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

DrFate said:

Foon Nerfdahl posted this some time ago and I would like to review the statements in this post without dealing with the rest of the stuff in the thread "Striking out Paul". Foon presents the argument better than I could.
__________________

Let us look at Paul objectively.

Paul's "gospel" is one of defeat. Paul says he tries and tries, but he just keeps on sinning (apparently constantly). Poor sap is obsessed with sin and sees it behind every bush......for himself and others. He thinks he's chained to a body of death. He has a thorn in his side, he says.

Thorn in his brain, maybe.

Paul's "gospel" is sort of pathetic.

Jesus, on the other hand, is exceedingly positive. He rather calmly tells people not to sin.

Paul would have a cat if he heard that one.

See the difference here?

Zacchaeus says, "I have given half of what I own to the poor and made amends to those I have cheated."

Jesus responds: "This man is going to heaven."

Jesus told the woman caught in adultery, "Go now and leave your life of sin."

Paul would get a severe cramp in the side on hearing that one.

Jesus said, "If the son sets you free (from sin, in context) then you shall be free indeed."

John
NO one who is born of God will continue to sin, because God's seed remains in him; he cannot go on sinning, because he has been born of God. 10This is how we know who the children of God are and who the children of the devil are: Anyone who does not do what is right is not a child of God; nor is anyone who does not love his brother.

Paul, however, says..........

17As it is, it is no longer I myself who do it, but it is sin living in me. 18I know that nothing good lives in me, that is, in my sinful nature. For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out.

Paul is in direct opposition to Jesus and John (and everybody) on sin......and to make it worse--Paul invented a theology of Radical Grace to cover his bizarre stance on sin.

What Paul's writings do is encourage people to think they have no choice but to sin.......but hey.....Paul says that's ok because we have the Radical Grace theology to cover us.

Unfortunately, what Paul wrote is simply wrong.

Paul's words are not confusing.

They are wrong.

Click to expand...

Dr. Fate,

I totally agree.

DrFate said:

There are differnt classifications of scripture? Some has more weight than others? I sure run into many people that say that everything in the bible (at least the KJV) is scripture inspired by Gawd. You disagree with them. Many would then brand you as an evil satan inspired dupe (i would not).

Click to expand...

Welcome to Liberal Theology!

We have ice cream. And source criticism.

CaDan said:

We have ice cream. And source criticism.

Click to expand...

Where is that Ice Cream?!

stumpjumper said:

Where is that Ice Cream?!

Click to expand...

Man that looks good!

DrFate said:

There are differnt classifications of scripture? Some has more weight than others? I sure run into many people that say that everything in the bible (at least the KJV) is scripture inspired by Gawd. You disagree with them. Many would then brand you as an evil satan inspired dupe (i would not).
Where is the justfication for the different values opinion? I would REALLY like to know your reasoning on this. This is a friendly question.

Click to expand...

I don't disagree with them. I believe that scripture is inspired by God. So are many other things, such as love and charity. I would disagree with anyone that believed scripture was the only thing inspired by God.

There are different classifications of scripture? YES! Of course there are! Anyone that actually reads the Bible in between the lines and books will realize that there are different "classifications". For example, the Pentateuch (First 5 books), major/minor prophetic books (e.g. Isaiah, Jeremiah, Jonah), gospels (matthew, mark, luke, john), letters of Paul (e.g. Romans, Colossians), other letters (e.g. 1st Peter, James), and Revelation is a book unlike any other book in the Bible.

So yes, there are classifications. However, I feel you are asking me whether or not some are more important or better than others. Now that is a question that I have no authority to answer. All I can say is that most Christians believe the Bible is centered around God and is a compendium of different writings that reveal the Truth.

Now taking Paul, his epistles were written to specific peoples; he didn't address them to the world, but to the Romans, Ephesians, Galatians, etc. Jesus, not Paul, came to save the world. Paul's work is a reflection of Jesus' teaching and example.

Why did Paul write so much of the Bible? He wasn't even one of the original 12 disciples. Well, one reason that I stated earlier was that Paul's letters were very widely distributed and copied in comparison to the other disciples who spread Christianity by other means, so they were better preserved than other writings, but Paul didn't write the entire New Testament either. When the Bible was put together, a few hundred years after Christ. The leaders of the church believed that his writings along with many others were Truth as opposed to the many many other writings that were floating around at the time, such as the Gospel of Judas.

Now, the question is whether or not the Bible is the only source of Truth or not. For example, all "Christians" on Christian forums must believe in the Trinity. The word Trinity is not in the Bible, but is a theological development of Christian teaching later in history. The writers of the Bible did not understand God as explicitly as we understand it today. It is for reasons like this that my thought about the Bible has changed recently. To me the Bible the source of truth and knowledge, but not the only source. Some will argue that the Trinity is truly based on scripture, but the Trinity in my mind is based off of teaching based on scripture.

In some sense, I envy non-trinitarians as it makes explaining God "easier" or more wholistic to grasp instead of trying to explain details of God. I'm assuming that you are a Unitarian and not a Unitarian Universalist. If one took what Christians explicitly believed maybe a hundred years after Christ, I don't know how different or similar they would be to Unitarians, but in my thinking there would be less to disagree about then than there is today.

I find it odd of those professing to be believers that confess that God's Word,Will,Way could not have survived in tact from any time until this. Must be that doubting Thomas 'thing' at best.

I just stopped in for a visit and found this thread. Cool. I'm happy that something I wrote could inspire a bit of dialogue.

One person said that Paul DID tell people NOT to sin.

Yes, but he also told them and showed them by example that they were unable to STOP sinning......chained to a body of death like him--unable to control themselves......like him.

