Should Paul be removed from the NT?

[Abogado del Diablo]

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]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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]

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]

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.

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

Are you still?

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.

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?

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

How so?

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.

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?

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.

Correct. I have no interest in arguing about how people are "saved" in the sense that it is regularly used. It's probably not accurate to say that I haven't looked at it closely. It really doesn't interest me though. It's another facet of getting caught up in the words and missing their meaning.

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.

NO. This conversation has not been about our opinions of Paul. I haven't offered any (other than a factual statement regarding the sentence structure of one 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

These two sentences contradict one another.

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

False dichotomy. I find a great deal of Truth in the four gospels and the authentic epistles of Paul.

and the only thing that I know of with any historical credibility that claims to hold such a truth is the church.

The church has NO historical credibility. Unless you mean "it's old". I suggest you study the actual history of the church rather than take the church's word for its own credibility.

So either the church is true or Christianity is false

What?! How about the possibility that the "church" you are referring to is missing it?

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.

You said yourself you don't want to look from the outside. So of course you haven't found anything that doesn't make sense.

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.

I've already told you what those differences are.

maybe what you say will make sense and I'll except is.

No. You won't.

However because there is no grey area everyone’s perspective isn't ok, it is the absolute truth that is ok

See. I told you you won't.

Stop playing the stupid mind games and be blunt.

My mind games aren't stupid.

 

[Abogado del Diablo]

Hi AdD,

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

My first response to you in this thread spells it out.

 

[JJM]

del Diablo]



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.

in Post #74 you quote Eph 2:8 then you say this:



Faith is a gift of God's grace





That seems like an opinion to me.



Secondly it can be read either way very easily. I have read it over and see how it can be read as referring to either faith or salvation. You may not. However I have been told that in Greek the pronoun “that” is neuter implying that it belongs to salvation which is also neuter while faith is feminine. I don't know Greek and I may been told wrong but I will look into to it.

del Diablo]

Are you still?

I'll have to quote Joan of Arc who once said when asked if she was in a state of grace (which is the opposite of your question but with the same affect) "If I am not, may God put me there; and if I am, may God so keep me."

del Diablo]

Okay. If that's your perspective, fine.







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

Well they thought that they could be equal to God which is both Pride and Blasphemy.

del Diablo]

How so?

Blasphemy is "The act of claiming for oneself the attributes and rights of God" www.dictionary.com Coming first in your life is a right God has as our creator. By putting your self first you are claiming that right for yourself. Also one cannot serve two masters so if you are self-serving you make yourself your master and idol which claims the attributes of God as well.

del Diablo]

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.

No I haven’t I’ve said this before but I do attempt to. That is the point and that is what confession is for. We will quit sinning at one point because we have to be able to enter heaven. However for most people this will occur in purgatory. Also rather than simply saying Paul says somethign could you please just point it out?

del Diablo]

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?

What I'm trying to say is that we are saved by Christ’s Sacrifice however we will receive the benefits of this sacrifice when we attempt not to sin. I am saying that if you feel sorry about it and plan on not doing it agian and go to confession you will be forgiven. Or if the reason for feeling sorry is merely that you offended God and there are no other motives he will forgive you if you don't go to confession but you still have to plan on never doing it agian even if you probably will. for everyone else I pray that God shows them mercy and believe that they are only held accountable for what they know and if they don't know to look for forgiveness then they don't need to but that doesn't mean they shouldn’t look for it just that they won't be held accountable for not lloking for it because they didn't know they where supposed to. I hope I was clear here.

del Diablo]

Correct. I have no interest in arguing about how people are "saved" in the sense that it is regularly used. It's probably not accurate to say that I haven't looked at it closely. It really doesn't interest me though. It's another facet of getting caught up in the words and missing their meaning



NO. This conversation has not been about our opinions of Paul. I haven't offered any (other than a factual statement regarding the sentence structure of one line).

obviously we have talked of other things but out of the 15 posts you have directed at me since the beginning of this conversation 2 have not referred to Paul's writings or that faith is a gift from God thing which is, whether you say it is or not, an interpretation of something Paul said because it didn't come from a post in which I quoted a passage and you said I was wrong it was a passage you quoted to back up your point.

del Diablo]



These two sentences contradict one another.

no they don't one says that your statement implied that I only had others perspectives and not one of my own and that that statement is false and the second says what my perspective is. So one says I have a perspective and one gives it. What contradiction is there?

del Diablo]



False dichotomy. I find a great deal of Truth in the four gospels and the authentic epistles of Paul.

