “Serve …;” “Imitate me …;” “Be followers of me;” “Teach …;” “Expel …;” “Receive …;” were all words issued by one man. This same man told others to “command and teach,” as well. He used his own commission, to commission others. He considered his own words to be the same as God’s words. He considered his own authority to be the same as God’s authority. In every way, one could say that he was “equal” with God because he claimed all the things generally ascribed to God. He called the gospel, “my gospel,” he commanded people, “imitate me.” He claimed the authority to reinterpret sacred texts and he saw mysteries and hidden messages in the text that no one else had seen. He claimed to have God’s spirit within him, and the mind of Yeshua. He commanded people to be his followers. He said, "I, Paul, tell you ..." and "and I testify again ..." and, "but I say ..." -- in every case, Paul demanded obedience based upon his own authority, even if it directly contradicted the teachings of the apostles.

Whether a zealot for the Pharisees or a zealot for Messiah, Paul demanded authority and respect from his listeners, and vehemently condemned anyone who disagreed with him. He neither wanted nor respected the Jerusalem Council’s approval. As he explained it, “But from those who were of high reputation (what they were makes no difference to me; God shows no partiality) – well, those who were of reputation contributed nothing to me” (Galatians 2:6). His message was all that mattered. He had had a vision … and that was all the incentive he needed. It was his gospel. They were his followers. He was their apostle. Heaven itself was dared to contradict him. “But even if we, or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed!” (Galatians 1:8).

[i] See 1 Corinthians 2:6ff; Colossians 1:28-29; 2:2-3; 1 Thessalonians 1:4; et al.


[ii] Philippians 3:17; 4:9; 2 Thessalonians 1:6; 2 Thessalonians 3:7


[iii] In the first century, sects splintered the Jewish community, each sect purporting to have the truth. These groups (and their respective beliefs) were identified according to their rabbis: disciples of Hillel, Shammai, Akiva, Bar Kochba, Joshua, etc.

[iv] Although Paul taught that the entry-level requirements for salvation did not require conversion to Judaism, he did stand in agreement with the Jerusalem Council. They believed that as the Gentiles attended weekly Synagogue, they would gradually learn (and apply) Torah to their lives (see Acts 15:21). This was in contrast to the idea that they had to first become Jews (i.e. learn and apply Torah) before attaining the rank of "Messianic."



cosmo

[Marsh]

Originally Posted by cosmo

A quick review of Paul’s letters shows that all his readers questioned or heard questions about his authority/apostleship. Keep in mind that when a person’s authority is accepted (i.e. the president, senators, governors, etc.), they do not feel the need to repeatedly remind their listeners, “I am the president and I can prove it,” or “I am the governor, and here are my credential to back it up.” Only people whose positions are questionable and fragile exhibit this type of behavior.

Interesting, then, that God himself repeatedly-- even continuously-- states throughout the entire OT that he is the LORD.

[Marsh]

Originally Posted by WolfgangvonUSA

Jesus may have encouraged new disciples to become involved in His teachings, but He never said anything about new apostles, except to say that people would falsely claim to be new apostles:

Rev 2:2 I know thy works, and thy labour, and thy patience, and how thou canst not bear them which are evil: and thou hast tried them which say they are apostles, and are not, and hast found them liars:

This verse was directed to the Ephesians, an area Paul had visited.

And I should also mention that an apostleship was an office, whereas a disciple is simply a follower.

Wasn't Paul a founder of the church at Ephesus? How can a church reject false apostles before they have been founded? Seems a little strange that a false apostle would spend his time founding churches, anyways. I thought that sort of thing was left up to actual apostles.

As far as the semantics concerning the word "apostle" goes, maybe the cause of our differing opinions stems from a differing use of the word. I am not referring to a legalistic office, but to a spiritual identity. I care very little for any title that people might give or be given, because Jesus never sought a title.

I put Paul into the same category as Stephen, who was stoned to death for his testimony of Jesus Christ. Really, what is the difference between Stephen and Peter? Both of them believed in Jesus, both of them testified, and both of them didn't shrink from death to maintain that testimony. Call a rose by any name in any language and it's still a rose.

We don't know what vernacular vocabulary was in use during the first century after Jesus died. Any definition we impose on a single word in a foreign language in a historical setting is just that: imposed. Paul preached the testimony of Jesus Christ, and he was killed for it. To me that puts him in the same category as anybody who has picked up their cross and followed Jesus-- including Peter et. al.