BUT......Paul said......don't worry, because I have invented the Radical Grace Theology to cover you.

Nobody could understand this Theology except Paul.......they LIKED it, because it allowed them to sin.....but they couldn't understand it.

Of course they couldn't!!! It was contradictory nonsense designed to keep people confused and keep those love offerings coming in.

Jesus never talked such nonsense. Jesus said to stop sinning and you would be forgiven.

NONE of Paul's jibber-jabber.......just simply quit sinning and God would forgive you.

Paul was the first of the crooked evangelists and would fit right in with the Falwells, Robertsons, Colsons, Hinns and other crooks of today.

What ever happened to old Paul??? We last see him living in his own house in Rome. He had enough of those love offerings stashed to live well for the rest of his life. He retired to live in luxury.

Yes, people tampered with his writings (as they tampered with the writings about Jesus).

The "Church Fathers" who came along later LOVED Paul's Radical Grace Theology for the same reasons Paul did--it kept people confused and dependent (and bringing love offerings).

They embellished the story and through the imaginative stories of "Luke" and "Acts" they made Paul a hero......why?

Because they loved his Radical Grace Theology.

Those Church Fathers also corrupted and edited the stories of Jesus to make Jesus agree with Paul's nonsense.

But.....primitive Jesus is simply--stop sinning and God will forgive. Isaiah had said the same things earlier.....God does not care about blood offerings or sin offerings or fasting--God asks for just one thing--stop sinning.

Walk in love.

Love God and your neighbor.

Simple.

Too simple for those Church Fathers who wanted to enslave people rather than freeing them.

Hey Foon!

Hello again, CaDan. I just stop by now and then to see how bad things have gotten. I play more often at XnForums, but I am not seen a lot anywhere these days.....I mostly think instead of writing. I really do find that I've heard it all so many times before that I'm becoming an Ecclesiastian.

And a grumpy and curmudgeonish Ecclesiastian. A religeon not without merit.

Foon Nerfdahl said:

Paul was the first of the crooked evangelists and would fit right in with the Falwells, Robertsons, Colsons, Hinns and other crooks of today.

What ever happened to old Paul??? We last see him living in his own house in Rome. He had enough of those love offerings stashed to live well for the rest of his life. He retired to live in luxury.

Click to expand...

Nonsense.

Easy to type one word, Brennin.

Can you say more, or are you now out of ammo?



You failed to address what I said. The latest scholarly investigations of Paul agree with me. Have you seen them?

Use this link to get you started.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0062505858/qid=1137439342/sr=8-1/ref=pd_bbs_1/002-7022951-0123219?n=507846&s=books&v=glance

Read the reviews and check out the other books mentioned as similar. Paul is being seen in a totally new light by modern and well-informed scholars.

The conclusions are only logical when you really study Paul. This is only problematic for those who are stuck in blindly defending old tradition.

Perhaps you have made up your mind already and now refuse to be confused by the facts?

Foon Nerfdahl said:

Easy to type one word, Brennin.

Can you say more, or are you now out of ammo?



You failed to address what I said. The latest scholarly investigations of Paul agree with me. Have you seen them?

The conclusions are only logical when you really study Paul. This is only problematic for those who are stuck in blindly defending old tradition.

Perhaps you have made up your mind already and now refuse to be confused by the facts?

Click to expand...

I doubt you've read more NT scholarship than me. In any event, Paul may not exactly square with Jesus on all points, but he was a sincere follower. Of that, I have no doubt.

Brennin said:

I doubt you've read more NT scholarship than me. In any event, Paul may not exactly square with Jesus on all points, but he was a sincere follower. Of that, I have no doubt.

Click to expand...

You failed to address what I said. The latest scholarly investigations of Paul agree with me. Have you seen them?

Use this link to get you started.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/006...books&v=glance

Read the reviews and check out the other books mentioned as similar. Paul is being seen in a totally new light by modern and well-informed scholars.

The conclusions are only logical when you really study Paul. This is only problematic for those who are stuck in blindly defending old tradition.

Perhaps you have made up your mind already and now refuse to be confused by the facts?

Foon Nerfdahl said:

You failed to address what I said. The latest scholarly investigations of Paul agree with me. Have you seen them?

Use this link to get you started.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/006...books&v=glance

Read the reviews and check out the other books mentioned as similar. Paul is being seen in a totally new light by modern and well-informed scholars.

The conclusions are only logical when you really study Paul. This is only problematic for those who are stuck in blindly defending old tradition.

Perhaps you have made up your mind already and now refuse to be confused by the facts?

Click to expand...

I have seen Maccoby. From what I have read, I am not impressed.

Paul may not exactly square with Jesus on all points, but he was a sincere follower. Of that, I have no doubt.

Click to expand...

Nonsense.

Brennin said:

I have seen Maccoby. From what I have read, I am not impressed.

Click to expand...

It has been a few years since I read Macoby. He's kind of interesting.

CaDan said:

It has been a few years since I read Macoby. He's kind of interesting.

Click to expand...

I'll give that much.

Here's a wonderful link for those who want to learn about Paul.

This will be easier and cheaper than buying a book (that was probably an ill-fated suggestion).

If you have already made up your mind and don't want to be confused by the facts.....do not click!



http://www.judaismvschristianity.com/paulthe.htm

Why is this important? Well, because Paul's Radical Grace Theology has come to so dominate "Christianity" that Paul has been elevated above Jesus and the teaching of Jesus (which is totally different from Paul's Radical Grace Theology) has been lost.

http://www.judaismvschristianity.com/paulthe.htm