Self-righteousness vs Humility

[Clare73]

This was to my statement that only the Gospels contain the words of Jesus, and not the Epistles. So I am not sure what the CONTRARE is all about,

The epistles are the words of Jesus given to Paul in the third heaven.

since Clare73 goes on to say that "Jesus wrote nothing". I agree with that. Everything we get from the mouth of Jesus is, at best, second hand, and may be 3rd or 4th hand.

I am scratching my head over Paul getting "doctrine" from Jesus "personally".

See Galatians 1:11-12.

To "get it from no man" is to get it from Jesus, personally.

According to Acts, Paul received a vision of/from Jesus but was instructed by Ananias and other disciples (Acts 9).

How convenient. . .CONTRARE!

Paul was instructed what to do by Ananias (Acts 9:6), not what to believe.
He was not instructed in anything by the other disciples (Acts 9:19).

And the teaching of Jesus was about how to live as his disciple. We may be splitting hairs here. Much of what is in Paul's letters is about how disciples in the communities he addressed were doing in following the teachings of Jesus, i.e. how they were living the Gospel. Jesus' words, commandments and teachings are meaningless UNLESS we live them. That is my point, and seems to be what Paul was saying in much of his writing.

Here is where we must depart. I think the Gospels take clear precedence. The Epistles are important but not totally necessary to understanding the Gospels. None of the Gospels were put into writing for several decades after the Resurrection. Paul evangelized and taught at least two decades after the Resurrection. So there was a gap, where disciples had little or nothing in writing, most likely just oral transmissions (and some writings) that were compiled into the Gospels we have today.

Paul addressed his letters to particular communities. Only later, again probably not for a couple of decades, were they circulated more widely. If my memory is correct, the first reference by someone else to a letter of Paul occurs around 90-100 CE. Keep in mind that everything was written and copied by hand. So the various Christian communities in the first century CE were not aware of most of Paul's letters. But they DID hear and eventually had read to them the teachings and stories that comprised the Gospels. Many people became Christians on the strength of what they heard (and that eventually was incorporated into the Gospels) before and without any of the Epistles.

So my contention is that Paul's letters, and the other Epistles, are in essence explanation, commentary, and expansion on what Jesus taught. Sort of like a sermon or homily, Paul was preaching to the faithful, emphasizing what it meant to be a disciple, to keep them on track, or to get them back on track.

The Gospels are sufficient unto themselves to know what it means, and what one must do, to be a disciple of Jesus.


This was a response to the paragraph in which I said, "most people's understanding and knowledge of Jesus is insufficient". The problem with this idea is that it places all the responsibility on the Holy Spirit. It is the individual's responsibility to learn and apply what Jesus taught and commanded. We have the option of doing that or not. Most people do try, but in a half-hearted way. I will not blame that on the failure of the Spirit, but rather on the failure of the person to internalize the Gospel message and then apply it to their own lives.

Clare73 is correct in that it is not the function of the "words on the page", but rather that one reads those words and applies those words, seeking guidance from the Spirit.

As in some prior threads, this one has devolved into a two person conversation. No one else is participating, unfortunately. I will not get into endless arguing back and forth, so again I will say that we must agree to disagree. My view of God, of scripture, of faith, and of discipleship is not the same as that of Clare73. Neither of us will convince the other of our position, so let's let it rest and move on.

To Clare73, I appreciate the dialogue, and will pray that you receive all the blessings that God will bestow on you during this season of reflection and penance, as we await the joy of Easter.

Peace and blessings,
Martin

Depart indeed!

All Scripture is the word of God (2 Timothy 3:16), not just the red letters.

That is not orthodox Christianity.

 

[Martinius]

The epistles are the words of Jesus given to Paul in the third heaven.
See Galatians 1:11-12.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the "third heaven" IS heaven, right? IOW, it's just another way of speaking of the "abode" of God, according to the thinking of the time.

