In Answer to Paul's Writings thread

[Lulav]

To respect the wishes and the OP's topic, I have stated in this thread

Paul's writings

That I would not respond to the many comments made towards me there. I have taken said comments to this thread.

Overture, curtains, lights. This is it, you'll hit the heights. And oh what heights we'll hit. On with the show this is it ............

And That, that's, thaaats, not all folks!

 

[Lulav]

Darlin' this thread is not for refuting his words. Please don't derail this. Continue your debate in your other thread please.

As I stated, I was only quoting that 80% of scholars don't believe he wrote Ephesians Or Collossians for that matter.

 

[anisavta]

80% of who? Liberal theologians? All theologians? I majored in New Testament lit way back in the days of hippies and bellbottoms and we touched on but never came to the forgone conclusion that he didn't write the letters.

 

[Lulav]

Begs the question...

...if Paul's writings can be "suspect" (not my belief, of course, I reject liberal theology) how can you be 100% infallibly sure which parts are trustworthy unless you yourself are 100% infallible?

Exactly, and that goes for you as well.

As for "classic Paul"....this is the one that really stands out and has passed the test of time even for those who are not Christians...

"If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal.
And if I have prophetic powers, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing.
If I give away all I have, and if I deliver up my body to be burned, but have not love, I gain nothing.
Love is patient and kind; love does not envy or boast; it is not arrogant
or rude. It does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful;
it does not rejoice at wrongdoing, but rejoices with the truth.
Love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.
Love never ends. As for prophecies, they will pass away; as for tongues, they will cease; as for knowledge, it will pass away.
For we know in part and we prophesy in part,
but when the perfect comes, the partial will pass away.
When I was a child, I spoke like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I gave up childish ways.
For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I have been fully known.
So now faith, hope, and love abide, these three; but the greatest of these is love." 1 Cor. 13

Yes, that is lovely, I read it at my daughters wedding. But isn't this the teacher teaching do as I say and not as I do? Or rather, does this not describe what Paul wasn't?

The whole speaking in tongues thing is suspect so I won't even brooch that subject here.

Delivering his body up to be burned, is that not a pagan ritual?

Love is patient and kind; love does not envy or boast; it is not arrogant or rude. It does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful; it does not rejoice at wrongdoing, but rejoices with the truth.

This line itself shows what Paul wasn't. He wasn't patient and kind, he did envy and boasted a lot. He was also arrogant and rude. He insisted on his own way and none other. He was resentful of many things and peoples. He was quick to point out to many of what he perceived as wrongdoing.....................

Love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.

This sounds lovely, but when analyzed what does it really mean? Here he is giving the emotion 'love' a personality. We believe that G-d is love so this must be talking about him, right?

But if it is (and we certainly can't leave him ot) then do we really believe that he bears all things? There's much in the tanackh to say otherwise.

Does G-d 'believe all things? I would say no

Does G-d Hope? I think that is more of a human emotion since G-d is omnipotent.

Does he endure all things, same as bare to me, and I say no.

So now faith, hope, and love abide, these three; but the greatest of these is love."

A better translation I think says:

"So now faith, hope, and charity abide, these three; but the greatest of these is charity."

 

[ContraMundum]

Exactly, and that goes for you as well.

My beliefs are not of my own creation. There's the difference.

Yes, that is lovely, I read it at my daughters wedding. But isn't this the teacher teaching do as I say and not as I do? Or rather, does this not describe what Paul wasn't?

Paul was a sinner. He says that often. God has always used sinners to speak the truth.

The whole speaking in tongues thing is suspect so I won't even brooch that subject here.

Good...'cos I wouldn't be interested.

Delivering his body up to be burned, is that not a pagan ritual?

It can refer to martyrdom too.

<snip>

Does G-d 'believe all things? I would say no

Does G-d Hope? I think that is more of a human emotion since G-d is omnipotent.