You find a great deal of truth but not the complete truth. And what you find and think of as truth may not actually be because it can be interpreted differently.

del Diablo]

The church has NO historical credibility. Unless you mean "it's old". I suggest you study the actual history of the church rather than take the church's word for its own credibility.

what is the actual history? because I think that by looking at what happened in Rome (the empire not just the city) you see that the leaders of the Church that emerged when Constantine was emperor was made up of those who lead the church when it was under persecution. I see that this persecuted church drew it's authority from the apostles because the writings of these people who lead the church show this and the apostles got it from Jesus. Am I wrong in saying this? If so what part?

del Diablo]

What?! How about the possibility that the "church" you are referring to is missing it?

What is it? the complete truth? Because if it is and neither my church nor the Orthodox have it then Christianity is false because no other church claims to have it Now that is a possibility but I have yet to find. In fact I’ve stated that the purpose of looking into religion for me is to know more about my faith so I can know God’s will and teach it to others and to see if I actually don’t have that truth so I do realize that my church may not have it but if mine or either of the orthodox churches don’t then Christianity definitely doesn’t.

del Diablo]

You said yourself you don't want to look from the outside. So of course you haven't found anything that doesn't make sense.

No I said:



I guess it depends what you mean by stepping out of Christianity. If it means leaving my religion to understand it better then no I refuse to do that but if it is simply looking at it from a different prospective then I will but you need to tell me what that perspective is. So I ask you again what radical differences you see?



The reason I'm not going to leave my religion because you say you see radical differences but have not yet told me what they are is because like I said that would be foolish, but I'm willing to look at them from outside but I can't do that until you tell me what they are. Now I know you said you have but a list would be nice.

del Diablo]



I've already told you what those differences are.









No. You won't.











See. I told you you won't.





My mind games aren't stupid.

Well here is what I think that you've told me. That faith is a gift from God. This is contrary to my Ideas and those of pre reformation Christianity but they are rather inline with Calvinist teachings so I assume that this isn't it. Secondly that you don't believe in heaven and Hell but I don't know why you simply say that you don't. Third you seem to think that the bible isn't inspired word but I would agree that if you aren't Catholic or Orthodox then believing that they are is hypocritical. And lastly maybe you have been attempting to say that Christianity means different things to different people and that it is their Ideas about it's meaning that matters. This as I have stated is not nor has it ever been a Christian Ideal. However if you are saying this and you wish to explain it then I'll listen and look at it from you point of view but your right chances are I won't see it because I simply disagree. And even if you do convince me that each person has their own truth and that is all that matters this still isn’t a Christian Ideal. Am I missing something?

 

[Abogado del Diablo]

in Post #74 you quote Eph 2:8 then you say this:



Faith is a gift of God's grace





That seems like an opinion to me.

No. That's not an opinion. That's what the text of Eph. 2:8 says. It's a fact.

Secondly it can be read either way very easily. I have read it over and see how it can be read as referring to either faith or salvation. You may not. However I have been told that in Greek the pronoun “that” is neuter implying that it belongs to salvation which is also neuter while faith is feminine. I don't know Greek and I may been told wrong but I will look into to it.

A neuter pronoun may also be used to refer to a phrase or summarize a thought. This seems to be the best solution in Ephesians 2:8. Touto refers back to the entire phrase te gar chariti este sesosmenoi dia tes pisteos (“for by grace you have been saved through faith”). Therefore, the whole salvation experience, which occurs by means of the grace of God when a person believes, is what is referred to by kai touto ouk ex hyman (“and this not of yourselves”). Otherwise, you have a problem with the grammatical disconnect between the subodinate clause and the noun is supposedly modifies - which would also be a violation of Greek grammar.

I'll have to quote Joan of Arc who once said when asked if she was in a state of grace (which is the opposite of your question but with the same affect) "If I am not, may God put me there; and if I am, may God so keep me."

So you don't know one way or the other? Doesn't that seem like a risky prooposition in your theology?