And as for logic, I thought we were talking of spiritual things, not of worldly things. The doctrine of logic is a human doctrine, and while it works well in this world, I think there is little place for it in a spiritual discussion. And remember: this discussion began because you were trying to prove that Paul was not an apostle. How can you begin a debate and then put the burden of proof on someone else?

[JJM]

Originally Posted by Abogado [/color

del Diablo]

Originally Posted by Abogado [/color

I don't understand your question.

You said that you accept neither Scripture nor tradition so if you accept neither writings nor something that has been told to you by others then what do you possibly have to know what Christ’s teachings are.

Originally Posted by Abogado [/color

del Diablo]

Originally Posted by Abogado [/color

Why doesn't that make sense that god would do evil? What is evil?

Evil is the opposite of the opinion of God. So if God thought that one thing should be done then why would he do the other?

[color=black]

Originally Posted by Abogado [/color

del Diablo]

What is a church? What did christ mean when he said it? Who wrote that passage?

[/b]

Christ meant that Peter would be the leader of the religious institution that he was founding. The Church is that movement and that institution. I am assuming that Matthew wrote this of course it is possible that it was written by another but you have to trust Christ said it.

[color=black]

Originally Posted by Abogado [/color

del Diablo]

Which side are you on? How do you know?

That is the purpose of my study of Christianity however if I'm on the wrong side then there is a good chance Christianity is completely false.



[color=black]

Originally Posted by Abogado [/color

del Diablo]

You've been to Hell?

Well Hell is a state the place is simply where people who have died go when they die in this state. SO yes I have been in this state.



[color=black]

Originally Posted by Abogado [/color

del Diablo]

That's better. What if the church is absolutely nothing like what you think it is? What if the "church" has been staring you in the fact your whole life and you haven't really seen it?

Well maybe it has but if it has I'm probably goona need someone to show it to me but I really doubt it is because I don't think God would make it that hard.

Originally Posted by Abogado [/color

del Diablo]

According to what/whom?



You can save a kitten from a tree. You can save a friend from embarrassment. You can save a man from sacrificing the joy of life to pursue empty promises. It could mean lots of other things.

Well the meaning of salvation in this case is being saved from death because that was Christ’s goal. And being saved from death puts you in heaven

Originally Posted by Abogado [color=black

del

Originally Posted by Abogado [color=black

Diablo]
Good question. Why do you think?



Yes. Lots of them

The point of the question was to show that it isn't logical. I don't think God would.


[color=black]

Originally Posted by Abogado [/color

del Diablo]

[font=Arial]

What is "original sin"? How do you know? Where is "blasphemy against the Holy Spirit" defined as you indicate here? What is "eternal death?"

Original sin is the original sin. The one that was committed by Adam and Eve that caused us to be in a fallen state. Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is accepting the sin in you. Because the Holy Spirit is in all Christians. We are meant to be a perfect dwelling place for him but by accepting our sin we make God that is inside of us uncomfortable because God doesn't wish to be around sin. So, by accepting our sin we are saying we are more important than the Holy Spirit this is blasphemy so this is the one thing God won't forgive us upon our death. Those in heaven are experiencing new life and those in hell can never come to new life so they are dead eternally.





[color=black]

Originally Posted by Abogado [/color

del Diablo]



[font=Arial]

You mean you don't sin when you know it's a sin?

[font=Arial]

I attempt not to. But I’m far from achieving it. like I said it is all about intentions.





[font=Arial]

Originally Posted by Abogado [/font

del Diablo]

Is that what Paul says about rejecting Christ? He has a very sophisticaete and nuanced philosophy on this issue. And if attempting not to sin is the meaning of "accepting the word of god" for purposes of salvation, then that would be salvation through "works." Read Paul's writings on this subject carefully and thoroughly and for yourself. Try not to have any pre-conceived notions about what he is trying to say when you read it. You might be surprised.

May I ask why you insist this is what Paul teaches. You yourself said you have no interest in the teachings of Paul and know little on the subject but you seem to constantly argue with me about what he is saying. Why would a man with no knowledge of this message do this? Now I promise you that I will attempt to read the writings of Paul without preconceived notions but for the moment we are getting nowhere on the subject. So I suggest we drop all things that involve Paul’s writings.



[font=Arial]

Originally Posted by Abogado [/font

del Diablo]

It's not about evidence. It's about knowing the truth.



