Should Paul be removed from the NT?

[Excaliburton]

I've heard many times from many people that Paul's writing is inconsistent with Jesus' teachings. But here's my question: Are these inconsistencies real, or are they a symptom of our lack of understanding, and a sign that our generation does not understand Jesus?

Personally, I think it's pretty arrogant to think that we can make judgments on Paul, not having walked in his shoes.[/quote]

Isn't this a bit like saying it is arrogant to make judgments on Adolf Hitler and Attila the Hun, not having walked in their shoes?

 

[InLove]

Isn't this a bit like saying it is arrogant to make judgments on Adolf Hitler and Attila the Hun, not having walked in their shoes?

Jesus died to take away our sins, not our brains. And besides, the ultimate judgement is God's, not ours.

InPeace,
InLove

 

[Excaliburton]

Jesus died to take away our sins, not our brains. And besides, the ultimate judgement is God's, not ours.

InPeace,
InLove

Jesus did not die to take away our sins but to pay the penalty for our sins if we agree to repent of them.

And yes, God will be the ultimate judge of us all, including Paul, the self-proclaimed apostle.

Jesus warned another would come in his own name whom the world would accept in His place.

Jhn 5:43 I am come in my Father's name, and ye receive me not: if another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive.

And we know that Jesus does not make prophecies in vain, and we also know that Paul fits this prophecy better than any other person precisely because his epistles were accepted (or received) into the New Testament.

 

[paul]

Joh 5:41 I receive not glory from men.
Joh 5:42 But I know you, that you have not the love of God in you.
Joh 5:43 I am come in the name of my Father, and you receive me not: if another shall come in his own name, him you will receive.
Joh 5:44 How can you believe, who receive glory one from another: and the glory which is from God alone, you do not seek?
Joh 5:45 Think not that I will accuse you to the Father. There is one that accuseth you, Moses, in whom you trust.
Joh 5:46 For if you did believe Moses, you would perhaps believe me also: for he wrote of me.
Joh 5:47 But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe my words?

Jesus was talking to the Jews, these Jews Jesus was talking to didn't receive Jesus, and why then would they have received Paul.
Paul didn't speak in His own name, as the many do who reject his words.
Paul didn't seek glory of himself.
Paul layed down his life to bring the word of God to all he could.
i don't see him having done or taught anything for his own glory, i see many who do today, i see far less the spirit in those who reject Paul's writings and teachings.

i know no one who has earned the right, to beable put their lives and words along side Paul's as if they themselves are worthy to dismiss them.
for then they put themselves at such heights, to have to replace or dismiss Paul's words with their own from their own understanding and Holiness.
have any of us lived a life any where near the life of Paul, as if we can judge him, as if we have a better understanding, as if we have attained in our own lives such a Holiness by which our own words and opinions can be supported?

 

[InLove]

Jesus did not die to take away our sins but to pay the penalty for our sins if we agree to repent of them.

Fair enough. I’ll rephrase.

Jesus died to pay the penalty for our sins if we agree to repent of them, but not to take away our brains. Therefore, I have the capacity to differentiate between the actions of people like Attila the Hun and Hitler and those of Paul.

Jesus warned another would come in his own name whom the world would accept in His place.

Jhn 5:43 I am come in my Father's name, and ye receive me not: if another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive.

1 Corinthians 1:11-15: "My brothers, some from Chloe's household have informed me that there are quarrels among you. What I mean is this: One of you says, "I follow Paul"; another, "I follow Apollos"; another, "I follow Cephas; still another, "I follow Christ."

Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Were you baptized into the name of Paul? I am thankful that I did not baptize any of you except Crispus and Gaius, so no one can say that you were baptized into my name."


InPeace,
InLove

 

[Quahom1]

Jesus did not die to take away our sins but to pay the penalty for our sins if we agree to repent of them.

And yes, God will be the ultimate judge of us all, including Paul, the self-proclaimed apostle.

Jesus warned another would come in his own name whom the world would accept in His place.

Jhn 5:43 I am come in my Father's name, and ye receive me not: if another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive.

And we know that Jesus does not make prophecies in vain, and we also know that Paul fits this prophecy better than any other person precisely because his epistles were accepted (or received) into the New Testament.

The key word here is "if". And Paul did not come in his own name, but in the name of Christ Jesus.

And the Bible specifically states that the "Lamb" will be the judge, not the Father.

And finally, the Bible specifically states that Jesus did come to take away our sins. Pretty cut and dry...

John 1:29 The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.

