Breaking the Sword of Islam

[LittleLambofJesus]

This is a topic I continue to research with interest. That topic being - Is Paul consistent with Jesus in teachings. Gathering more opinions helps me decide for myself.

Thanks for the quotes.

You are welcome dear friend.
Btw, I am now doing a verse by verse study of the book of Romans using the greek texts. Have been wanting to translate it for some time now.
It is over here if thou art interested.....Salam

2 Peter 3:16 As also in all the letters speaking in them about these-things in which is difficult-to-understand/dus-nohta <1425> who-any which the un-learned and un-steadfast are wresting/twisting as also the rests of Writings toward the own of them destruction/apwleian <684>.
[this form of # 684 used reve 17:8, 11]

http://www.christianforums.com/t7364825/
Book of Romans verse by verse study

 

[HumbleSiPilot77]

Is Paul consistent with Jesus in teachings.

Here is another quote for you, apply it to St. Paul ...

“Are you speaking for yourself about this, or did others tell you this concerning Me?”

The facts that surround collection and canonization of Holy Scriptures should answer your "consistency" question...

 

[hime]

Then you're against those Moslems here who say it can't ever be accurately translated

Adding to your knowledge, there is NO muslims believe that the Quran is a fabrication. So the translation especially in such very sensitive issues have to be very accurate

I've never said that

Again, that's not what I said.

Try addressing what I wrote.

Ops, sorry, sorry... I meant SanFrank who said that. I wonder what he meant by that!!

sorry again Montalban, it seems that I confused you with SanFrank here since I was replying to both of you guys, it seems that I was sleepy that day...thanks for telling me that


so I wait an answer from you Mr. SanFrank

 

[ACougar]

Read the Sermon on the mount, read about the two comandments Jesus gave to his followers... then read Paul. They are on completely differant wavelengths. One is sending his followers on a northward path, the other on a westward path.

This is a topic I continue to research with interest. That topic being - Is Paul consistent with Jesus in teachings. Gathering more opinions helps me decide for myself.

Thanks for the quotes.

 

[HumbleSiPilot77]

Read the Sermon on the mount, read about the two comandments Jesus gave to his followers... then read Paul. They are on completely differant wavelengths. One is sending his followers on a northward path, the other on a westward path.

Certainly this seems to be your analytical opinion. However, reading the Sermon or "Paul" would not do justice as it would be looking at a 3D object with 2D standards. In short, what seems as a problem to you on the surface doesn't mean much to the historical opinion of the Church. If there are two "different" directions that were meant, then St. Paul forced NOONE to canonize his writings. If St. Paul meant a different "wavelength", this was NOT condemned by the very Apostles Christ taught to. Christ commissioned these Apostles to evangelize and lead their people. St. Paul did nothing that was different. He preached Christ and lead people to Christ, not away from Him. Their wavelengths are from one source, regardless of the difference.

 

[Montalban]

It is interesting you bring this point up. Do you believe this action of Paul's is in sync with what Jesus preached? More importantly, why? (Where do you gather your conclusion?)

My conclusion was based on the thinking of another person here, I simply took their point another step forward.

I believe that I can love someone and still say that their beliefs are wrong. Paul did the same. I can do no more than Paul

 

[Montalban]

Did Jesus ever make any effort to convert Pagans? Did he give any commandment that a Pagan could not follow (even if that Pagans understanding of the Divine was less perfect than that of the Jew?) Did Jesus or God ever command that the Gentile adopt the beliefs of the Jew? Wasn't it Paul who simply said "I" do not want you to participate in what he believed to be demons or devils?

It's my opinion that a Pagan who loves God and loves his fellow man, is a better follower of Jesus than a Christian who chooses to make war on people who believe differantly.

Nothing is good that is not of God. Pagans don't tend to love God, but gods

 

[Montalban]

Adding to your knowledge, there is NO muslims believe that the Quran is a fabrication. So the translation especially in such very sensitive issues have to be very accurate

I have no problems with the fact that they want accurate translations. It's the position of Moslems here that you can't get the full message even in translation... you still need to know Arabic.