Well they thought that they could be equal to God which is both Pride and Blasphemy.

What precisely did they do? Not what is your theological interpretation of what they did. What did they actually do?

Blasphemy is "The act of claiming for oneself the attributes and rights of God" www.dictionary.com

I'm looking forward to your answer to the immediately prior question.

No I haven’t I’ve said this before but I do attempt to. That is the point and that is what confession is for. We will quit sinning at one point because we have to be able to enter heaven. However for most people this will occur in purgatory. Also rather than simply saying Paul says somethign could you please just point it out?

Where does Jesus talk about purgatory?

I think you should read it for yourself with an open mind. Telling what it is will just put you in defense of the faith mode and you won't understand it. I don't mean that disrespectfully. It's true of anyone unless the ask of it themselves. It's just a fact.

What I'm trying to say is that we are saved by Christ’s Sacrifice however we will receive the benefits of this sacrifice when we attempt not to sin. I am saying that if you feel sorry about it and plan on not doing it agian and go to confession you will be forgiven. Or if the reason for feeling sorry is merely that you offended God and there are no other motives he will forgive you if you don't go to confession but you still have to plan on never doing it agian even if you probably will. for everyone else I pray that God shows them mercy and believe that they are only held accountable for what they know and if they don't know to look for forgiveness then they don't need to but that doesn't mean they shouldn’t look for it just that they won't be held accountable for not lloking for it because they didn't know they where supposed to. I hope I was clear here.

Okay. So you are saying that you are saved from the consequences of sin based on whether you feel guilty about it. I'm glad to have cleared that up. Now . . . how is that not salvation by a "work"?

obviously we have talked of other things but out of the 15 posts you have directed at me since the beginning of this conversation 2 have not referred to Paul's writings or that faith is a gift from God thing which is, whether you say it is or not, an interpretation of something Paul said because it didn't come from a post in which I quoted a passage and you said I was wrong it was a passage you quoted to back up your point.

It's not an interpretation. I have not indicated what the phrase means. I have simply explained the structure of the sentence and disagreed with your attempt to change the structure to suit your interpretation.

no they don't one says that your statement implied that I only had others perspectives and not one of my own and that that statement is false and the second says what my perspective is. So one says I have a perspective and one gives it. What contradiction is there?

Actually, one says you look at it from your perspective. The other says you don't because the only perspective that matters is that of the official theology of the Church.

You find a great deal of truth but not the complete truth.

Wrong. I find the complete Truth. Or at least a path to it.

And what you find and think of as truth may not actually be because it can be interpreted differently.

No. It can't. It's not a theological interpretation. It's a matter of knowing or not knowing the meaning. When you know you know.

what is the actual history? because I think that by looking at what happened in Rome (the empire not just the city) you see that the leaders of the Church that emerged when Constantine was emperor was made up of those who lead the church when it was under persecution.

According to whom? And why is persecution the benchmark of who is and isn't a christian? If it is, that would make the Albigensians the true inheritors of the faith, right?

I see that this persecuted church drew it's authority from the apostles because the writings of these people who lead the church show this and the apostles got it from Jesus.

There is no evidence of that other than self-serving statements written 250 years after the fact.

What is it? the complete truth? Because if it is and neither my church nor the Orthodox have it then Christianity is false because no other church claims to have it Now that is a possibility but I have yet to find.

Sure they do. There is another view that is much, much older than Catholic Church that is still around today. Indeed, in a sense, it is the dominant "theology" (for lack of a better word) of the modern world. Ever read John S. Dunne's "The Way of All the Earth"?

In fact I’ve stated that the purpose of looking into religion for me is to know more about my faith so I can know God’s will and teach it to others and to see if I actually don’t have that truth so I do realize that my church may not have it but if mine or either of the orthodox churches don’t then Christianity definitely doesn’t.

That's fine. My purpose is to know the Truth.

I said:

I guess it depends what you mean by stepping out of Christianity. If it means leaving my religion to understand it better then no I refuse to do that but if it is simply looking at it from a different prospective then I will but you need to tell me what that perspective is. So I ask you again what radical differences you see?


The reason I'm not going to leave my religion because you say you see radical differences but have not yet told me what they are is because like I said that would be foolish, but I'm willing to look at them from outside but I can't do that until you tell me what they are. Now I know you said you have but a list would be nice.

