Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
. . . I don't need external witnesses to dispute Paul's writings ... Paul's writings themselves brings up more than enough questions on their own.
The chapter of 1 Corinthians 8 seems like a Gnostic concept but in the wrong application. Paul discussed there that some knowledge from "stronger" or "more advanced" Christians ought not be practiced in view of "weaker" Christians for it may cause the "weaker" Christians to sin. [Paul said no such thing! DA]
Jesus also reserved knowledge for the deserving through parables and through the Spirit, in stages (John 16:12-13)
Although Jesus practiced keeping of knowledge from the undeserved, He is not a Gnostic for even Gnosticism has been polluted by the teachings of Paul and of Marcion.
The Paul-bashing by some on this board never ceases to amaze me.
And in some way the "don't do this in front of a weaker brother" jazz might refer to stuff like "don't eat pork in front of someone who still is hung up on Torah" --
doesn't have to mean anything like Gnosticism
Removing Paul is something they have to do, since in more than one place he utterly abolishes any need for worrying about dietary laws and other matters. But these same people do not even know the laws of the Jews, and likely do not keep them all, and so they'd fall to nothing even if they managed to rip up the New Testament of all Paul's works.
19 It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God. 20 Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood. 21 For the law of Moses has been preached in every city from the earliest times and is read in the synagogues on every Sabbath.
ermmmmmm..... actually Paul didn't "abolish" ANYTHING on his own, nor could he.
It was a decision that was made by James. This is James speaking in Acts 15:19-21
It exactly the propensity of many Orthodox Christians to ascribe authority or actions to Paul that he simply didn't have or do that makes some question Paul in the first place.
The church council in Acts 15 targets the law of Moses (meaning the dietary laws, circumcision, etc) by name:
Act 15:5 But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses.
The council agrees only that Christians keep themselves from fornication "and from things strangled, and blood", and declare that Christians are not commanded to keep the law of Moses:
Act 15:24 Forasmuch as we have heard, that certain which went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, Ye must be circumcised, and keep the law: to whom we gave no such commandment:
Abstaining even from things strangled and blood (the Jewish dietary laws are much larger than this), by the way, was also done only for the purpose of not offending the Jews with the Christian church, (hence the verse that speaks of the synagogues in every place) but, otherwise, we are entirely free to eat whatever we desire, provided our meat does not offend another.
1Co_8:13 Wherefore, if meat make my brother to offend, I will eat no flesh while the world standeth, lest I make my brother to offend.
None of which supports in any way your original assertion that it was Paul that unilaterally "utterly abolished" Mosaic law. Just more jiberish.
Also, you seem to be questioning the authority of Paul. Paul, being an Apostle, is equal to all the others, and is thus the same rank as that of a Prophet and a one whose writings are accorded the status of scripture.
I really think sometimes that Paul went even FARTHER than James about the food stuff
We can only rely on early historians like Jeromethe real question is -- why was James the Big Shot?
a "non-apostle" as far as I know, why was he even EQUAL to "apostles" -- much less Head Guy -- was it because he was Jesus' relative?
After the apostles, James the brother of the Lord surnamed the Just was made head of the Church at Jerusalem. Many indeed are called James. This one was holy from his mother's womb. He drank neither wine nor strong drink, ate no flesh, never shaved or anointed himself with ointment or bathed. He alone had the privilege of entering the Holy of Holies, since indeed he did not use woolen vestments but linen and went alone into the temple and prayed in behalf of the people, insomuch that his knees were reputed to have acquired the hardness of camels' knees. ~De Viris Illustribus (Jerome)
GOT 12 The disciples said to Jesus, "We know that you are going to leave us. Who will be our leader?"
Jesus said to them, "No matter where you are you are to go to James the Just, for whose sake heaven and earth came into being."
I'm not sure this subject can be debated in a truly scholarly fashion, except with a great deal of koine Greek. Otherwise, it's all second-hand opinion.
I really think sometimes that Paul went even FARTHER than James about the food stuff
1. that Paul seemed to say EVEN FOR JEWISH CHRISTIANS - himself, Peter, Barnabus - it was ok to blow off the dietary laws - Paul rebukes Peter to his face for renigging of eating with Gentiles - maybe same food they're eating, but Peter backs away when "certain of James" arrive
2. that Paul in some places even blows off the "sacrificed to idols" bit and just says "eat whatever is sold in the shambles" period; where you really wouldn't know if meat had been sacrificed to idols or not, or strangled or what not
and Paul about idols is kind of ambiguous, in one place saying "oh, idols are really nothing" (like they don't really exist) - yet in another place "the things that they sacrifice to idols, they are sacrificing to demons"
James in Acts 15 never goes beyond "here's rules FOR THE GENTILES - but we'll keep Kosher diet for Jewish believers" -- in other words - James keeps TWO SETS OF RULES THROUGHOUT - whereas it seems Paul eventually says
"everybody eat what you want - don't let ANYONE judge you in food or drink or keeping of holy days, etc"
the real question is -- why was James the Big Shot?
a "non-apostle" as far as I know, why was he even EQUAL to "apostles" -- much less Head Guy -- was it because he was Jesus' relative?
James may have said "Let's not trouble the Gentiles" but he went right on with the Law for Jewish Christians as if there had been no real "new covenant" ever established
and James was very "worksy" and not really WITH THE PROGRAM that it was Grace rather than works that mattered
Martin Luther called James' Letter "an epistle of straw" - well, that's a bit much, but still - James is works-oriented to a high degree
Take it from a Bible scholar then:
Half of New Testament forged, Bible scholar says CNN Belief Blog - CNN.com Blogs
excerpt from the link:
Paul's remaining books are forgeries, Ehrman says. His proof: inconsistencies in the language, choice of words and blatant contradiction in doctrine.
Take it from a Bible scholar then:
Half of New Testament forged, Bible scholar says CNN Belief Blog - CNN.com Blogs
excerpt from the link:
Paul's remaining books are forgeries, Ehrman says. His proof: inconsistencies in the language, choice of words and blatant contradiction in doctrine.
Before you go throwing the entire NT out, with the bath water, I suggest you read the many books by Greek scholars instead of hanging your hat on the scribblings of one atheist.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?