No, you probably don't. But maybe you could consider what dogmas would we have if Pauline doctrine was discarded.:o
You leave out Paul? Don't know that I want to know why ...
Looking for a fight, God's Fighter?Calling people "Pauline" is a bit elitist.
Looking for a fight, God's Fighter?
I didn't think that was a elitist remark when the poster who listed all Pauline letters and stated that Romans was the "greatest exposition of the gospel in the NT". To me that's Pauline.
yeah, thought you would like that.Can I briefly laugh at the irony of "looking for a fight, God's Fighter?" ?
I have no idea why you would speak in a derogatory sense. Nor could you demean "Methodist" in a way that would upset me.I could call you "methodist" in a derogatory sense. But I don't call people methodist, or pentecostal or mennonite, even though they disagree with me.
ISo, are you acting as interpreter, for I could easily read what was written, same as you did.think the person was generally shocked you discard most of the NT Canon and was expressing his thoughts on Romans.
Anyone could see why I said Pauline, every letter was posted, with the remark on 'Romans'. Is Pauline a pejorative of some kind, for it seems to upset you.Not to start a debate, but you called him Pauline without providing much of an explanation. Typically calling people by labels and presenting nothing else is elitist. I'm just trying to prevent a name calling thing.
Prevention!? oh, is that what you call it, ok then, prevent away.
LL, I'm no "Pauline" either - calling me that is tantamount to saying I worship Paul, or consider Paul my Savior, or believe it was Paul who died for my sins, or that Paul was the incarnate Son of God, or that I was baptized in Paul's name - in other words to pronounce me a non-Christian.really? What dogma's would we have if these letters were discarded? There is more dogma created from Paul's letters than from Jesus. If you don't find that troubling then there is nothing to discuss, other than you are a Pauline and I am not.
Jesus' words only has been working out just fine for me, thank you for asking. I am no Pauline.
Paul built solidly on the foundation of Christ to take the gospel to the Gentiles. Surely you don't reject that concept.No, you probably don't. But maybe you could consider what dogmas would we have if Pauline doctrine was discarded.
what loyalty? I haven't demonstrated loyalty to anything except for Jesus' teachings, I never brought up Methodism, you did.While your loyalty is admirable, the point was I *could* call you "methodist" in a negative way, as if it were inferior. Not that I see any reason to act denominational.
Either you do not know what Pauline means and haven't looked it up, or you are just trolling for a fight of some kind where you are lacking a definition of something you could have simply googled. That is not me being arrogant, it is you not knowing the term Pauline.Calling someone Pauline gave the impression you found them inferior or "other" or "weird".
labeled? Well God's Fighter, you can call me anything that pops in your head, but that doesn't make it accurate. And to accepting the canon, please tell me what your thoughts are on the subject.I've heard of the Pauline Letters/Epistles referred to, but I've never heard someone labeled pauline because they accept *all of the canon*. I could call you a heretic for not accepting the canon if I wanted to get religious about it and demonstrate elitism.
Rage? LOL, you are becoming humorous, and it is good to know that you spot-check my posts for being Christ-like for I was standing for Jesus and not of Paul.As for being upset, I'm not upset but I spotted something that didn't seem very Christ like. I expect you to do the same of me. Not stirred up in a rage, looking to fight.
Well, we are certainly glad to have you guide our conversation of which you were first not involved, thank you. There was no fire until you came with a can of gas and match.And as for prevention, yes. Quickly addressing something and guiding the topic when something is said that could easily start a fire counts as prevention. But as smokey says: Only you can prevent forest fires.
really? No, that isn't accurate. If I called you a Marcion, then what you write here would fit.LL, I'm no "Pauline" either - calling me that is tantamount to saying I worship Paul, or consider Paul my Savior, or believe it was Paul who died for my sins, or that Paul was the incarnate Son of God, or that I was baptized in Paul's name - in other words to pronounce me a non-Christian.
I never did.On what basis you presume to denounce my Christian faith or assume any right to pejoratively call me a "Pauline?" I truly have no idea. I've certainly given you no reason whatsoever to judge my faith in Christ on ANY basis.
You can question all you wish, but certainly this isn't the thread to discuss my belief in detail.Questioning why you omit roughly half of the Christian New Testament is a fair and reasonable question - given the whole of the NT (and OT) is text of the Christian faith and has been for some 1800 years or more - but questioning why you omit so much of it is certainly not grounds for judging me not a Christian.
you assume to much.You apparently have issues with Paul and his writings. You apparently do not think them part of the inspired Word of God. I only say that on the basis of your response; maybe I'm wrong.
So you say.The dogmas we would have without his writings? Truthfully? The same "dogmas" we have with them. There's not an iota of Paul's teachings that either contradict or contravene anything Jesus said. To suggest otherwise is - in my opinion - blatantly wrong - and I won't take it any further than that here except to say I believe I have a veritable host of far more intelligent, faithful, wise, and knowledgeable Christians than I who would back me up.
That's nice to know that you do.I am a firm believer too in Psalm 119:160 - "The sum of Thy Word is truth; and every one of Thy righteous ordinances is everlasting." And that would include Paul's writings.
exactly what I thought, and made mention of being Pauline.You don't think that title ought to go to one of the Gospels? You know: Matthew, Mark, Luke or John?