And that's fine. I can't force you to. You don't have to ask if you don't want to. You won't go to hell for it.

Well here is what I think that you've told me . . .

That faith is a gift from God . . .

that you don't believe in heaven and Hell . . . .

. . . the bible isn't inspired word . . .

. . .. Christianity means different things to different people and that it is their Ideas about it's meaning that matters

Wrong on all accounts but the first one. And knowing that is not enough. Knowing the Truth of its meaning is what matters.

 

[Sacredstar]

Interesting discussion perhaps we could start some other threads specifically on the 'State of Grace' and GOD's will.

Sacredstar

 

[JJM]

Sorry I've taken so long to respond it's been a very busy week.

del Diablo]No. That's not an opinion. That's what the text of Eph. 2:8 says. It's a fact.

come on you're just playing with words now. The simple point is that you said you had no interest in the meaning of Paul's writings but then you not only discussed the meaning but brought it up in the first place.

del Diablo]

A neuter pronoun may also be used to refer to a phrase or summarize a thought. This seems to be the best solution in Ephesians 2:8. Touto refers back to the entire phrase te gar chariti este sesosmenoi dia tes pisteos (“for by grace you have been saved through faith”). Therefore, the whole salvation experience, which occurs by means of the grace of God when a person believes, is what is referred to by kai touto ouk ex hyman (“and this not of yourselves”). Otherwise, you have a problem with the grammatical disconnect between the subodinate clause and the noun is supposedly modifies - which would also be a violation of Greek grammar.

Well thank you for telling me this. So if "that" was in reference to the whole idea then it very well could mean that it is our salvation that we receive through faith that is a gift not the faith it's self.

del Diablo]

So you don't know one way or the other? Doesn't that seem like a risky prooposition in your theology?

So what if it is risky. Christ will come (our death) like a thief in the night and if we aren't waiting for him when he comes then we won't be rewarded. So the best thing we can do is attempt to always wait for him.

del Diablo]

What precisely did they do? Not what is your theological interpretation of what they did. What did they actually do?

Satan told them that if they ate the apple they would be like God. They ate the fruit so one can infer they thought they would be like God and wanted to be. But if you want what is on the surface. They ate fruit they where told not to.

del Diablo]

I'm looking forward to your answer to the immediately prior question.

I did right under that I said:



Coming first in your life is a right God has as our creator. By putting your self first you are claiming that right for yourself. Also one cannot serve two masters so if you are self-serving you make yourself your master and idol which claims the attributes of God as well.

You asked how it was that it was logically blasphemy I showed what blasphemy was and showed logically how it fit the definition. So am I missing some other question?

del Diablo]

Where does Jesus talk about purgatory?

he doesn't but there is no sin in heaven: Revelation 21:27 "but nothing unclean will enter it, nor any (one) who does abominable things or tells lies. Only those will enter whose names are written in the Lamb's book of life."



So either we stop sinning or all people who die and haven't completely rid themselves of sin go to hell. Purgatory is a place where our souls are cleaned from sin so it exists or all who haven't completely removed themselves from sin go to hell.

del Diablo]

I think you should read it for yourself with an open mind. Telling what it is will just put you in defense of the faith mode and you won't understand it. I don't mean that disrespectfully. It's true of anyone unless the ask of it themselves. It's just a fact.

I'd like to read it but I don't know what you are referring to. If you’re weary about giving me a verse at least give me the book.

del Diablo]

Okay. So you are saying that you are saved from the consequences of sin based on whether you feel guilty about it. I'm glad to have cleared that up. Now . . . how is that not salvation by a "work"?

It is salvation by a work. Ephesians is saying that with out God's gift we couldn't make it to heaven not that we don't have to work to get the gift. Plus even if you think God gives us faith James says true faith has works so even if God gave us the faith that faith would have works we need to do.

del Diablo]

It's not an interpretation. I have not indicated what the phrase means. I have simply explained the structure of the sentence and disagreed with your attempt to change the structure to suit your interpretation.

