Should Paul be removed from the NT?

[InLove]

Hi, Abogado--

LOL--thanks for responding--ummm...

A lot has happened on this thread since I asked my question, and in the meantime, I had to have the electricians over this afternoon--the wiring here is, well, "haywire"... don't want any mishaps.

I was stuck in my lovely backyard with my "maminals" and had to turn the computer off. Oh, boy, though--I did have some thoughts! I am glad you are here in CR. Guess I will have to get back to you about it all--did not really realize what a long thread this is--need to read through it before I can properly respond--

Due to the fact that this is one of those long and deeply involved ( and cool, as far as I can see) threads, I can only say that I will search back through later...

Dear DA --glad things are going okay for you and yours. Got some issues here on this end. All I can really say for sure is that Love is for children.

InPeace,
InLove

 

[Quahom1]

Dear DA --glad things are going okay for you and yours. Got some issues here on this end. All I can really say for sure is that Love is for children.

InPeace,
InLove

Um, I always thought children were supposed to be from Love?!?...

but what do I know.

v/r

Q

 

[InLove]

Love is for children, children of Love. All are welcome, especially children

 

[lunamoth]

Hi Abogado,

I have a lot of thoughts about your explanation on the roots of Christianity. Without reading all that you have I nevertheless say that I trust all that you say is true and it makes sense. I suggest that this was the milliuex into which Christ came, the historical and risen Jesus being what I believe in faith. I agree that literalism is killing the Word, although I am surprised to learn that literalism dates back to the first few centuries after Christ. I thought it was a recent (say, last couple hundred years) invention.

So, my spin on it, not to take away from your explanation (reclaiming the Christ Mystery?) but to fit it into my worldview (which is afterall what people do), is that the when the world was ready, Christ came into the world. The development of Christianity in the decades and centuries after the historical Jesus resulted in the Church we know today not because of the human (and yes very real and corrupt) political agenda, but in spite of it. But clearly the Church is not speaking to people today as it once did, evidenced by the massive falling off of people practicing Christianity. Perhaps gnosticism is another door back to Christ. I think that Christian mysticism is another. I think it has been a great loss that literalism and reductionist thinking in science has lead many away from the divine within us and throughout the world. In a way it feel like denying an important part of who we are.

OK, this has been incoherant and feels incomplete to me, but My two point five is running all around and needs my attention. Thank you for giving me a lot to think about.

lunamoth

 

[earl]

Hey Lunamoth-I do believe I share your concise view of Jesus/Christ/Christianity you just expressed. Have fun with the youngin', Earl

 

[lunamoth]

OK, I'm probably only going to make this muddier by adding a thought, but here it is anyway. I can accept the account you give about how Christianity as a religion formed and developed. As I read more I may find myself in more or less agreement with you about these facts. It fascinates me to think about how religion evolves.

But, what seems missing to me in your account, and this is just my perspective, is the idea that God really did (and does) break through and walk with us. Otherwise it sounds like it all just begins and ends with us, the created, rather than with and in the Creator. Perhaps I'm just not getting the subtlety of your beliefs/knowledge.

The myth and the literal, spiritual and material, are entwined and layered, like the petals of a rose.

lunamoth

 

[lunamoth]

Hey Lunamoth-I do believe I share your concise view of Jesus/Christ/Christianity you just expressed. Have fun with the youngin', Earl

Hey cool, earl. Fun to ride that harmonic wave of being 'in tune.'

peace,
lunamoth

 

[Abogado del Diablo]

But, what seems missing to me in your account, and this is just my perspective, is the idea that God really did (and does) break through and walk with us. Otherwise it sounds like it all just begins and ends with us, the created, rather than with and in the Creator. Perhaps I'm just not getting the subtlety of your beliefs/knowledge.

The myth and the literal, spiritual and material, are entwined and layered, like the petals of a rose.

lunamoth

That's where the "Mystery" comes in. Christian Gnosticism is based on a mystical experience of the Inner Mystery. The "Gnosis" is knowing the grace of God in a way that transforms.

 

[lunamoth]

That's where the "Mystery" comes in. Christian Gnosticism is based on a mystical experience of the Inner Mystery. The "Gnosis" is knowing the grace of God in a way that transforms.

Well, I don't really see much difference between this and the grace that the Church teaches. I must be missing something. My understanding is that by our will we make the leap of faith, which opens our eyes to grace, and all else, the fruit of the Spirit, flows from there. Christ's Gospel and Paul's message both seem to say (to me) that the law is the form but it is hollow on its own, the substance is Love, which is the More. Go beyond the law. The grace is flowing--hold out your cup and drink.

So, my conclusion is that 'Gnosticism' as a general term must have had a bad rap. There is gnosis in orthodox Christianity (reading the threads by Thomas--would like to hear your take on these). But what about the evil creator god and the secret knowledge that is part of gnosticism?

lunamoth

 

[Abogado del Diablo]

Well, I don't really see much difference between this and the grace that the Church teaches.