 

[InLove]

The key word here is "if". And Paul did not come in his own name, but in the name of Christ Jesus.

And the Bible specifically states that the "Lamb" will be the judge, not the Father.

And finally, the Bible specifically states that Jesus did come to take away our sins. Pretty cut and dry...

John 1:29 The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith,Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.

I used Excalibur’s phraseology, in part, to express that even in the context of that phrasing, the comparison he set forth between Hitler, Attila, and Paul lacks reasonable foundation to me. I was also trying (perhaps too hard) to respect the sensitivities related to the particular board (LC) on which this discussion is now taking place.

As far as what I meant by “the ultimate judgement is God’s, not ours,” I was referring to the Godhead. Perhaps I should have been more specific. Again, I was considering the room we are in.

Maybe there is actually no need for me to qualify my statements, but I decided to do so in the event that I inadvertantly confused the issue.

By the way, the verses which directly follow John 1:29 speak volumes to me. Thanks for the reference.

InPeace,
InLove

 

[Dondi]

The key word here is "if". And Paul did not come in his own name, but in the name of Christ Jesus.

And the Bible specifically states that the "Lamb" will be the judge, not the Father.

And finally, the Bible specifically states that Jesus did come to take away our sins. Pretty cut and dry...

John 1:29 The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith,Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.

Not to mention another quote from the Beloved Disciple:

"But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin." - I John 1:7

 

[flowperson]

This may be an "out of line" question here, but it was my impression that this "walled garden" was expressly established to talk about modalities of belief and spirituality that would be more "open" to people of all faiths.

It seems that "belief and spirituality" in this "garden" has recently devolved into arguments about differing Christian interpretations of bible verses, especially as they might pertain to "Paul's" take on the initializing Christian events 2,000 years ago.

These sorts of discusssions really do not interest non-Christians who are abundant here...nor do they usually grab the interest of non-Church Christians such as I. I would think that such discussions might more appropriately belong in the Christianity section of the "Abrahamic Religions" garden. What do all of you think about that ?

I haven't been a member here all that long, but I have greatly enjoyed the freedom that this particular garden has provided in the past for free-wheeling spiritual analyses in the context of an "over-arching belief in G-d" concept, which, according to recent surveys, includes 95% of people surveyed. This present "devolvement" of the "belief and spirituality" garden has effectively "chilled" such productive discussions IMHO...but then maybe that's the point of it all...hmmmm?

While I realize that this is all taking place in the liberal christianity sub-forum, I still believe that such discussions regarding literalist interpretation of biblical material might not be appropriate here to the expanded extent that it is occurring.

Just my 2 cents worth again.

flow....

 

[InLove]

Hi, flow and everyone--

Speaking only for myself, I would not personally be offended if this thread were moved. But then I don't make the decisions. I trust that the mods are assessing the situation. The LC board can be a little tricky to navigate sometimes.

InPeace,
InLove

 

[Quahom1]

This may be an "out of line" question here, but it was my impression that this "walled garden" was expressly established to talk about modalities of belief and spirituality that would be more "open" to people of all faiths.

It seems that "belief and spirituality" in this "garden" has recently devolved into arguments about differing Christian interpretations of bible verses, especially as they might pertain to "Paul's" take on the initializing Christian events 2,000 years ago.

These sorts of discusssions really do not interest non-Christians who are abundant here...nor do they usually grab the interest of non-Church Christians such as I. I would think that such discussions might more appropriately belong in the Christianity section of the "Abrahamic Religions" garden. What do all of you think about that ?

I haven't been a member here all that long, but I have greatly enjoyed the freedom that this particular garden has provided in the past for free-wheeling spiritual analyses in the context of an "over-arching belief in G-d" concept, which, according to recent surveys, includes 95% of people surveyed. This present "devolvement" of the "belief and spirituality" garden has effectively "chilled" such productive discussions IMHO...but then maybe that's the point of it all...hmmmm?

While I realize that this is all taking place in the liberal christianity sub-forum, I still believe that such discussions regarding literalist interpretation of biblical material might not be appropriate here to the expanded extent that it is occurring.

Just my 2 cents worth again.

flow....

The original question was, should Paul be removed from the NT. Some opine yes, and others opine no. Neither side of the discussion has given their opinions without explanation as to why. I believe that is called a discussion/debate. I believe none here have devolved into an "I'm right, your wrong" mentality, so it seems the spirit and letter of the law are being adhered to.

There is no exception clause pertaining to literalist views, particularly in this case where both camps are literally using phraseology from the Bible as a means to reference their reasoning.

