Interesting point, Larry. Had Jefferson accepted Paul's writings, he would have found admonitions contained therein concerning the attitude of slaves to their masters and masters to their slaves.
Danny
I suppose Jefferson could easily take the position that since Jesus was silent on the issue of slavery that that meant it was morally acceptable. It's interesting how people will spin anything to justify their world-view. Don't ya agree?
In the search or how Paul's doctrine fits into the church my mind goes to two peculiarly unrelated places.
One is certain of the oldest roman catholic martyr saints and the other place is a part of the beginning of the PFAL class.
We will start with the old catholic martyr saint. I don't know allot about him and I don't even know his name. I could do a word search but I feel my slight understanding of him will suffice for this occasion.
I will describe this early Christian martyr. As I recall he stood on some sort of podium out in the elements. Come brutal rains or the burning hell of the noonday sun he stood out in the weather preaching the gospel of Christ. He became such a spectacle that people would come from all over the known world just to lay eyes upon him. If I recall correctly he was the first aesthetic in a long monastic line of clerics.
The lesson we learn from this man is the stark contrast which his message is perceived in relation to that of the apostle Paul.
Here is where we get to the PFAL class part. Dr. Wierwille's antics portraying the downtrodden Christian seem to explain it all. Are we supposed to emulate the suffering of Christ or the victorious emancipation of the law of liberty through the gift of the holy spirit?
Are we supposed to view our salvation as a means with which to live a good life or are we supposed to deprive the soul of any earthly pleasure and respite?
2Cor.1:3ff Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ…(4) Who comforts us in all our tribulations….(5) For as the sufferings of Christ abound in us…(6) whether we be afflicted, it is for your consolation and salvation, which is effectual in the enduring of the same sufferings which we also suffer…
(11:23ff) Are they ministers of Christ? (I speak as a fool) I am more; in labors more abundant, in stripes above measure, in prisons more frequent, in deaths oft….(25) Thrice I was beaten with rods, once was I stoned, thrice I suffered shipwreck, a night and a day I have been in the deep; In journeyings often, in perils of waters, in perils of robbers, in perils by mine own countrymen, in perils by the heathen, in perils in the city, in perils in the wilderness, in perils in the sea, in perils among false brethren; In weariness and painfulness, in watchings often, in hunger and thirst, in fastings often, in cold and nakedness…
(30) If I must needs glory, I will glory of the things which concern my infirmities…
(12:9ff) And He said unto me, “My grace is sufficient for thee: for my strength is made perfect in weakness” Most gladly therefore will I rather glory in my infirmities, that the power of Christ may rest upon me. Therefore I take pleasure in infirmities in reproaches, in necessities, in persecutions, in distresses for Christ’s sake: for when I am weak, then am I strong.”
1 Cor.4:8ff Now ye are full, now ye are rich, ye have reigned as kings without us…For I think God hath set forth us apostles last, as it were appointed to death: for we are made a spectacle unto the world, and to angels, and to men. We are fools for Christ’s sake, but ye are wise in Christ; we are weak but you are strong; ye are honorable, but we are despised. Even unto this present hour we both hunger and thirst, and are naked, and are buffeted, and no certain dwelling place; And labor, working with our own hands; being reviled, we bless; being persecuted, we suffer it; being defamed, we entreat; we are made as the filth of the world, and are the offscouring of all things unto this day…”
Phil.1:20ff- "According to my earnest expectation and hope, that in nothing I shall be ashamed, but that with all boldness, as always, so now also Christ shall be magnified in my body, whether by life or by death. For to me to live is Christ, and to die gain."
My first post. Just sought out an active, current, interesting thread... visited here many years ago. I like to read every post before responding, but I just can't this morning! No doubt some fine points were made after page 6. First of all... interesting folks and dynamic.
Shifra, your theory demonstrates a willingness to be free, which is a very good thing, and I applaud you for it. Your comments about the families you assisted in childbirth likewise demonstrate something similar to what God has shown me, as well: there is a lot more diversity to the family of God than the exclusivists declare so boldly. God granted me some amazing interactions with some young Muslim men a few years ago. I'm more sympathetic to Paul's writings than you, but I've had some help: the writings of N.T. Wright. He's Bishop of Durham (Anglican) and has quite a body of work, scholarly and pedestrian. Google him for some interesting discussions about the "new understanding" of Paul, if you like.
