Paul's words are not confusing. They are wrong.

[Vegas]

An opinion that has no basis on external experience is simply noise... as Paul so properly put it, "a clanging gong". Opinion MUST be based on something that can be shared, otherwise it has no worth to anyone else. Much like a revelation.

 

[seebs]

Foon repeats:



Seebs, I've done that already. A lot.

The thread is 22 pages long.

Are you going to read the five linear feet of books before you read this thread?

I guess it will be a while before you can comment?

The assertion that you've already done it hasn't helped me much. As you point out, this thread is 22 pages. Every post from you that I have seen has been an assertion that you already answered this question.

Well, I didn't understand it, and there's been a lot of rhetoric.

So, just as a matter of charity, could you help me out? Tell me where in those 22 pages you gave the facts, or perhaps just give an executive summary of the kinds of facts?

I feel a bit frustrated here, because whether or not you have previously answered the question doesn't really help much when I'm asking it here and now; I may have missed the previous conversation, or been too clueless to follow your posts.

When someone asks me a question I've already answered, I try to make sure that I at least give them a link to a specific answer of their question, or at the very least something that I think will be responsive. I have found that accusations of ill intent on their part, or assertions that their biases will prevent them from responding, are less productive.

So, since I don't really want to wade through 22 pages of the mutual crusading that is Liberal Theology: Can you point me to the specific factual answers?

 

[seebs]

Paul ended up alive and rich after collecting offerings for "the poor" during his entire time of "apostleship."

This is fascinating! Do you have a source or citation to point to? I've never heard this before.

The real apostles ended up poor and dead.

Okay.

Well, not to be picky, but to the best of my knowledge, Paul is also dead, no?

(Please, no Beatles jokes.)

So, I guess you're talking about the circumstances of his death. How did he die? The only apostle whose death I can remember off the top of my head is St. Peter, and that only because a friend of mine used to have a St. Peter's Cross avatar here, which got him endless harassment.

But granting all of that, can you help me understand how this shows Paul not to be an apostle? I could easily say someone saying "Paul, unique among the apostles, was actually fairly well-off financially." This statement does not strike me as inherently impossible. Is it somehow?

I guess I'm not seeing the connection between wealth or poorness, or circumstances of death, and whether or not one is an apostle. Perhaps you're arguing that a genuine apostle ought to have been poor, because Jesus taught against weath?

Wake up and smell the coffee, mindless robot disciples of Paul.

Begging your pardon, but to the best of my knowledge I am neither mindless nor a robot, although I am very fond of Paul's writings.

You are called to follow Jesus.

Yes.

But once a man wrote some words, that spoke to my condition, and helped me think about what it means to "follow Jesus". These were the words:

Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal. And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing. And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing. Charity suffereth long, and is kind; charity envieth not; charity vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up, Doth not behave itself unseemly, seeketh not her own, is not easily provoked, thinketh no evil; Rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in the truth; Beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things. Charity never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away. For we know in part, and we prophesy in part. But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away. When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things. For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known. And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity.​

(They are, of course, translated.)

Do you tell me that these words are false? I believe them true. I believe the assertion that charity (which we sometimes call love) is a greater virtue than even faith; that faith is but the gateway that leads us to charity.

Am I incorrect? Please advise.

 

[seebs]

staff edited quote removed

Begging your pardon, but if I understand the little symbols up by the names, the person you're addressing is a deist.

I am not sure what the word "fundagelical" means, but it seems very unlikely to me that a Deist arguing against the acceptance of revelation as evidence is likely to be anywhere near either fundamentalist or evangelical views.

Perhaps you could expand on what this word means, and how one can discern whether a given person is or is not a "fundagelical"? I would appreciate the opportunity to better understand your posts.

 

[micknick]

several of the points you have just recited have been not only disputed, but disproved. you have repeatedly claimed that there is no evidence for my beliefs, and those of others regarding paul, salvation and other issues. when evidence was brought from the Bible and other sources to suggest that Jesus supported Paul, as did the apostles, you say that the evidence is erronious (despite the disagreement of the historian community) and continue to denounce paul as something he was not.

paul did not at any point say we cud do whatever we want cos we're covered by grace. this is a part truth, presented in a way, that sadly is the attitude of many so called "christians". However Paul clearly states throughout his writings that sin should be repented of. This literally means turned away from. On myriad occasions he tells us not to continue in our sins.

Some "christians" have become arrogant and bigotted, and have no real faith. Others, while not rejecting Paul and blaming him for the gross misinterpretation of his writings, see grace for what it is. It is undeserved blessing from our Lord Jesus, forgiving us for our sins. I acknowledge that I still sin. But every day i try not too. Its not about knowing I'm covered, its about trying to earn what I no I'll never be able to to bring glory and honour to God, as His word has taught me to. Neither the tales of Jesus teaching nor the writings of Paul contradict these beliefs.