Personally, I find this particular thread fascinating and thought provoking, since it shows clearly that people reading the same material can come away with such different conclusions.

v/r

Q

 

[flowperson]

Q:

I thought that you probably might respond in this sort of way, but I still believe that this sort of debate should more appropriately be conducted in the other garden since that is where such things are usually discussed among literalists...and IMHO this is clearly such a discussion now.

The devolution that I'm talking about here has nothing to do with the debating of the issues regarding "right and wrong", but rather with the "chilling" and limiting nature of the participation in a liberal venue to only those who believe in biblical literalism. For example, I and probably many others here, believe that the Bible is composed of mythical materials that do not necessarily describe accurate history, but we are all still believers. In most of the posts that are made by literalists, Biblical truism is an automatic assumption and I find that to be innapropriate in this venue. That sort of approach automatically turns the debate into an "I'm right and you're wrong" contest. In this case, the issues being considered only concern the interpretation of literal biblical passages. There's nothing wrong with that, but IMHO such debates do not belong in this venue.

To me the essence of the messages that Jesus left for us to understand is that conflict and debate is probably the wrong way to find the appropriate answers. Conflict, debate, and adversarial activities aren't always so obvious in today's world and the ways in which it is structured. What is happening practically everywhere one looks these days is that we are all being faced with a "shifting baselines scenario" of changing control of the issues to be studied and agreed upon to those who have a more agressive agenda as opposed to a passive agenda of acceptence. Questioning of the "status quo" is chilled and eliminated through manipulation. Agressive adversaries know that peaceful souls who seek agreement will not usually willingly enter into conflict situations, so the questioners stop questioning and just go away, which of course is the goal of the more agressive/adversarial types. I see this happening everywhere now over the past thirty years in environmental issues, treatment of detainees, stopping the slaughter of innocents, etc. , etc., ad nauseum.

Liberal Christianity ( I would have preferred "progressive' as a modifier) implies a different approach to the conception, consideration, and comprehension of sacred materials, but of course there are all different kinds of ways to encroach upon the meanings of "unacceptable" sacred stories passed down to us. One of these ways is to delimit such discussions to biblical sources and the discussion under consideration here is totally about literal interpretation of bible materials at this point. There are several other sources according to recognized scholars such as those who participate in the Jesus Seminar that contribute to a knowledge of what Jesus and his disciples said and did all those centuries ago. But precious little of that makes its way into this garden these days because of the subtle manipulations I have detailed above.

Q, I appreciate the fact that you and others here of a literalist bent are sincere believers in what you believe, and I respect your right to follow your faith. But trying to limit exposure of others to alternative sources of knowledge about our faith, and to subtly impose limiting scenarios upon a forum garden which is identified as a place where more creative approaches to these studies and discussions are to be held is questionable at best, and wrong at worst.

Please try to accept my opinions as stated as only my opinions and not any sort of condemnation regarding your or others' approaches to the sacred matters we are disccussing and considering here. I'm just saying that conflict is not the way, and if we are all going to wade our way through the mountains of crap that seems to be facing us all in the future, then these sort of things should be reconsidered in the light of enightened questioning as opposed to adversarial contests which imply winning at all costs. I happen to believe that we're all more transcendant than that.

flow....

 

[Quahom1]

Q:

I thought that you probably might respond in this sort of way, but I still believe that this sort of debate should more appropriately be conducted in the other garden since that is where such things are usually discussed among literalists...and IMHO this is clearly such a discussion now.

The devolution that I'm talking about here has nothing to do with the debating of the issues regarding "right and wrong", but rather with the "chilling" and limiting nature of the participation in a liberal venue to only those who believe in biblical literalism. For example, I and probably many others here, believe that the Bible is composed of mythical materials that do not necessarily describe accurate history, but we are all still believers. In most of the posts that are made by literalists, Biblical truism is an automatic assumption and I find that to be innapropriate in this venue. That sort of approach automatically turns the debate into an "I'm right and you're wrong" contest. In this case, the issues being considered only concern the interpretation of literal biblical passages. There's nothing wrong with that, but IMHO such debates do not belong in this venue.