Since leaving the Way behind, I've been a voracious reader... almost like I wasn't allowed before! (Only partially true. We build prisons for ourselves, as well.) Favorite authors include F.F. Bruce and Bruce Metzger. William Barclay is also wonderful... universalist though he is... he "almost persuadeth me..." On the more critical side, you might try Heinz W. Cassirer, Grace & Law (subtitle St. Paul, Kant, and the Hebrew Prophets). Interesting guy. A "Jewish classist and philosopher who had not read a word of the Bible before age forty nine." Quote is from the jacket of his translation of the New Testament. Long story short, reading Paul's letters convinced this non-practicing Jew to convert. He had done a lot of translation before this from classical Greek (Aristotle, etc.) Spent his last 21 years studying the Bible. Translation (God's New Covenant) was published posthumously. Grace & Law, while convinced by Paul, offers a searing analysis of Paul's psyche. Not that I agree with this "renowned authority on Aristotle and Kant." Can't think of the author, but another interesting Paul book is Paul's Idea of Community. A great book, though more traditional than N.T. Wright, is F.F. Bruce's Paul: Apostle of the Heart Set Free.
My own mind is that Paul, like myself, experienced something of the living Christ, the resurrected Jesus, the living Lord. It was this experience (which, as we all know, is "no guarantee for truth"!! ha!) recounted in Acts and Paul's epistles that shaped the rest of his life, and (UNlike me!) Christianity as we know it. While I have some (OK, many) lingering questions, I can reconcile Paul with the Gospels, James, and the truth, as I currently understand it.
The salient part of the "new understanding" of Paul relates to "God's righteousness" and the "righteousness" of Jewish practitioners in Paul's day, and it is something I think you already firmly believe: God disapproves of stuck-up exclusivist "believers." The righteousness of God (literally, His faithfulness and love) is contrasted with "their own righteousness," which has to do with their separateness, their reliance on birthright, etc. Both Jesus and Paul hammered them. I'm sure a great number of verses come readily to mind.
Forgive me, but one more point, sort of on topic. Dispensationalism has, in my mind, been a very destructive force dividing the Church into Paulists and Jesus-ists. My pendulum did a lot of swinging when for me, THAT shoe fell! I became extremely repentant of how I'd let MY theology separate me from the commands and teachings of Jesus. This opened up a huge opportunity for me to re-study the Gospels, something I am still doing.
Enjoy the process, my dear. God not only has spoken, but is speaking!
Dan <-- exWay, exWOW (4x), exFamCorps14. Feel free to email me, anyone.
Welcome to our sharing, "Another Dan". This discussion is a good one, because we are gaining insights as well as fine friends.
I must say I feel a bit inferior among such folks as you guys. But every once in awhile, I have to sit up a little straighter and smile ... like when one of you tells me that Thomas Jefferson was skeptical of Paul too.
Anyhow, "Another Dan", I googled N.T. Wright, as you suggested, and really couldn't grasp what he was saying. Way too intellectual for me. Maybe you could translate?
And "Invisible Dan", I also read the article you suggested about Paul's suspected connections with Nero, who of course was a bad guy who hated and hurt a lot of Christians. The speculation in this article is that Paul's connections with Nero occurred AFTER the events in Acts, as well as BEFORE Paul's zap on the road to Damascus. It sorta matches my proposed scenario that Paul was sent on a mission to destroy, and sent by some anti-Christian agency. It sounds like he was "reporting back" when his mission was accomplished. I clipped a piece of this article. Check it out:
The Book of Acts ends with Paul awaiting trial in Rome. Prior to this he had been arrested and detained at Jerusalem (circa 61-62 A.D.) for causing a riot and then appealing to Caesar in his defense. For two years after this (circa 62-63 A.D.), we are told that Paul lived under a nominal house arrest and continued to evangelize boldly. We are not told what happened to Paul at the end of those two years. Nor does the Book of Acts give the slightest premonition of the horrors that so shortly were to come upon Christians in Rome and throughout the empire. One is rather left with the impression that the greatest trials of the new faith were past. According to Josephus however, the most controversial acts of Saul/Paul and those in league with him came not before but after his coveted audience with Nero. For Robert Eisenman, this not only casts a shadow on the finale of Acts but over the entire work.