First of all I disagree with you. You brought this quote up to prove a point and that point is an interpretation whether or not you say it is or not. You are making it sound like it was the other way around but you brought up the quote to prove something if you hadn’t interpreted it then you could have said thousands of other bible quotes but you picked this one because of what you think it says and what you think it says is your interpretation of it. Also if you look into the meaning of the words in the sentence at all you are interpreting their meaning. So just admit you did have an interpretation.





thirdly I don't think I change the structure even if as you have said "that" refers to the whole Idea it doesn't refer to just the concept of "faith" as you think.

del Diablo]

Actually, one says you look at it from your perspective. The other says you don't because the only perspective that matters is that of the official theology of the Church.

No it say I looked at it from my own perspective and that perspective is that if the Church is wrong then Christianity is wrong. Now there are times when the church’s perspective has been different than my own but most of these time the church’s makes a whole lot more sense than mine does and I’m not to proud to admit when I’m wrong.

del Diablo]

Wrong. I find the complete Truth. Or at least a path to it.

so you are saying that the complete truth is found in the bible. Because I was saying that it wasn't and you disagreed with me.

del Diablo]

No. It can't. It's not a theological interpretation. It's a matter of knowing or not knowing the meaning. When you know you know.

whether or not the interpretation is wrong or right it is still an interpretation. But if you think you know the meaning then how do you know if what you think you know is really the truth. And of course when you know you know but you never actually know if you know you just think you know.

del Diablo]

According to whom? And why is persecution the benchmark of who is and isn't a christian? If it is, that would make the Albigensians the true inheritors of the faith, right?

I'm sorry Constantine's rule is when most non Catholics claim our church started. Persecutions don't make the true church it is simply a fact that they started soon after Christ’s death and ended at some point so they act as a time period. If you think the church started at another time could you tell me?

del Diablo]

There is no evidence of that other than self-serving statements written 250 years after the fact.

Through countryside and city [the apostles] preached, and they appointed their earliest converts, testing them by the Spirit, to be the bishops and deacons of future believers. Nor was this a novelty, for bishops and deacons had been written about a long time earlier. . . . Our apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife for the office of bishop. For this reason, therefore, having received perfect foreknowledge, they appointed those who have already been mentioned and afterwards added the further provision that, if they should die, other approved men should succeed to their ministry" (Letter to the Corinthians 42:4–5, 44:1–3 [A.D. 80]). -Pope Clement I



John wasn't even dead yet when this was written. So I must disagree with you.

del Diablo]

Sure they do. There is another view that is much, much older than Catholic Church that is still around today. Indeed, in a sense, it is the dominant "theology" (for lack of a better word) of the modern world. Ever read John S. Dunne's "The Way of All the Earth"?

No I haven't read it. What church does it refer to and in my opinion there can't be a Christian church older than the catholic one but if you know of one that claims to be please point it out and any historical evidence to prove it. Also just to note if the view isn't Christian then it doesn't matter not because I'm convinced that Christianity can't be wrong but because I was referring to Christian churches.

del Diablo]

That's fine. My purpose is to know the Truth.

well yes I want to find the truth but I think I have so I'm at a point where I'm trying to see if I haven’t before I go looking to find it again.

del Diablo]

And that's fine. I can't force you to. You don't have to ask if you don't want to. You won't go to hell for it.

so are you saying that what you actually want me to do is leave my religion without knowing what I'm leaving it for? and just to clarify so you don't twist my words around what I said before was that the above mentioned was the only thing I wasn't going to do and you are responding in such a way as to say that I won't do what you had meant by stepping out of Christianity so leaving Christianity without knowing what I'm leaving it for must have been what you had meant for me to do. Now if you meant something else then I am willing but you have yet to tell me what it is you just keep saying you want me to do it.

del Diablo]

Wrong on all accounts but the first one. And knowing that is not enough. Knowing the Truth of its meaning is what matters.

The first thing I said was faith is a gift from God. So if that is what you think then what is its meaning? also this just goes to show that you have interpreted Paul's writings unless you have gotten this Idea from somewhere else but if you have then why didn't you quote that source instead of Paul’s when you where defending the idea?

 

[Blue]

Should Paul be removed from the NT?

This is just not possible for all those who are members of what amounts to Christian sects that are highly dependent upon their doctrines and dogmas largely derived from St Paul's writings (Saul). Most Christian sects, when examined, demonstrate a faith and belief in Paul's strictures and 'measures', very often to the detriment of what Jesus of Nazareth actually is purported to have said.