No. I haven't said anything like that. First, I don't have anything to say about your religion. What I have to say has nothing to do with your religion. Second, I didn't say you have to conform. In fact, I don't want to challenge your religion. I'm suggesting that you challenge it. You don't have to if you don't want to, though. And in the end, I can't make you. And I'm fine with that. But my telling you things isn't going to mean anything to you. You have to be the one to ask.

Well I am challenging my religion. That is what I originally said. That I look for fault in my religion but have yet to find it you where suggesting that I completely step out of my religion and look at it from a different perspective. I assumed you had a prospective in mind.

[JJM]

Originally Posted by Abogado del Diablo

[/color]

It's not "belief" for starters. And it certainly isn't irrational. When you can understand how it's possible, you will know the voice of God.




That's not what Paul said. Salvation is by God's grace through faith - which faith is not of our selves -- not through works.



Actually, Calvin got it from Paul. And he completely misunderstood it, too.




Which laws are those? What does Paul say about having to follow the "law"?



What is "original sin" then? Is that a sin we knew of when we committed it? Again, what does Paul say about rejecting Christ?


[color=black]
Nope. A christian isn't required to do anything.

With all of these things once again it is differing opinions about what Paul means. But I wish to ask about the Calvin thing. If you think Calvin misunderstood what Paul was saying. And that is what you are saying then why do you even say it if you thing it is a misunderstanding. Secondly Calvin corrupted allot of source especially the writings of Augustine. That leads me to another Question earlier you said you read the writings of early Christians which ones would those be?

[Abogado del Diablo]

Originally Posted by JJM

With all of these things once again it is differing opinions about what Paul means. But I wish to ask about the Calvin thing. If you think Calvin misunderstood what Paul was saying. And that is what you are saying then why do you even say it if you thing it is a misunderstanding. Secondly Calvin corrupted allot of source especially the writings of Augustine. That leads me to another Question earlier you said you read the writings of early Christians which ones would those be?

I am definitely not saying what Calvin said. Though he correctly reads the plain language of Eph. 2:8, he goes on to fit it into a theology of nonsense. He correctly read what Paul wrote. He didn't understand what it meant.

Early christian writings I've read: Justin Martyr, Eusebius, Tertullian, Clement, Iranaeus, Origen.

[Abogado del Diablo]

Originally Posted by JJM

You said that you accept neither Scripture nor tradition so if you accept neither writings nor something that has been told to you by others then what do you possibly have to know what Christ’s teachings are.

I said no such thing. I don't accept "scripture" based on its presumed authority. I accept what I know to be true. It doesn't matter whose teachings they are if they are true.

Originally Posted by JJM

Evil is the opposite of the opinion of God. So if God thought that one thing should be done then why would he do the other?

Give me some examples of "evil."

Originally Posted by JJM

Christ meant that Peter would be the leader of the religious institution that he was founding.

Where did he explain that?

Originally Posted by JJM

The Church is that movement and that institution. I am assuming that Matthew wrote this of course it is possible that it was written by another but you have to trust Christ said it.

No. I don't have to trust christ said it. I have no reason whatsoever to believe that a literal, historical Jesus said anything of the sort.

Originally Posted by JJM

That is the purpose of my study of Christianity however if I'm on the wrong side then there is a good chance Christianity is completely false.

It's not false. It's just misunderstood. And there is no wrong side. There's knowing and not knowing. But neither is "wrong."

Originally Posted by JJM

Well Hell is a state the place is simply where people who have died go when they die in this state. SO yes I have been in this state.

You've died?! I must be misunderstanding you.

Originally Posted by JJM

Well maybe it has but if it has I'm probably goona need someone to show it to me but I really doubt it is because I don't think God would make it that hard.

It's actually quite easy once it is revealed to you. Ask. Seek. Knock.

Originally Posted by JJM

Well the meaning of salvation in this case is being saved from death because that was Christ’s goal. And being saved from death puts you in heaven

How do you know this? Where does that idea come from?

Originally Posted by JJM

Original sin is the original sin. The one that was committed by Adam and Eve that caused us to be in a fallen state.

Okay, so we are committing sin even if we don't know it. In fact, we are being prosecuted for sins we didn't even commit ourselves, right? By the way, what precisely was Adam and Eve's original sin?

Originally Posted by JJM

Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is accepting the sin in you.

According to?

Originally Posted by JJM

We are meant to be a perfect dwelling place for him but by accepting our sin we make God that is inside of us uncomfortable because God doesn't wish to be around sin.

So you've stopped sinning? What's the reasoning here? It's not sin if you feel guilty about it? Read Paul on rejecting the sacrifice of christ.