From Josephus it appears the author of Acts knew that the disposition of Paul’s hearing was just as Paul expected, favorable. Acts could have ended on this particularly high note, but instead leads the quasi-informed reader to assume that Paul in communion with other persecuted Christians was a victim of Nero in 64 A.D. On the other hand, beginning in 63 A.D., Josephus makes Saul the valet of Nero at Jerusalem, and again in 66 A.D. when the Jewish Revolt breaks out. The shocking presence of Paul at the epicenter of that unfolding trauma, very much still alive and kicking at the pricks, naturally places his life and mission in a far more bedazzling light. In response, the New Testament is blinded and cannot speak.
Here is where we get to the PFAL class part. Dr. Wierwille's antics portraying the downtrodden Christian seem to explain it all. Are we supposed to emulate the suffering of Christ or the victorious emancipation of the law of liberty through the gift of the holy spirit?
Are we supposed to view our salvation as a means with which to live a good life or are we supposed to deprive the soul of any earthly pleasure and respite?
Why are there only two choices? Why only one of two extremes? Why not a balance of something in the middle?
How many people do you know who have never had times when they felt drown trodden, beaten up by the world? Is that not a part of life too?
Can we not live the good life at the proper times, and likewise at the proper times deprive ourselves of earthly pleasures for a time?
Thanks for the welcome and the comments. Shifra, if NT Wright doesn't "speak" to you, I can totally understand. Some of his writings are more accessible than others, and he's quite over my head much of the time! Yet he did help me to appreciate that Paul's writings may have been profoundly misunderstood, particularly from the Reformation onward. He's also great at dispelling the postmodern thinking that fuzzes everything up. (Truth is relative.)
I couldn't find the link you quoted from (the one Invisi-dan suggested); can you repost the link? The quote doesn't make sense to me, because I'm pretty sure that Josephus never mentioned Paul at all in his writings. The quote seems to imply he did.
Part of your theory is that Paul's writings were at cross-purposes with the teachings of Jesus. (Am I correct?) Perhaps part of the conversation could focus on that. My understanding of your position is that the Gospels are more to be trusted than what is purported to be the writings of Paul. I may be over-stating your case, I'm not sure. You wrote emphatically that you're Christian. In this part of your journey, do you feel the Gospels can be trusted?
I don't know what reasoning Jefferson used for the continuing acceptance of the system of slavery,- nor Paul's (outside
perhaps the idea of one remaining content in whatever position one was in).
During my recent stay in Washington D.C., I had the privilege of spending some time in the Jefferson Memorial, and reading some of his writings that are engraved on the walls. It seems that Jefferson deplored the continuing practice of slavery, and foresaw the coming conflict that it would eventually cause many years before the actual Civil War. I have a vague notion that he arranged for the liberation of his slaves on the occasion of his death, but I could be mistaken.
Abigail, your picture shows a sweet little girl, but when I read your posts, I imagine you as a very wise old woman. Please take this as the ultimate compliment from me. I have been with the Crow Indians long enough to pick up how they treasure the wisdom of the old ones. So much to learn.
Another Dan, go to page 9 of this thread and scroll down to the 4th post. It's from Invisible Dan, and it gives the site for the article about Nero.
And yes, I think you've got the gist of my "theory". Good question ... about whether I believe the Gospels are for real. Yep. No problem there. I'm sure we don't quite understand all of it, but to me the Gospels offer hope for freedom and a clearer sense of how much God values us (so in turn, how much we are actually worth!) Paul, however, lays down the law while simultaneously telling us we're free. He's confusing, and scary and his teachings are ripe for controversy - which I think was his whole purpose - while the teachings of Jesus are simple and clear. Also, Jesus never makes himself out to be the big shot, but Paul is boastful.