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. 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.

I must be missing something. My understanding is that by our will we make the leap of faith, which opens our eyes to grace, and all else, the fruit of the Spirit, flows from there.

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

Christ's Gospel and Paul's message both seem to say (to me) that the law is the form but it is hollow on its own, the substance is Love, which is the More. Go beyond the law. The grace is flowing--hold out your cup and drink.

They are. I would agree with that.

So, my conclusion is that 'Gnosticism' as a general term must have had a bad rap. There is gnosis in orthodox Christianity

For those who have ears to hear, yes, there is Gnosis in Orthodox Christianity.

But what about the evil creator god and the secret knowledge that is part of gnosticism?

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.

 

[lunamoth]

Hmmm, just ocurred to me, perhaps the difference is in being part of the Body of Christ. Not just a community of believers, but a living Body acting through one will with Christ as the Head.

What's your take on this?

lunamoth

 

[Abogado del Diablo]

Hmmm, just ocurred to me, perhaps the difference is in being part of the Body of Christ. Not just a community of believers, but a living Body acting through one will with Christ as the Head.

What's your take on this?

It would depend a lot on what you mean by "believers."

 

[earl]

OK, I'm probably only going to make this muddier by adding a thought, but here it is anyway. I can accept the account you give about how Christianity as a religion formed and developed. As I read more I may find myself in more or less agreement with you about these facts. It fascinates me to think about how religion evolves.

But, what seems missing to me in your account, and this is just my perspective, is the idea that God really did (and does) break through and walk with us. Otherwise it sounds like it all just begins and ends with us, the created, rather than with and in the Creator. Perhaps I'm just not getting the subtlety of your beliefs/knowledge.

The myth and the literal, spiritual and material, are entwined and layered, like the petals of a rose.

lunamoth

Lunamoth-to me it didn't begin nor will end with creation of humanity, though we are certainly key. "Christ" to me is the full announcement and presence of God, Jesus was the man it flowed from. How to meet and greet the Christ and similarly allow Him to live in us is indeed the Mystery. Personally, like the rose metaphor as we see and become many levels and layers of being as we allow ourselves, our hearts, our minds to open. Do I know/"gnosis" God, Christ, or Jesus-or any other great Divine mystery? No. Am I certain regarding the Truth of any of my beliefs? No-well I take that back, I'm certain about what I don't think is true & do believe if you live in Love your life will take care if itself-as well as anything thereafter to come-but anyway guess "don't know" can be a decent, fruitful place if it's lived from the heart and if you allow your heart to lead you along the uncertain path you just "know" fits your feet, even if you can't see around the next bend. The heart leaps a gap the mind can never cross. Take care, Earl

 

[lunamoth]

It would depend a lot on what you mean by "believers."

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.

20 "My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, 21 that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me. 22 I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one: 23 I in them and you in me. May they be brought to complete unity to let the world know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me. 24 "Father, I want those you have given me to be with me where I am, and to see my glory, the glory you have given me because you loved me before the creation of the world. 25 "Righteous Father, though the world does not know you, I know you, and they know that you have sent me. 26 I have made you known to them, and will continue to make you known in order that the love you have for me may be in them and that I myself may be in them." (John 17)

5 May the God who gives endurance and encouragement give you a spirit of unity among yourselves as you follow Christ Jesus, 6 so that with one heart and mouth you may glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. (Romans 15)

We're all exploring a big dark room with flashlights. I think some of those flashlights work better than others, and I know that some shine better in my hands than others would.

I think it all rests in faith.

lunamoth

 

[lunamoth]

Lunamoth-to me it didn't begin nor will end with creation of humanity, though we are certainly key. "Christ" to me is the full announcement and presence of God, Jesus was the man it flowed from. How to meet and greet the Christ and similarly allow Him to live in us is indeed the Mystery. Personally, like the rose metaphor as we see and become many levels and layers of being as we allow ourselves, our hearts, our minds to open. Do I know/"gnosis" God, Christ, or Jesus-or any other great Divine mystery? No. Am I certain regarding the Truth of any of my beliefs? No-well I take that back, I'm certain about what I don't think is true & do believe if you live in Love your life will take care if itself-as well as anything thereafter to come-but anyway guess "don't know" can be a decent, fruitful place if it's lived from the heart and if you allow your heart to lead you along the uncertain path you just "know" fits your feet, even if you can't see around the next bend. The heart leaps a gap the mind can never cross. Take care, Earl

Hi earl, yes! Thank you! You are here getting at something I'm having a hard time expressing or even thinking out clearly at the moment.

Faith goes further than reason can alone.

lunamoth

 

[lunamoth]

Hi AdD, I previously missed this post of yours.

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]

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]

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]

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.

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

My experience has been the opposite.

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]

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