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

Certainly this seems to be your analytical opinion. However, reading the Sermon or "Paul" would not do justice as it would be looking at a 3D object with 2D standards. In short, what seems as a problem to you on the surface doesn't mean much to the historical opinion of the Church. If there are two "different" directions that were meant, then St. Paul forced NOONE to canonize his writings. If St. Paul meant a different "wavelength", this was NOT condemned by the very Apostles Christ taught to. Christ commissioned these Apostles to evangelize and lead their people. St. Paul did nothing that was different. He preached Christ and lead people to Christ, not away from Him. Their wavelengths are from one source, regardless of the difference.

Well, and here we reach an impassé, as Paul's epistles themselves suggest that relations between the apostles and Paul were not as harmonious as the author of Luke-Acts presented them. Even in epistles that were written after the famous council of Jerusalem, Paul's attitude towards the "Three Pillars" was guarded at best.

 

[SiderealExalt]

Nothing is good that is not of God. Pagans don't tend to love God, but gods

I'll stick to judging people by their character.

 

[HumbleSiPilot77]

Well, and here we reach an impassé, as Paul's epistles themselves suggest that relations between the apostles and Paul were not as harmonious as the author of Luke-Acts presented them. Even in epistles that were written after the famous council of Jerusalem, Paul's attitude towards the "Three Pillars" was guarded at best.

If there were no characteristic differences in their Apostleship, then there would be no need for 12 Apostles to be commissioned. It is the Church's teaching and Christ's truth that He picked 12 for a reason. Neither St. Peter nor other apostles condemned St. Paul and his guidance in the Church. He was an apostle to those the others didn't reach immediately. A true impasse IMO would have been St. Paul saying "do not listen to Peter, he doesn't know what he is talking about". St. James presided over that council and there was an agreement, certainly nothing of the same sort that happened to Arius. Again, I don't look at the individual writings and single them out, I focus on the collective mindset that canonized them together, which in our Church we hold that this mindset was guided by the Holy. Because this mindset was at some point looking from outside of the box.

 

[Montalban]

I'll stick to judging people by their character.

Based on what measure of goodness?

"My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust? If the whole show was bad and senseless from A to Z, so to speak, why did I, who was supposed to be part of the show, find myself in such violent reaction against it? A man feels wet when he falls into water, because man is not a water animal: a fish would not feel wet. Of course I could have given up my idea of justice by saying it was nothing but a private idea of my own. But if I did that, then my argument against God collapsed too - for the argument depended on saying that the world was really unjust, not simply that it did not happen to please my fancies. Thus in the very act of trying to prove that God did not exist - in other words, that the whole of reality was senseless - I found I was forced to assume that one part of reality - namely my idea of justice - was full of sense. Consequently atheism turns out to be too simple. If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning: just as, if there were no light in the universe and therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never know if it was dark. Dark would be a word without meaning.
Lewis, C. S., “Mere Christianity” in (2002) "The Complete C S Lewis", (Harper; San Francisco), p30.

 

[SiderealExalt]

Based on what measure of goodness?

The one I've used in my life. As usual, Lewis, yourself and others jump to conclusions you cannot support. I for one plan on keeping my integrity, and not jump to religious excuses.

 

[ACougar]

Nothing is good that is not of God. Pagans don't tend to love God, but gods

You can believe that there is no Divine (and that makes you an athiest) or you can believe that the Divine does exist. Now if one believes that the Divine does exist, and that this Divine is responsible for all creation... you are a thiest.

Thiests, both Pagan and the Christian may differ regarding thier understanding of the Divine, however they both acknowlege that something greater than them exists... all that differs is how they understand that Divine.

I am a Pagan and I don't understand God, I know many Christians believe they do... however I believe thier wrong in so many areas that I don't feel comfortable labling myself a Christian. I believe I worship the same Divine I worshiped when I was a Christian, the only thing that has changed is my understanding of that Divine, myself and my relationship to that Divine.

 

[Montalban]

The one I've used in my life. As usual, Lewis, yourself and others jump to conclusions you cannot support. I for one plan on keeping my integrity, and not jump to religious excuses.

Thank you for supporting your stance by repeating it.