Abigail, your picture shows a sweet little girl, but when I read your posts, I imagine you as a very wise old woman. Please take this as the ultimate compliment from me. I have been with the Crow Indians long enough to pick up how they treasure the wisdom of the old ones. So much to learn.
ROFLOL - that picture is a picture of me as a girl. I think it was taken at my dad's house when I was somewhere between 8 and 10. I am 40 now, BTW. But thank you, I get the heart behind what you said. :) :wub:
After a little retreat from this topic, I've had another thought pop up, in part prompted by AnotherDan's "survey" thread. What about this? Do you really think the ticket to eternal life is as simple as Romans 10:9-10? Not only the Way, but a whole lot of evangelical groups take great pride keeping tally of how many people they have "saved", based on their "confession" of these two verses Paul wrote.
But then there's the Nicodemus story about getting born again, starring none other than JC himself - part of AnotherDan's survey.
So ... whichi is it? Paul's route is easier. Could this be another con to divert believers who were actually doing their best to follow Jesus? Was Paul giving them a false shortcut with these two verses? Jesus asks us to be born again, which involves a major switch in our thinking. Shoot, several of us are seeing therapists to switch our old TWI thinking. Getting born again is way bigger than dumping Waybrain. I don't know. Too much thinking for this lady.
Faith, works, Paul, Jesus, PFAL, Prevailing Word in the Promised Land. Give me some chocolate ... now.
I guess I more or less believe in reincarnation. Our souls come back again and again until they have gained the wisdom they need.
God says he will write his word in our hearts. Does he do that because one spoke forth a couple of verses? What about those who never even heard the verses, do they just miss out?
I believe the wisdom we gain through living is the process by which God writes his word in our hearts.
That's awesome, guys. Just doubting a little further the "apostleship" of Paul. Wondering about how he maybe minimized the Christian lifestyle by suggesting that a couple of verses would do the trick, lifestyle or no.
When I thought about this shortcut to heaven, it reminded me of when I was a little girl, and I watched the "Peter Pan" movie. When Peter was teaching Wendy and her brothers how to fly, he said, "Just think good thoughts, add a little Pixie Dust, and jump!"
After my family got home from the theatre, we all went to bed, thinking about the movie. Late that night, I got up, sneaked into the bathroom, put the lid down on the toilet, climbed up and stood on it, thought good thoughts ... and jumped. When I hit the floor, I woke up everyone else in the family, who all came running and laughed and laughed! My big brother told me the problem - no Pixie Dust.
Honestly, I don't think Paul offered any shortcut at all. TWI as well as many denominations might make a shortcut of it, but to both Paul and Jesus, the process of salvation was just that, a process, and it included sanctification, a righteousness that exceeded the righteousness of the Pharisees (and no, it wasn't a fairyDust implication of righteousness ala PFAL and dispensationalism, wrapped in "spiritual celophane.")
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
34
23
45
50
Popular Days
Jul 25
48
Jul 27
32
Jul 22
22
Jul 24
16
Top Posters In This Topic
Abigail 34 posts
Shifra 23 posts
Larry N Moore 45 posts
DrWearWord 50 posts
Popular Days
Jul 25 2007
48 posts
Jul 27 2007
32 posts
Jul 22 2007
22 posts
Jul 24 2007
16 posts
Larry N Moore
I suppose Jefferson could easily take the position that since Jesus was silent on the issue of slavery that that meant it was morally acceptable. It's interesting how people will spin anything to justify their world-view. Don't ya agree?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheInvisibleDan
I don't know what reasoning Jefferson used for the continuing acceptance of the system of slavery,- nor Paul's (outside
perhaps the idea of one remaining content in whatever position one was in).
Link to comment
Share on other sites
cman
hmmm...yes assuming something to be true can be misleading
the facts and truth of this case are quite old
then there is always sayings and rumors about great people
even written ones...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
DrWearWord
I don't mind people walking on my feet... :)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
DrWearWord
In the search or how Paul's doctrine fits into the church my mind goes to two peculiarly unrelated places.
One is certain of the oldest roman catholic martyr saints and the other place is a part of the beginning of the PFAL class.
