[REPORT FREE THREAD] staff/member(MJ members) discussion "Discrediting Paul"

[Heber]

Heber, thank you dearly for explanation, I was a bit lost.
May all our moderators,especially sweet queen of tolerance Tishri be blessed richly and have bottomless pit of patience at their disposal !





But right here I respectfully disagree with you. As Visie already gently hinted The idea only sounds good in principle.

If you dont know how to totally destroy a person, soaking their name in.. what Mrs Truman had said took her 38 years to make her Harry call "fertilizer", without formally attacking a person.... approach a group of chatting, gossipy ladies in the congragation lobby after the sermon and mention to them how much you appreciate another lady , (one not currenly standing with them in the lobby) for her work and godliness, and what a great, examplary mother she is!

Watch them murder her good name in a sneakiest way, without using any forbidden attack methods in about 4 minutes flat.

That long?


Ah, but I'm a man and so do not indulge in such character assassinations :o:o:o:o:o

 

[ananda]

Do you mean just the canon of books in the Bible or the credal statements (Nicene, Westminster, Apostles etc etc) as well?

When I state "canon" I mean whatever any group determines to be set-apart writings inspired by Elohim.

The word 'Bible' has a generally accepted sum total of 66 books from Genesis to Revelation and may, possibly, for some, include the Apocrypha.

Why not the 73 books per the Roman Catholic view? Or the 78 books of the Eastern Orthodox? Or the 80 of the Armenian Orthodox, or the Egyptian Copts? The 81 of the Ethiopian Orthodox?

Why only 66 books (I assume, according to the general evangelical Protestant view)? Is Messianic Judaism a branch of the evangelical Protestants?

 

[visionary]

Heber, thank you dearly for explanation, I was a bit lost.
May all our moderators,especially sweet queen of tolerance Tishri be blessed richly and have bottomless pit of patience at their disposal !





But right here I respectfully disagree with you. As Visie already gently hinted The idea only sounds good in principle.

If you dont know how to totally destroy a person, soaking their name in.. what Mrs Truman had said took her 38 years to make her Harry call "fertilizer", without formally attacking a person.... approach a group of chatting, gossipy ladies in the congragation lobby after the sermon and mention to them how much you appreciate another lady , (one not currenly standing with them in the lobby) for her work and godliness, and what a great, examplary mother she is!

Watch them murder her good name in a sneakiest way, without using any forbidden attack methods in about 4 minutes flat.

Thank you... these are my concerns..

 

[anisavta]

I think the issue of putting into place some boundaries are not so much for those who understand propriety and respect for others, for they will be circumspect in their discussion and try to separate personality from statement. It's for those who want to destroy not only one's opinions and teachings but also their character. As we've seen just recently - it's easy to pull one sentence from the paragraph and compare it to another not for comparison sake, but to cause criticism of character. As I stated in a recent post, those who have a habit for destroying a person's character because they don't understand their platform will always think they are not the ones who need reigning in.
All that to say locks are not for thieves, but for those who need to be reminded that they aren't.

 

[Heber]

When I state "canon" I mean whatever any group determines to be set-apart writings inspired by Elohim.

Why not the 73 books per the Roman Catholic view? Or the 78 books of the Eastern Orthodox? Or the 80 of the Armenian Orthodox, or the Egyptian Copts? The 81 of the Ethiopian Orthodox?

Why only 66 books (I assume, according to the general evangelical Protestant view)? Is Messianic Judaism a branch of the evangelical Protestants?

A) I am sure that millions of non-evangelical protestants use a Bible that has 66 books. Why do you pick on the evangelicals? There is nothing whatsoever in being an evangelical that determines the number of books in the Bibles they might use. There are, after all, many evangelicals in the Catholic Church (and charismatics), using their canonical measure, as there probably are in the other traditions you mention.

B) The largest selling Bible is the one with 66 books - that is why the word 'Bible' is commonly seen as having that number of books, and not the variations you mention. How many shops do you know where you can buy a Coptic or Armenian Bible etc etc off the shelf. Even Catholic Bibles are often not generally available through ordinary Christian bookshops (they may have to be ordered).

C) No, MJ'ism is not a branch of the evangelical Protestant Church. Parts of MJ'ism, including you and a number of others in these Messianic fora, would not fit the defining, almost universal quadrilateral that Bebbington measured an evangelical to hold to.

D) I would think that most posters here use the 66 book Bible if only because it is the version that is most easily available. It would be interesting to know how many people here use the other canonical versions you mention, of even have them on the shelf at home. I have many versions of the Bible, old and modern, including a Catholic version, but not the Eastern, Coptic or Armenian.

Are you asking from an emic or etic point of view?

 

[visionary]

I have printed Book of Enoch and Book of Jubilee off the internet... so that I could read and study them.

 

[ananda]

A) I am sure that millions of non-evangelical protestants use a Bible that has 66 books. Why do you pick on the evangelicals? ...

Oh, I am not picking on the evangelicals, the Protestants, or any other group; I am simply using them as an example to highlight this issue: what qualifies their 66-book canon to be "The Unquestionable Bible"? Why not any other canon?

 

[yedida]

Oh, I am not picking on the evangelicals, the Protestants, or any other group; I am simply using them as an example to highlight this issue: what qualifies their 66-book canon to be "The Unquestionable Bible"? Why not any other canon?