To remove Paul, would be to undermine, for example 'Catholicism', let alone the hundreds of minor sects in a place like the Unitied States.

To me it is irrelevant. Pauline Christianity, in the main, is Christianity.



In any case, how would the removal be done? Removing it and all references to Paul, would be to deny the foundation of so many Christian sects. What would they do without being able to cite the supposed words of Paul in support of their dogma and doctrines, and their derived ethics?

If you wished to destroy Christianity, there would be no better way than to attempt the exercise.

I would like it to be understood, that I personally would not regret in the slightest the re-assessment of Christianity it would necessitate if Paul was censored/eradicated from the NT.

I am not in favour of censoring anything!
I just would hope that people read the writings of Paul with some rationality and commonsense.

 

[Abogado del Diablo]

I think everything but the genuine Pauline epistles should be removed.

BTW, the tradition older than Catholicism - and which is still around, JJM, is the Gnostic philosophical fabric from which Catholicism adapted all of its symbols.

 

[InLove]

Peace to All Here--

I think everything but the genuine Pauline epistles should be removed.

Okay, my friend--you have my attention! I want to know why? Will you elaborate?
(I know you are busy, and I know why--hope things are going well in that area.)

InPeace,
InLove

 

[Abogado del Diablo]

Peace to All Here--


Okay, my friend--you have my attention! I want to know why? Will you elaborate?
(I know you are busy, and I know why--hope things are going well in that area.)

InPeace,
InLove

I think Christianity started as a Gnostic mystery religion (that is to say, a philosophy encoded in religious symbolism) among Hellenized Jews who had a special affinity for the Cynics and that Paul's writing's best reflect this earliest Christianity.

I think that later, politically-minded persons decided to start teaching the metaphors of this mystery religion as though they were a literal, historical account, and a series of documents were forged to create the impression that the powerful myths of Christianity were a historical record of events to distinguish the "Christian" version of the Mysteries from all the other versions. Part of that process was scrapping the idea that there was metaphorical Truth expressed in the Gospel and instead redefining "faith" as blind adherence to the proposition that certain historical events occurred. That this so-called "faith" became the path to "salvation" rather than understanding the metaphor as a symbol pointing to something more meaningful.

All of the texts of the NT, IMO, were altered or forged to reinforce this political agenda, but the genuine Pauline epistles (excluding the Pastorals) are the least altered and best demonstrate the Truth of Christianity (the real meaning of the "law" of Love), once it is divorced from the tradition of reading the Gospel as a literal, historical document.

I have found voluminous evidence for this position. It is my opinion based on my own study and experience however. And I fully appreciate and understand that very few Christians would agree with me.

 

[Abogado del Diablo]

Peace to All Here--


Okay, my friend--you have my attention! I want to know why? Will you elaborate?
(I know you are busy, and I know why--hope things are going well in that area.)

InPeace,
InLove

Things are going well with my son, BTW. It's a long road, but a journey of a thousand miles starts with a single step.

Thank you very much for your concern.

 

[lunamoth]

I think Christianity started as a Gnostic mystery religion (that is to say, a philosophy encoded in religious symbolism) among Hellenized Jews who had a special affinity for the Cynics and that Paul's writing's best reflect this earliest Christianity.

I think that later, politically-minded persons decided to start teaching the metaphors of this mystery religion as though they were a literal, historical account, and a series of documents were forged to create the impression that the powerful myths of Christianity were a historical record of events to distinguish the "Christian" version of the Mysteries from all the other versions. Part of that process was scrapping the idea that there was metaphorical Truth expressed in the Gospel and instead redefining "faith" as blind adherence to the proposition that certain historical events occurred. That this so-called "faith" became the path to "salvation" rather than understanding the metaphor as a symbol pointing to something more meaningful.

All of the texts of the NT, IMO, were altered or forged to reinforce this political agenda, but the genuine Pauline epistles (excluding the Pastorals) are the least altered and best demonstrate the Truth of Christianity (the real meaning of the "law" of Love), once it is divorced from the tradition of reading the Gospel as a literal, historical document.