Originally Posted by JJM

So, by accepting our sin we are saying we are more important than the Holy Spirit this is blasphemy so this is the one thing God won't forgive us upon our death. Those in heaven are experiencing new life and those in hell can never come to new life so they are dead eternally.

Please forgive me, but I wanted a source on this. I'm quite aware of the basic scare tactics invovled. I was raised catholic.

Originally Posted by JJM

I attempt not to. But I’m far from achieving it. like I said it is all about intentions.

So you can save yourself from the wages of sin by your intentions? Interesting. What does Paul have to say about that idea?

Originally Posted by JJM

May I ask why you insist this is what Paul teaches.

I haven't told you anything about what Paul teaches. I asked you to look for yourself.

Originally Posted by JJM

You yourself said you have no interest in the teachings of Paul

No. I said nothing like that. I said I have no interest in pointless discourse on issues of theology in which each side twists a scripture and makes a meaningless argument based on the logical fallacy of "appeal to authority." I am very interested in what is true, regardless of who wrote it.

Originally Posted by JJM

you seem to constantly argue with me about what he is saying.

The only thing we've argued about is the simple sentence structure of one passage. Other than that, I haven't represented anything about what Paul is saying. I've just asked you to read it carefully for yourself without any preconceived notions about its meaning.

Originally Posted by JJM

Why would a man with no knowledge of this message do this?

I have knowledge of the message.

Originally Posted by JJM

Now I promise you that I will attempt to read the writings of Paul without preconceived notions but for the moment we are getting nowhere on the subject.

Try it, and see where we get. Maybe you're right. But give it a chance.

Originally Posted by JJM

Well I am challenging my religion. That is what I originally said. That I look for fault in my religion but have yet to find it you where suggesting that I completely step out of my religion and look at it from a different perspective. I assumed you had a prospective [sic] in mind.

I do. Your perspective.

BTW, I love your sig line.

[lunamoth]

Hi AdD,

Well, I really have no idea what you are talking about, but I'm intrigued and looking forward to reading Paul again.

Hang in there JJM!

Happy Thanksgiving,
lunamoth

[Abogado del Diablo]

Originally Posted by lunamoth

Hi AdD,

Well, I really have no idea what you are talking about, but I'm intrigued and looking forward to reading Paul again.

Hang in there JJM!

Happy Thanksgiving,
lunamoth

luna:

Have fun with Paul. The authentic epistles are a philosophical gold mine.

Happy Thanksgiving to you as well.

[JJM]

[color=black]

Originally Posted by Abogado [/color

del Diablo]



I said no such thing. I don't accept "scripture" based on its presumed authority. I accept what I know to be true. It doesn't matter whose teachings they are if they are true.

Well I realize that now but at the time my original post was written it didn't sound that way so I was simply clarifying what I originally meant.



[color=black]

Originally Posted by Abogado [/color

del Diablo]



Give me some examples of "evil."









Where did he explain that?

He didn't but Paul never explained, to my knowledge, the verse you where quoting but that doesn't change your perspective on it.

[color=black]

Originally Posted by Abogado [/color

del Diablo]

No. I don't have to trust Christ said it. I have no reason whatsoever to believe that a literal, historical Jesus said anything of the sort.







It's not false. It's just misunderstood. And there is no wrong side. There's knowing and not knowing. But neither is "wrong."





You've died?! I must be misunderstanding you.

No I've been in a state of separation of God.

[color=black]

Originally Posted by Abogado [/color

del Diablo]

It's actually quite easy once it is revealed to you. Ask. Seek. Knock.





How do you know this? Where does that idea come from?

Now I know you dislike tradition or at least you have said you wish to look out side it but if this has been what this word was taken to mean for 2000 years without question then that is what I'm going to consider it to mean.



[color=black]

Originally Posted by Abogado [/color

del Diablo]

Okay, so we are committing sin even if we don't know it. In fact, we are being prosecuted for sins we didn't even commit ourselves, right? By the way, what precisely was Adam and Eve's original sin?

No I said that we have a tendency to sin that is inherited not that we are sinning all of the time. We aren’t responsible for sins we don't know we are committing. Their first sin was pride.



[color=black]

Originally Posted by Abogado [/color

del Diablo]

According to?







So you've stopped sinning? What's the reasoning here? It's not sin if you feel guilty about it? Read Paul on rejecting the sacrifice of christ.



Please forgive me, but I wanted a source on this. I'm quite aware of the basic scare tactics invovled. I was raised catholic.