I hate to have to play the devil's advocate here, but other than the fact that there are some additional books in the other canons, have you checked, personally, what differences there might be within the same books within each different canon? Does not Roman 10:4, or John 3:16 basically read the same throughout (not word for word necessarily, but thought for thought)?
I haven't checked, therefore, I'm asking.
I truly think the only way we're going to get anything better than the English translations that we do have is for us to learn Greek and Hebrew (and hopefully learn them better than we've learned our own language); and we'd also have to become cognizant of the two cultures from back then, the idioms from both languages, etc. An extremely daunting task!

 

[Heber]

I hate to have to play the devil's advocate here, but other than the fact that there are some additional books in the other canons, have you checked, personally, what differences there might be within the same books within each different canon? Does not Roman 10:4, or John 3:16 basically read the same throughout (not word for word necessarily, but thought for thought)?
I haven't checked, therefore, I'm asking.
I truly think the only way we're going to get anything better than the English translations that we do have is for us to learn Greek and Hebrew (and hopefully learn them better than we've learned our own language); and we'd also have to become cognizant of the two cultures from back then, the idioms from both languages, etc. An extremely daunting task!

I think there are lots of 'red herrings' being thrown up to knock us off course, and there have been for some time.

I note that even though I questioned the use of evangelicals and 'their' choice of Bible, it still ends up with 'what qualifies their 66-book canon to be "The Unquestionable Bible"?'

So we still do not know the answer to the question about where he is coming from in asking all this.


[Emphasis mine]

 

[visionary]

From the vote... the only change is "no anti-Torah" which would included abusing Paul's letters and the verses contained within that have been misconstruded..... So let's say the winner is "no anti-torah" in MJ area.. and that will include the controversal passages of Paul.

 

[Heber]

From the vote... the only change is "no anti-Torah" which would included abusing Paul's letters and the verses contained within that have been misconstruded..... So let's say the winner is "no anti-torah" in MJ area.. and that will include the controversal passages of Paul.

Are you saying we should omit Paul's controversial, or hard to understand, verses on the basis that these might be used against him in a personal way?

If we run with doing that, who is to be the final arbiter as to which verses can, or cannot, be debated for fear of an attack on him?

 

[visionary]

Are you saying we should omit Paul's controversial, or hard to understand, verses on the basis that these might be used against him in a personal way?

If we run with doing that, who is to be the final arbiter as to which verses can, or cannot, be debated for fear of an attack on him?

Nope.. Just saying a "NO anti-Torah" rule will also cover Paul's controversial verses indirectly... when used to promote anti-Torah.

 

[Heber]

Nope.. Just saying a "NO anti-Torah" rule will also cover Paul's controversial verses indirectly... when used to promote anti-Torah.

Thanks. That will not stop dicussion on some of his passages in the Latter Testament where he only appears to exclude the Law or where he appears to say that salvation is by grace alone. A lot of it depends on the translation a person is using and on their sincerity in asking a question, or not, as the case may be, and HOW they ask the question (especially visitors to the forum). We cannot stop someone saying that Paul says that he no longer comes under the Law, or that we are saved by grace alone (because that is just what some translations say) - they are legitimate verses to be discussed and do not depend on pro-Torah or anti-Torah to answer them.

 

[yedida]

I agree with Vis. That's where most of the Paul problem begins and ends - at least where the "grace only's" are concerned. When we get those threads that are posted with no purpose but to tear him down are concerned, we just have them closed if the poster doesn't desist after being notified of the rules. Those kinds of posts are wrong, whether we agree with them or not.

 

[ananda]

I think there are lots of 'red herrings' being thrown up to knock us off course, and there have been for some time ... I note that even though I questioned the use of evangelicals and 'their' choice of Bible, it still ends up with 'what qualifies their 66-book canon to be "The Unquestionable Bible"?' ... So we still do not know the answer to the question about where he is coming from in asking all this. [Emphasis mine]

My questions are not meant to be diversionary. I am merely responding to many posts in this thread which states, or imply, that those who do not follow all of the Bible should be excluded from fellowship. My resulting question therefore, is, which Bible? and thereafter, Why not a non-Pauline corpus? Whether I'm coming from an emic or etic viewpoint should have no bearing on my objective question.

 

[Heber]

My questions are not meant to be diversionary. I am merely responding to many posts in this thread which states, or imply, that those who do not follow all of the Bible should be excluded from fellowship. My resulting question therefore, is, which Bible? and thereafter, Why not a non-Pauline corpus? Whether I'm coming from an emic or etic viewpoint should have no bearing on my objective question.

I think you may find that all Bibles have Paul as the prime Latter Testament writer - whether 66, 73, 78 or some other number of books (excl. Jewish versions) - though there may be some additional books or varied lengths of the 66 books to increase the number. It is unlikely that a Christian site would permit a non-Pauline forum, I would have thought, as has been hinted by Tishri, at least. It would no longer be a Christian forum, would it?

I can't say that I've seen many posts demanding an all or nothing approach to the Bible but, on a Christian forum, what do you think they might expect? I've seen a number, on the other hand, suggesting that all Pauline literature be removed!

I asked about your standpoint in case you had a particular interest in one or other of the denominations you mentioned - being etic doesn't matter, though.

 

[visionary]

Are you saying that without Paul they can not be Christian?

 

[Heber]

Are you saying that without Paul they can not be Christian?

That's the question I asked! There will be many who hold that view, even on CF! I, personally, would agree - Paul is an integral part of the Christian Bible, for Christians and for many MJ's, too.

 

[visionary]

That's the question I asked! There will be many who hold that view, even on CF! I, personally, would agree.

OK.. let me ask "without Paul would there be no faith in Yeshua?"

 

[Heber]

OK.. let me ask "without Paul would there be no faith in Yeshua?"

Let me answer you - that is a silly question.