I have found voluminous evidence for this position. It is my opinion based on my own study and experience however. And I fully appreciate and understand that very few Christians would agree with me.

Interesting, AdD. Actually more than I can fully absorb, but little by little I get where you are coming from.

A question. Why link the mystery religion to Judaism? Why then the Gospels directed at convincing the Jewish people to accept this new religion? Why would there be any conflict at all between Paul and James regarding how to follow Jewish ritual and law remaining in altered text? Why did the winning sect (politically minded persons above) not just jettison everything that conflicted with their agenda? Who were the Hellenzied Jews?

Added in edit: OK, that was more than one question.

lunamoth

 

[Abogado del Diablo]

A question. Why link the mystery religion to Judaism?

Because the Mystery religion is Greek philosophy expressed in metaphor. Hellenized Jews living in Hellenized cosmopolitan cities like Alexandria were studying Greek philosophy, and, like every culture does when confronted with foreign (but interesting) ideas, reconciling their own traditions and creating something new. There is abundant evidence of a great number of similar projects undertaken by Jewish philosophers around the time of (and just prior to) Paul's life. I would especially recommend reading about Judaism and Neoplatonic philosophy and the Jewish philosopher Philo in particular who was merging the Jewish goddess "Wisdom" and Plato's Logos into a conceptual framework for "creation" that is very, very similar to the understanding of Jesus expressed in the Gospel of John.

Since the Mysteries were a common method of combining local religious culture with Greek philosophy, Hellenized Jews made their own version incorporating the standard motifs of the Mysteries (the dying and ressurecting godman) with Jewish messianic traditions. Paul simply saw the paralells to Mysteries in the wisdom traditions of the Tanakh (in particular, the "suffering servant" of Isaiah).

Why then the Gospels directed at convincing the Jewish people to accept this new religion?

The Canonical Gospels? I don't think they are. They Canonical Gospels (with the exception of Matthew) already presume the Jews as rejecting Jesus's sacrifice in favor of the Law.

Why would there be any conflict at all between Paul and James regarding how to follow Jewish ritual and law remaining in altered text?

Because it genuinely started as a Jewish adaptation of the Mysteries and Paul discovered a universal philosophy of love and forgiveness encoded in the Jewish Scriptures, which he believed stood in opposition to adherence to the Law. James, John and Cephas were Jews who followed a Jewish version of the Mysteries. Paul was a follower of the Mysteries who happened to have been a Jew. But that conflict existed long before Iraeneus tried to reconcile it at the end of the second century C.E. You had adherents to Judaism who rejected any undoing of Jewish tradition (the Nazoreans who may have evolved into the "Ebionites"), and groups following Paul's writings who had re-interpreted Jewish tradition itself to be another expression of the Mystery and rejected aspects of Jewish tradition that conflicted with their understanding of the law of love. Orthodox christianity tried to merge the two with mixed results.

Why did the winning sect (politically minded persons above) not just jettison everything that conflicted with their agenda?

Because they didn't come along until the latter half of the second century (starting with Justin and really taking shape with Ireaneus) and by that time, many of the key writings and ideas were already out there. "Orthodox" Christianity was born into a world already dominated by Gnostic Christianity. When Justin was writing the first apologies for Literalism, the Gnostic Marcion was already formulating the first scriptural Canon, which consisted exclusively of ten Pauline epistles and one "Gospel" (reportedly a different version of Luke, possibly a "proto-Luke," which is the most "Greek" of the Synoptics even today).

Who were the Hellenzied Jews?

Jewish philosophers, perhaps of the school of Philo. Possibly the Essenes, or Alexandrian Jews who had been exposed to Greek philosophy and even Buddhism in that great city around the time of Philo. According to Eusebius, Philo wrote of a group of "monastic" Jews living in Alexandria called the "Therapeutae," whom Eusebius believed were the first "Christian" community. That idea was later discredited because Philo's Therapeutae would have pre-dated the traditional belief about the time of the life of Jesus. But if Christianity grew out of such a community's merging of Greek and Jewish culture, the time and place would be just about right.

 

[lunamoth]

Hi AdD, thank you for the information. I intend to work on this because it interests me. I'm a visual thinker so I'm going to have to research and put together a time line, get a more solid understanidng of the pieces of this puzzle. However, as I mull, one more question.