The concept of a witness witnessing is what all followers of Christ are to do. Millions of ministers may be 100% inspired, but their work may not be 100% accurate to what Jesus taught. And that is where I'll leave it.Paul built solidly on the foundation of Christ to take the gospel to the Gentiles. Surely you don't reject that concept.
The concept of a witness witnessing is what all followers of Christ are to do. Millions of ministers may be 100% inspired, but their work may not be 100% accurate to what Jesus taught. And that is where I'll leave it.
What exactly did Paul say Jesus said? Acts 9:Paul had an amazing conversion experience, was visited by Jesus Himself, and you ignore a man anointed by Jesus, blessed by Jesus, to send the message to the gentiles???????
15 But the Lord said, Go, for Saul is my chosen instrument to take my message to the Gentiles and to kings, as well as to the people of Israel. 16 And I will show him how much he must suffer for my names sake.
It doesn't tell that Paul is an Apostle, rather it speaks to him as being a instrument. Not the same as when our Lord picked the original 12 is it? And we all are instruments of our Lord.
oh please woodpecker, that is a big "IF". We all can learn from Paul, it is that I believe Paul was a witness who learned what was like to be a follower of Christ after he persecuted so many. And I disagree with you about "All" of Paul's teachings being from Christ. Some times Paul deviated from Jesus' teachings, and that is not acceptable.If you deny Paul's teachings, you are claiming Jesus is wrong for choosing Paul to have such a high calling. All of Paul's teachings are from Jesus, who sent Paul the Holy Spirit, who inspired Paul to write the letters to the church's.
so now you say Paul has authority to change Jesus' teachings, so it seems to me. That is not acceptable, many believe as I do. Those who built a dogmatic foundation on Paul will not budge from there seat for it will surely prove their err if they did. These same people quote more from Paul than from Jesus, and I think that these same folk really believe that Paul's message trumps Jesus' teachings even with the numerous contradictions Paul has made concerning Jesus' teachings.There are only a few teachings from Paul, where he claims this teaching is of me, not the Spirit. So all of Paul's teachings come from Jesus, come from God, come from the Holy Spirit, THE MIGHT TRINITY, three in one.
Inspired writings are still on-going today. Many of these writings are on target IAW Jesus' teachings, many are not.Even apostle Peter, spoke of Paul's writings as scripture, and to do so, meant inspired writings of the Holy Spirit.
Which verse are you speaking to, btw?
Jesus picked Paul, too. Ever hear of the Damascus Road Experience? You just quoted from it, and have failed to grasp it's meaning.What exactly did Paul say Jesus said? Acts 9:
15 But the Lord said, Go, for Saul is my chosen instrument to take my message to the Gentiles and to kings, as well as to the people of Israel. 16 And I will show him how much he must suffer for my names sake.
It doesn't tell that Paul is an Apostle, rather it speaks to him as being a instrument. Not the same as when our Lord picked the original 12 is it? And we all are instruments of our Lord.
Examples?Some times Paul deviated from Jesus' teachings, and that is not acceptable.
Find one verse where Paul contradicts Jesus, please. Just one.so now you say Paul has authority to change Jesus' teachings, so it seems to me. That is not acceptable, many believe as I do. Those who built a dogmatic foundation on Paul will not budge from there seat for it will surely prove their err if they did. These same people quote more from Paul than from Jesus, and I think that these same folk really believe that Paul's message trumps Jesus' teachings even with the numerous contradictions Paul has made concerning Jesus' teachings.
Few if any of your fellow Methodists believe that.Inspired writings are still on-going today.
That's an appropriate question for you to answer, relative to the statement you made just before that.Many of these writings are on target IAW Jesus' teachings, many are not.
Which verse are you speaking to, btw?
So ovisously I have heard the story. Then you say I have failed to learn from it, as do many other critics I run into. Oh well, as long as I follow Jesus' teachings I'll do just fine.Jesus picked Paul, too. Ever hear of the Damascus Road Experience? You just quoted from it, and have failed to grasp it's meaning.Examples?
google itFind one verse where Paul contradicts Jesus, please. Just one.
Guess I better do as all others do, is what I hear.Few if any of your fellow Methodists believe that.
That's an appropriate question for you to answer, relative to the statement you made just before that.
I have answers, they come from the Gospels, ever hear of 'em? ( I too can be curt)
Remember the topic,, so what I believe and am questioned about what I believe has nothing to do with the topic.
no, not really.
Usually we keep it simple and exclude what Paul had to say about it, and all of the made up ideas about it, it works out very well.
And why is that? So you can argue your side of the fence and attack mine? I've played that game before martin, it doesn't end well.I'm surprised by that, LL.
It seems to me this thread has become combative (as is unfortunately typical), and I want to emphasize I'm not asking the following from a perspective other than curiosity. Rather than suggesting Googling it, I'm interested in your perspective and would love to have you show where you see Paul contradicting Jesus.
And why is that? So you can argue your side of the fence and attack mine? I've played that game before martin, it doesn't end well.