To me the essence of the messages that Jesus left for us to understand is that conflict and debate is probably the wrong way to find the appropriate answers. Conflict, debate, and adversarial activities aren't always so obvious in today's world and the ways in which it is structured. What is happening practically everywhere one looks these days is that we are all being faced with a "shifting baselines scenario" of changing control of the issues to be studied and agreed upon to those who have a more agressive agenda as opposed to a passive agenda of acceptence. Questioning of the "status quo" is chilled and eliminated through manipulation. Agressive adversaries know that peaceful souls who seek agreement will not usually willingly enter into conflict situations, so the questioners stop questioning and just go away, which of course is the goal of the more agressive/adversarial types. I see this happening everywhere now over the past thirty years in environmental issues, treatment of detainees, stopping the slaughter of innocents, etc. , etc., ad nauseum.

Liberal Christianity ( I would have preferred "progressive' as a modifier) implies a different approach to the conception, consideration, and comprehension of sacred materials, but of course there are all different kinds of ways to encroach upon the meanings of "unacceptable" sacred stories passed down to us. One of these ways is to delimit such discussions to biblical sources and the discussion under consideration here is totally about literal interpretation of bible materials at this point. There are several other sources according to recognized scholars such as those who participate in the Jesus Seminar that contribute to a knowledge of what Jesus and his disciples said and did all those centuries ago. But precious little of that makes its way into this garden these days because of the subtle manipulations I have detailed above.

Q, I appreciate the fact that you and others here of a literalist bent are sincere believers in what you believe, and I respect your right to follow your faith. But trying to limit exposure of others to alternative sources of knowledge about our faith, and to subtly impose limiting scenarios upon a forum garden which is identified as a place where more creative approaches to these studies and discussions are to be held is questionable at best, and wrong at worst.

Please try to accept my opinions as stated as only my opinions and not any sort of condemnation regarding your or others' approaches to the sacred matters we are disccussing and considering here. I'm just saying that conflict is not the way, and if we are all going to wade our way through the mountains of crap that seems to be facing us all in the future, then these sort of things should be reconsidered in the light of enightened questioning as opposed to adversarial contests which imply winning at all costs. I happen to believe that we're all more transcendant than that.

flow....

Oh, then I am sorry that you apparently missed my point completely. The idea was/is for those who have non literal concepts to step in and present their arguments, for a total package. That, is something I kept waiting for...

Paul is Paul, regardless of how he is perceived...and as such seems to be a point of contention within Christianity.

I truly thought/think the free thinkers would jump into this thread with both feet...perhaps I was too open minded...

v/r

Q

 

[Blue Jay]

Oh, then I am sorry that you apparently missed my point completely. The idea was/is for those who have non literal concepts to step in and present their arguments, for a total package. That, is something I kept waiting for...

Paul is Paul, regardless of how he is perceived...and as such seems to be a point of contention within Christianity.

I truly thought/think the free thinkers would jump into this thread with both feet...perhaps I was too open minded...

v/r

Q

This free thinker values liberty too much to jump with BOTH feet into a literalist trap like this!!!!

 

[flowperson]

No Q , I did not miss your point. I believe it is you who has misunderstood mine...but such is life.

I do not debate. I present questions and observations concerning the realities that pass my eyes. That is all that I have done in this case.
Enjoy your debates and arguments my friend.

flow....

 

[Quahom1]

This free thinker values liberty too much to jump with BOTH feet into a literalist trap like this!!!!

lol, the "trap" I fear, is in your own mind. I speak mine, you speak yours, that is how communication works. You don't like what I have to say, get over it. I may not like what you have to say either, but I get over it. that is life...the angrier one gets, the more set in one's ways another can get, that too is life.

Humans are so strange...no other "animal" does this. Maybe a lesson we should take to heart, eh?

v/r

Q

 

[Quahom1]

No Q , I did not miss your point. I believe it is you who has misunderstood mine...but such is life.

I do not debate. I present questions and observations concerning the realities that pass my eyes. That is all that I have done in this case.
Enjoy your debates and arguments my friend.

flow....

Yours as well, my friend.

 

[China Cat Sunflower]

I don't really understand the problem with Paul. I don't understand the criticism that Paul undermines the Gospels when Paul's stuff was written first. How can he be undermining something that doesn't yet exist?

Chris

 

[Quahom1]

I don't really understand the problem with Paul. I don't understand the criticism that Paul undermines the Gospels when Paul's stuff was written first. How can he be undermining something that doesn't yet exist?

Chris

Precisely... the only thing Paul did was encourage the fledging churches and help keep them from imploding.

 

[Moksha 69]

Paul is the NT. The foundation of Christianity may be Jesus but the whole edifice is Paul. Just about every scriptural quote re: doctrine, is from Paul. Without him you'd all just be reformed Jews.

Moksha 69