To "get it from no man" is to get it from Jesus, personally
Paul was instructed what to do by Ananias (Acts 9:6), not what to believe.
He was not instructed in anything by the other disciples (Acts 9:19).

Now we have a problem. I cannot find anything specific about what Ananias told Paul, so I don't see how you can be so certain of this.

All Scripture is the word of God (2 Timothy 3:16), not just the red letters.
That is not orthodox Christianity.

Second problem. Paul writes in Galatians about what he did after his revelation, that he did not confer with any human being, nor go up to Jerusalem, but went into Arabia and then back to Damascus. Paul says it was it was 3 years before he met for 15 days with Cephas (Peter) and also with James, in Jerusalem. It would seem quite logical that much of that time was spent in getting Paul up-to-speed about the events there, what the disciples had been doing up to that time, and other matters.

However, in Acts 9, Luke says that Paul was with Ananias and "for several days was with the disciples in Damascus". Paul escaped capture and went to Jerusalem, apparently in short order, not three years later. He met with disciples there, and then was "brought down to Caesarea" and then the apostles "sent him off to Tarsus."

So which is it? Either Paul is right, or Luke is right. Both can't be correct in their scenarios. Where did Paul go, and when? Who did he meet with, if anyone? I would think that Paul himself would best recall what he did, yet Luke had to get his info from somewhere.

It is easy to see that this is one example of a problem with "all scripture is the word of God". If both passages are the "word of God" then God is disagreeing with God. Or perhaps the author of Acts put his own spin on the words he received to make it fit what he wanted to show? Which meant he was editing God's word, which would likely be frowned upon by the Almighty. Or maybe Paul's memory, several years after the events he talks about, is a little fuzzy? We don't know, do we?

What I see here is a theology about the Bible that is a house of cards built on a shifting sand bar. Not Gospel based, not derived from the clear commandments and teachings of Jesus, but circular arguments and an over reliance on ideas about scripture that can't be supported. It fits perfectly the original OP question about "self-righteousness vs. humility". So I will sign off now, and not be back for a few days. Peace and blessings to Clare73 and to all on the forum.

 

[Clare73]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the "third heaven" IS heaven, right? IOW, it's just another way of speaking of the "abode" of God, according to the thinking of the time.

Look up the Jewish understanding of three heavens.

Now we have a problem. I cannot find anything specific about what Ananias told Paul, so I don't see how you can be so certain of this.

See Acts 9:5, Paul was told "what you must do."

Second problem. Paul writes in Galatians about what he did after his revelation, that he did not confer with any human being, nor go up to Jerusalem, but went into Arabia and then back to Damascus. Paul says it was it was 3 years before he met for 15 days with Cephas (Peter) and also with James, in Jerusalem. It would seem quite logical that much of that time was spent in getting Paul up-to-speed about the events there, what the disciples had been doing up to that time, and other matters.

And what did he do for three years in the desert of Arabia, which is what Arabia was in NT times.

However, in Acts 9, Luke says that Paul was with Ananias and "for several days was with the disciples in Damascus". Paul escaped capture and went to Jerusalem, apparently in short order, not three years later. He met with disciples there, and then was "brought down to Caesarea" and then the apostles "sent him off to Tarsus."

So which is it? Either Paul is right, or Luke is right. Both can't be correct in their scenarios. Where did Paul go, and when? Who did he meet with, if anyone? I would think that Paul himself would best recall what he did, yet Luke had to get his info from somewhere.

Not getting what the problem is here.

It is easy to see that this is one example of
a problem with "all scripture is the word of God".

Only in ignorance.

And what a feeble, pitiful, pathetic attempt doth ignorance disguised as humility make!

And then you say the gospels are more important than the epistles?
How do you even know the gospels are the word of God, being written by apostles, just as were the epistles?

Just what is the manufactured problem here to support your false assertion. . .I don't see any problem.

If both passages are the "word of God" then God is disagreeing with God.

Or you don't understand what is being written. . .imagine that!

Methinks you are somewhat out of your league here.