It is a logical deduction that putting yourself before God is blasphemy. and I didn't say that I stopped sinning I said I attempted to. and Isn't a scare tactic.



[color=black]

Originally Posted by Abogado [/color

del Diablo]

So you can save yourself from the wages of sin by your intentions? Interesting. What does Paul have to say about that idea?

no you don't save yourself God saves you but he won't save you if you reject him. Because a loving God doesn't give you something you don't want. You reject him by accepting sin. So even if you do fall sometimes if you truly wish to reject sin and accept God then you accept him

[color=black]

Originally Posted by Abogado [/color

del Diablo]



I haven't told you anything about what Paul teaches. I asked you to look for yourself.



No. I said nothing like that. I said I have no interest in pointless discourse on issues of theology in which each side twists a scripture and makes a meaningless argument based on the logical fallacy of "appeal to authority." I am very interested in what is true, regardless of who wrote it.



The only thing we've argued about is the simple sentence structure of one passage. Other than that, I haven't represented anything about what Paul is saying. I've just asked you to read it carefully for yourself without any preconceived notions about its meaning.



I have knowledge of the message.

My original question was telling you what my interpretation of Paul and James was and asking you if you thought I got one wrong. You said

Like I said, I'm genuinely not interested one way or the other and truthfully, I hold no real opinion on the subject because I've never looked at it that closely.



now granted you didn't say anything about not having any knowledge but you did say that you had no opinion. but yet this conversation has been about our opinions on Paul.

[color=black]

Originally Posted by Abogado [/color

del Diablo]

Try it, and see where we get. Maybe you're right. But give it a chance.



I do. Your perspective.



BTW, I love your sig line.

I'm assuming this means that you think that I'm looking at things through others perspective and not one I formulated on my own. Well that's not true. I attempted to look at things through my own perspective and I found that there is only one truth with no grey area, that bible and faith alone are nonsense and that if Christ didn't leave us the absolute truth of what he taught he simply isn't the God that is portrayed in the bible. So either that God is false or he left a truth without a grey area and the only thing that I know of with any historical credibility that claims to hold such a truth is the church. So either the church is true or Christianity is false that is my perspective. I have yet to see a church teaching that doesn't make sense to me so I have yet to loose my faith in Christianity. Now you did say that you think that Christianity is something radically different than what you have found as Christian tradition. I'd like to know what you think the differences are because I'm not seeing them. maybe what you say will make sense and I'll except is. However because there is no grey area everyone’s perspective isn't ok, it is the absolute truth that is ok and if you have that or at least proof that I don't then please show it to me. Stop playing the stupid mind games and be blunt.

[JJM]

Originally Posted by lunamoth

Hi AdD,

Well, I really have no idea what you are talking about, but I'm intrigued and looking forward to reading Paul again.

Hang in there JJM!

Happy Thanksgiving,
lunamoth

Happy Thanksgiving

[Abogado del Diablo]

Originally Posted by JJM

He didn't but Paul never explained, to my knowledge, the verse you where quoting but that doesn't change your perspective on it.

I haven't offered a perspective on Eph 2:8 yet. I have pointed out that the structure of the sentence does not allow it to be read the way you are trying to read it. That's all.

Originally Posted by JJM

No I've been in a state of separation of God.

Are you still?

Originally Posted by JJM

Now I know you dislike tradition or at least you have said you wish to look out side it but if this has been what this word was taken to mean for 2000 years without question then that is what I'm going to consider it to mean.

Okay. If that's your perspective, fine.

Originally Posted by JJM

No I said that we have a tendency to sin that is inherited not that we are sinning all of the time. We aren’t responsible for sins we don't know we are committing. Their first sin was pride.

What precisely was the first sin? What did they actually do?

Originally Posted by JJM

It is a logical deduction that putting yourself before God is blasphemy.

How so?

Originally Posted by JJM

and I didn't say that I stopped sinning I said I attempted to. and Isn't a scare tactic.

Did you succeed in stopping sinning? If not, your theology looks pretty darn scary. Of course, Paul has something to say on the subject of quitting sinning.

Originally Posted by JJM

no you don't save yourself God saves you but he won't save you if you reject him. Because a loving God doesn't give you something you don't want. You reject him by accepting sin. So even if you do fall sometimes if you truly wish to reject sin and accept God then you accept him

So you save yourself by your intentions when you sin. You keep rephrasing this as though it says something different then "if you feel guilty about it, then God will save you from it." What does Paul say about this idea?

Originally Posted by JJM

My original question wa