Does he endure all things, same as bare to me, and I say no.

You are the worst exegete of Paul's writings I've ever read.

I'm being nice.

 

[Lulav]

80% of who? Liberal theologians? All theologians? I majored in New Testament lit way back in the days of hippies and bellbottoms and we touched on but never came to the forgone conclusion that he didn't write the letters.

Historical analysis of the Bible and especially the NT has been frowned upon and outright forbidden during some times. In other words, 'this is what we say it says and this is what we believe it says and nothing else'. ( You are familiar with the churches view of Galileo and others like him etc?)
However if you classify those who don't want to take the RCC's position or interpretation and works as all there is, then I guess you would be labeled 'Liberal'.

There are many that are studying of late to find the truth behind what happened in the 1st century and beyond and it is not as we've been taught, as those who have taught us have been taught to teach us so.

The one who asserted the 80% ironically is a RCC priest. You can read about him here.

 

[Lulav]

Originally Posted by Lulav

Ephesians is a book with many inspiring words and messages,

But

The Epistle of Paul to the Ephesians, often shortened to Ephesians, is the tenth book of the New Testament. Its authorship has traditionally been credited to Paul, but it is now widely accepted by critical scholarship to be "deutero-Pauline," that is, written in Paul's name by a later author strongly influenced by Paul's thought.

Bible scholar Raymond E. Brown asserts that about 80% of critical scholarship judges that Paul did not write Ephesians, while Perrin and Duling say that of six authoritative scholarly references, "four of the six decide for pseudonymity, and the other two (PCB and JBC) recognize the difficulties in maintaining Pauline authorship.

Indeed, the difficulties are insurmountable."
​

Irony. The anti-Catholic Torah-fundamentalist quotes a liberal Catholic theologian for support.

Just to be 100% possitive and not to assume here, You are addressing this to me, which can't be mistaken because you have quoted my post here and no one else's, so are you actually labeling me as a:

Anti-Catholic, Torah-fundamentalist?

 

[Lulav]

You obviously do not agree with him, so I am wondering what you have against his studies? Are you in the traditionalist Catholic category?

• Brown remains controversial among traditionalist Catholics because of their claim that he denied the inerrancy of the whole of Scripture and cast doubt on the historical accuracy of numerous articles of the Catholic faith.
• His centrist views especially angered conservatives when he questioned whether the virginal conception of Jesus could be proven historically.
• He was regarded as occupying the center ground in the field of biblical studies, opposing the literalism found among many fundamentalist Christians while not carrying his conclusions as far as many other scholars.

Which of these bothers you?

 

[Lulav]

At least LLOJ believes in the words of Paul. There's no point citing those words if you don't believe in them, right?

"Now I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I delivered them to you." 1 Cor. 11:2

Hmm, wondering why you posted this? So a rabble-rouser is better in your site than ones who seeks the truth?

As far as you quote of Paul, one should ask, why is he commending the Corinthians for remembering him in 'everything'? That's pretty boastful, isn't it? And the maintaining the traditions he delivered to them, Traditions? such as?

So we are to be like them and remember him, and his teachings, not Yeshua's?

 

[anisavta]

Have you ever heard of the Jesus Seminar?
Jesus Seminar - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
It was both embraced and criticized depending on which side of the religious fence you stood on.
Point being - it doesn't really matter much what people say just because they have letters behind their name or a group who they can use as an umbrella. Sometimes what sounds scholarly just ain't.

 

[Lulav]

Hehe...good one. Keep 'em coming. This will drive poor ani berserk!

I wonder if she will see the humour?

(and you do realize that Lulav did post on this thread, right?)

Rom 2:1 Therefore you have no excuse, O man, every one of you who judges. For in passing judgment on another you condemn yourself, because you, the judge, practice the very same things.


Best thread fun in ages!

For one thing, I do not try to post to drive anyone 'berserk', isn't that unkind, and also against what you posted on 1Cor 13?