 

[elman]

staff edited quote removed


I am awake. I keep looking for you to get something correct. So far my search has been in vain. Your slanders don't deserve respect.

 

[I <3 Abraham]

staff edited quote removed


Not to pick nits or anything, but I'm pretty sure Paul ended up dead.

 

[seebs]

staff edited quote removed

I don't see what this matters.

I'm not asking whether someone could trick gullible people into giving them money by misrepresenting the passage.

But that passage isn't about the giving of money.

They all follow Paul.....to the bank.

Didn't the Lord give you any discernment at all?

I believe He did. And from that, I come to believe that the passage in question describes love, and does so accurately.

By the way, maybe I was unclear. I wasn't asking whether televangelists misquoting or prooftexting from this material could come up with nasty stuff. After all, you can come up with nasty stuff prooftexting Jesus.

I was asking what you make of that passage. What do you think it says? Do you think that what you think it says is true? The second question is meaningless without an answer to the first.

 

[seebs]

Begin by considering the reality that people of that age were just like the people of today in many ways.

Just like today, religion often (in fact, usually) became a great way to make a great living (and wield tremendous power).

I certainly agree with this.

The Bible tells us Paul collected offerings and ended up living in his own house in Rome still preaching the Gospel.

Where does it say this?

The people who had actually followed Jesus had ended living in communal poverty and being (like Stephen) bonked on the head with rocks until dead.

I thought Stephen was pierced by arrows?

Paul knew little about Jesus, had never met him, and..........nobody called Paul an apostle except Paul.

What about Peter, who refers to:

The Second Epistle General of Peter, Chapter 3, Verse 15
And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;
​

"our beloved brother Paul"?

It seems that Peter considered Paul a brother.

Paul taught a gospel of inexhaustable grace and constant and accepted sin (was popular then and now, especially now that Christians are invading defenseless nations to steal their oil).

It's odd that you say this, because there's a very strong correlation between being comfortable with the war thing, and not believing in accepted sin! The same people who are defending the war are the ones who most often say things like "gay people won't go to heaven".

I don't know anyone who defends war on the grounds that "I know it's sinful but Jesus will forgive me anyway".

Jesus taught that we get to heaven by loving our neighbor and said nothing about this "grace" that Paul invented.

Really? I always thought that the comment about the servant who did not know what he was doing was a hint of it.

More importantly, in observing the actions of Jesus, I see a great deal of grace. The woman at the well, the woman taken in adultery... Even the very men who crucify Him! Always, Jesus brings grace to the table.

Paul ended differently, taught an opposing Gospel and had to dub himself an apostle because nobody else would.

How exactly did Paul "end"? As beloved spouse once put it, "the secret to a happy ending is knowing when to stop telling the story". To the best of my knowledge, Paul died.

Why did the teaching of Jesus fail and the teaching of Paul soar?

Jesus had some very UNpopular ideals and values.

Hmm. I have certainly seen compelling arguments along these lines before.

A tough to follow gospel of love in action--a clear gospel of putting your money where your mouth was.......good Samaritan style.

Agreed. Chesterton said it well; "Christianity has not been tried and found wanting, it has been found difficult and left untried."

Paul, on the other hand, brought a "gospel" that had wondrous possibilities.

One could be, for example, ummmmmmm ........ oh, who would be a good example?

Maybe........say, George Bush.

Bush is an awful example. To discuss this, we need to have a long and messy debate about current political issues on which people have some honest disagreements and a very large range of powerful emotional attachments that make it virtually impossible for most people, especially Americans, to discuss the issue rationally.

I don't like the guy myself, but I don't think he makes a good didactic example; too much of the example depends on personal opinions and beliefs which other people may not share. (Whether they're true or not really doesn't matter; it's a distraction from the point.)



We would suffer less distraction from the topic if we pretend the above was about, say, Hitler. Hitler was a baptised Catholic, and may well have been saved by grace -- as you say, according to Paul.

No wonder Paul's new religion took off.

I don't agree. Paul's vision of radical grace has been systematically rejected by nearly everyone because it's absolutely unteneble. People like it, but it gives you no control over them.

This is why the most aggressively Pauline groups are the ones that are most consistent in promoting the List Of Forbidden Verbs.

Jesus would have told Bush to give his money to the poor and go and sin no more......OR FACE HELLFIRE.

Would He? When Jesus talked to the woman taken in adultery, He did say "Go and sin no more." He did not say "or else". Not "or else hellfire". Not "or else I'll stop loving you". No or-else clause at all.

Furthermore, technically, He didn't forgive her. He refused to condemn her in the first place.

Anybody waking up out there?