What then do you make of all the parables of the Kingdom? I know from your posts how you understand the Kingdom, but how does this fit your theory?

lunamoth

 

[Bandit]

I think Christianity started as a Gnostic mystery religion (that is to say, a philosophy encoded in religious symbolism) among Hellenized Jews who had a special affinity for the Cynics and that Paul's writing's best reflect this earliest Christianity.



All of the texts of the NT, IMO, were altered or forged to reinforce this political agenda, but the genuine Pauline epistles (excluding the Pastorals) are the least altered and best demonstrate the Truth of Christianity (the real meaning of the "law" of Love), once it is divorced from the tradition of reading the Gospel as a literal, historical document.

I have found voluminous evidence for this position. It is my opinion based on my own study and experience however. And I fully appreciate and understand that very few Christians would agree with me.

i do agree with a LOT of what you say.
Gnostics were around way before Jesus, so that part is true.
i still see literal accounts & it starting with a literal Jesus & the Apostles.
you are right on the mark with the politcal agenda. i think that all came down with doctrines & creeds to establish a religion of Christianity by the use of force through war & murder. anyone who disagreed was silenced & mudered.
while i also agree there was some tampering & plenty of evidence for it, i dont think they altered scripture enough to change the true meanings.

in doctrine, tradition, creeds & hymns, YES, it has been severly altered & stayed on track through force through the generations, starting from the time of birth right on through childhood.

i also agree that Pauls epistles were the less tampered with. where we disagree is on the book of Acts. I think Acts is also one of the purest books.

my 2 cents

 

[lunamoth]

i do agree with a LOT of what you say.
Gnostics were around way before Jesus, so that part is true.
i still see literal accounts & it starting with a literal Jesus & the Apostles.
you are right on the mark with the politcal agenda. i think that all came down with doctrines & creeds to establish a religion of Christianity by the use of force through war & murder. anyone who disagreed was silenced & mudered.
while i also agree there was some tampering & plenty of evidence for it, i dont think they altered scripture enough to change the true meanings.

in doctrine, tradition, creeds & hymns, YES, it has been severly altered & stayed on track through force through the generations, starting from the time of birth right on through childhood.

i also agree that Pauls epistles were the less tampered with. where we disagree is on the book of Acts. I think Acts is also one of the purest books.

my 2 cents

Wow Bandit, it is interesting to hear this perspective from you. Thank you!

lunamoth

 

[Abogado del Diablo]

What then do you make of all the parables of the Kingdom? I know from your posts how you understand the Kingdom, but how does this fit your theory?

lunamoth

They are natural extensions of Cynic and Stoic philosophy. As Burton Mack explains:

[font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]

[font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The language of rule or kingship came to be used as a metaphor for personal self-control. The term king no longer had to refer to an actual ruler, and kingdom no longer had to refer to a political domain. "King" became a metaphor of a human being at its "highest" imaginable level, whether by endowment, achievement, ethical excellence, or mythical ideal. "Kingdom" became a metaphor for the "sovereignty" manifest in the "independent bearing," "freedom," "confidence," and self-control of the superior person, the person of ethical integrity who thus could "rule" his "world" imperiously. [/font]

[font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Stoics internalized the image of the king and idealized the individual who ruled his passions and controlled his attitudes even in circumstances where others governed his existence. Their strategy was to be hopeful about the constructive influence of such individuals on society. A popular Stoic maxim was "the only true king is the wise man." Cynics were not as sanguine about the philosopher's chance of influencing social reform, but they also used the royal metaphor to advantage. In their case, taking control of one's life required extrication from the social scene. [...][/font]

[font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The use of the term kingdom of God in Q matches its use in the traditions of popular philosophy, especially in the Cynic tradition of performing social diagnostics in public by means of countercultural behavior. The aphoristic imperatives recommended a stance toward life in the world that could become the basis for an alternative community ethos and ethic among those willing to consider an alternative social vision. [...] The language of the rule of God in Q refers not only to the challenge of risky living without expectation that the social world will change but also to the exemplification of a way of life that like-minded persons might want to share. The God in question is not identified in terms of any ethnic or cultural tradition. [/font]

[/font]


Mack, Burton, The Lost Gospel, Harper San Francisco 1994.