I don't see the humor in your posts, but I am glad to see you have some sense of humor. And yes, Lulav did post on that thread, once, I did not want to cause aggravation, so I made a statement and left it at that, until I saw all the other posts today and am being respectful enough to start a new thread instead of derailing the original one.

 

[Lulav]

Originally Posted by anisavta

I give up. This thread is turning into everything it was not suppose to.
​

Awww...ani.

What did you honestly expect? This thread was always going to be a red rag to a bull.

I went for 1 Cor. 13 but apparently that is not worth commenting on. Enjoy the circus....I am. It's the internet, not a university.

Are you now calling me a bull?

You posted 1 cor 13 but you obviously don't abide by it.

If this is a circus it is because there have been those who have enjoyed the position of ringmaster.

This may be the internet, but that does not allow for courtesy to take a backseat. And I don't know of any university profs that would allow such behavior in a class.

 

[ForceofTime]

This line itself shows what Paul wasn't. He wasn't patient and kind, he did envy and boasted a lot. He was also arrogant and rude. He insisted on his own way and none other. He was resentful of many things and peoples. He was quick to point out to many of what he perceived as wrongdoing.....................

Lulav, I understand this is your opinion, but this really breaks my heart! Even if what you say was really true of Paul, don't his words in the Bible themselves speak of God (whether or not he actually said them)? This then would make Paul a hypocrite (which I personally do not believe). If Paul was indeed a hypocrite, then at least give the words themselves some due credit to God if they do as much.

I ask you to consider also to whom Paul was speaking. Jesus had a difficult enough time in telling others. When I see your words here, I can see just how easy it could be to ascribe that sentiment to Jesus. We see it so often here on CF where we (I too am included here!) think we know someone by the denominational icon by their name. All this too breaks my heart, when it happens to me and when I realize I do it to others.

Anyway, I understand and respect your stance on the validity of Paul and personally don't know one way or another. All I know is that the words I read speak to me of God.

 

[Lulav]

I'm sorry that you were offended, not my intention. I did not say however these weren't godly words, only that Paul did not follow them, which can be found (sadly) in his own writings which can't be ignored.

 

[anisavta]

Except for Yeshua - which writer of any book in the scriptures Older or Newer followed completely what they wrote? How many theologians we read and follow are perfect in following their own words? Can you see how much higher and quite impossible a standard you've placed on this man? And why is this so?

 

[ContraMundum]

Lulav..that other thread is not about YOU. Quit reading yourself into the posts, and quit judging others by them! The solar system is heliocentric, remember.

 

[visionary]

Lulav, I have a question. If you could give or take from the books of the current bible.. which books would you keep or remove? I just noticed you posting Corinthians' love verses... so it got me to thinking.. how much different would our gospel be without Paul and how would it reflect in the gentile/Jew faith believers.?

 

[GuardianShua]

Scriptural problems are here and there. The good news is that if it does not agree with history or the Old Testament, then you know there is a problem.

 

[Lulav]

Have you ever heard of the Jesus Seminar?
Jesus Seminar - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
It was both embraced and criticized depending on which side of the religious fence you stood on.
Point being - it doesn't really matter much what people say just because they have letters behind their name or a group who they can use as an umbrella. Sometimes what sounds scholarly just ain't.

I guess it's all a matter of perspective. If we want to believe that the gentile Roman Church has given us 100% truth then we can call all those others liberals and pseudo scholars. But if we don't believe that the Church was sincere and did not have an agenda on what has been brought down to us then I say it deserves looking into.

I myself value truth over religion, no matter how established it has become.

 

[Lulav]

Except for Yeshua - which writer of any book in the scriptures Older or Newer followed completely what they wrote? How many theologians we read and follow are perfect in following their own words? Can you see how much higher and quite impossible a standard you've placed on this man? And why is this so?

In which of the 'older' testament books were written as teaching letters?