I have seen arguments along these lines in the past, and I'm finding them interesting.

I'd like to see more about where you get your information about what happened to the various apostles. I also don't see much connection between the radical grace Paul preached in some places, and the religion that actually formed on his epistles.

 

[Vegas]

staff edited quote removed

Why are you insulting me? I only asked for an explanation of your opinions... how did you come to them, what is their basis?

Why bring up my "elders"? DId I say anything about yo mama?

 

[suzybeezy]

MOD HAT ON

Please avoid the flaming and baiting comments and keep the discussion civil.

2.1 No Flaming

You will not "flame" other members or groups of members. Flaming includes, but is not limited to:
Ridiculing, insulting, or demeaning another member or group of members; Stating or implying that another member or group of members who have identified themselves as Christian are not Christian; Using sarcasm to attempt any of the above; Threats of any sort.

2.2 No Baiting

You will not bait other members. "Baiting" is an attempt to anger another member. Baiting includes, but is not limited to:
Making comments designed to elicit responses that violate the rules; Asking "loaded" questions of another member in an attempt to disguise a flame; Ridiculing or insulting the beliefs of another member.

MOD HAT OFF

 

[seebs]

staff edited text removed

I cannot speak to the specifics of this thread, but it seems to me that in general the largest barrier to presentation of your views is that it can take two or three rounds of asking you to state them before you switch from calling people names to actually talking about the issue.

staff edited text removed

Eh, whatever.

Once you did finally actually make your case on the Paul thing, I found it fascinating, and had some follow-up questions. Do you think we could just take the part where you accuse me of blind obedience to something or other as read, and skip ahead to the part where you help me with the questions like "what is your source for claims about Paul's life and death"? I think that would be more edifying.

 

[TScott]

It seems to me that some people have made up their minds about Paul based not so much on what Paul has himself written, but on how others have interpreted his writings. Earlier in the thread, in the OP I think, the anti-Paul folks complained about Paul's idea of forgiveness for sin, and how that idea was really against Jesus' teaching. I tend to disagree with this, I think the words of Jesus show us that he wasn't here for the righteous at all, as he said, they were always with him, he was here for the sinner. That was his whole purpose of being here, and the whole purpose of the cross.

Think about the Pharisee's complaining to Jesus about his hanging out with sinners, and Jesus' response.

What man of you, having an hundred sheep, if he lose one of them, doth not leave the ninety and nine in the wilderness, and go after that which is lost, until he find it?

and

I say unto you, that likewise joy shall be in heaven over one sinner that repenteth, more than over ninety and nine just persons, which need no repentance.

Think of the parable of the prodigal son.

What I think we have lost, though, is sight of to whom Paul was preaching to.

While it's true that Paul and Paul alone calls himeself an Apostle, we should bear in mind that he also claims to be the least of the Apostles. And again who is he telling this to? We must always remember that all we have to go on that directly relates to Paul's ministry is his letters, and these are letters to his gentile followers, not Pagans, but gentiles who worshipped God. Anything that Luke says about Paul in Acts must be compared to Paul's Epistles as Luke is not writing in the first hand except possibly in the last of Acts, the "we" part depicting the trip to Rome.

To understand Paul's flock, I think it is important to understand the background for how there came to be God worshipping gentiles outside of Judaea. When the Jews were dispersed to the Diaspora 600 years earlier, they, for the most part, built their lives anew in places like Egypt, Corinth, Thessalonica, Ephesus, Philippi, etc. All of these places maintained small Jewish communities that did not return to Palestine over the centuries, and had gentile supporters as well as detractors in all of these places. Over the centuries, although Judaism did not appeal to any great number of gentiles, especially men, it did from time to time have periods where insterest was greater. The pagan excesses of first the Greeks and later the Romans sometimes made this puritanistic monotheitic religion seem more appealing. At the time of Paul, after the excesses of Gaius Caesar, there was a resurgence of this throughout the Empire. (Even the Emperor Nero's mistress/wife Poppaea was a supporter of Judaism.) It is most likely that these God worshipping gentiles were who made up Paul's flock. Not Pagan gentiles, but God worshipping gentiles.
Paul's whole ministry is aimed at the gentiles, that is why he became the centerpiece of this religion that is adopted by the gentiles during the centuries after his death.

Paul is the reason that modern Christianity came into being. Jewish Christianity died in the first century. Gnostic Christianity may have survived, but gentile Christianity forced them underground and labeled them as heretics, and in the first three centuries of the common era they all but disappeared.

Paul has been used by anti-semites for 2000 years, but that has more to do with Luke's depiction in Acts, than in Paul's epistles. Paul is not popular in the places of his ministry, not because he is preaching heresy to Jews as Luke claims, but because he is taking their supporters among the gentiles in their communities.