We will start with the old catholic martyr saint. I don't know allot about him and I don't even know his name. I could do a word search but I feel my slight understanding of him will suffice for this occasion.
I will describe this early Christian martyr. As I recall he stood on some sort of podium out in the elements. Come brutal rains or the burning hell of the noonday sun he stood out in the weather preaching the gospel of Christ. He became such a spectacle that people would come from all over the known world just to lay eyes upon him. If I recall correctly he was the first aesthetic in a long monastic line of clerics.
The lesson we learn from this man is the stark contrast which his message is perceived in relation to that of the apostle Paul.
Here is where we get to the PFAL class part. Dr. Wierwille's antics portraying the downtrodden Christian seem to explain it all. Are we supposed to emulate the suffering of Christ or the victorious emancipation of the law of liberty through the gift of the holy spirit?
Are we supposed to view our salvation as a means with which to live a good life or are we supposed to deprive the soul of any earthly pleasure and respite?
Edited by DrWearWordLink to comment
Share on other sites
TheInvisibleDan
2Cor.1:3ff Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ…(4) Who comforts us in all our tribulations….(5) For as the sufferings of Christ abound in us…(6) whether we be afflicted, it is for your consolation and salvation, which is effectual in the enduring of the same sufferings which we also suffer…
(11:23ff) Are they ministers of Christ? (I speak as a fool) I am more; in labors more abundant, in stripes above measure, in prisons more frequent, in deaths oft….(25) Thrice I was beaten with rods, once was I stoned, thrice I suffered shipwreck, a night and a day I have been in the deep; In journeyings often, in perils of waters, in perils of robbers, in perils by mine own countrymen, in perils by the heathen, in perils in the city, in perils in the wilderness, in perils in the sea, in perils among false brethren; In weariness and painfulness, in watchings often, in hunger and thirst, in fastings often, in cold and nakedness…
(30) If I must needs glory, I will glory of the things which concern my infirmities…
(12:9ff) And He said unto me, “My grace is sufficient for thee: for my strength is made perfect in weakness” Most gladly therefore will I rather glory in my infirmities, that the power of Christ may rest upon me. Therefore I take pleasure in infirmities in reproaches, in necessities, in persecutions, in distresses for Christ’s sake: for when I am weak, then am I strong.”
1 Cor.4:8ff Now ye are full, now ye are rich, ye have reigned as kings without us…For I think God hath set forth us apostles last, as it were appointed to death: for we are made a spectacle unto the world, and to angels, and to men. We are fools for Christ’s sake, but ye are wise in Christ; we are weak but you are strong; ye are honorable, but we are despised. Even unto this present hour we both hunger and thirst, and are naked, and are buffeted, and no certain dwelling place; And labor, working with our own hands; being reviled, we bless; being persecuted, we suffer it; being defamed, we entreat; we are made as the filth of the world, and are the offscouring of all things unto this day…”
Phil.1:20ff- "According to my earnest expectation and hope, that in nothing I shall be ashamed, but that with all boldness, as always, so now also Christ shall be magnified in my body, whether by life or by death. For to me to live is Christ, and to die gain."
Edited by TheInvisibleDanLink to comment
Share on other sites
anotherDan
My first post. Just sought out an active, current, interesting thread... visited here many years ago. I like to read every post before responding, but I just can't this morning! No doubt some fine points were made after page 6. First of all... interesting folks and dynamic.
Shifra, your theory demonstrates a willingness to be free, which is a very good thing, and I applaud you for it. Your comments about the families you assisted in childbirth likewise demonstrate something similar to what God has shown me, as well: there is a lot more diversity to the family of God than the exclusivists declare so boldly. God granted me some amazing interactions with some young Muslim men a few years ago. I'm more sympathetic to Paul's writings than you, but I've had some help: the writings of N.T. Wright. He's Bishop of Durham (Anglican) and has quite a body of work, scholarly and pedestrian. Google him for some interesting discussions about the "new understanding" of Paul, if you like.
Since leaving the Way behind, I've been a voracious reader... almost like I wasn't allowed before! (Only partially true. We build prisons for ourselves, as well.) Favorite authors include F.F. Bruce and Bruce Metzger. William Barclay is also wonderful... universalist though he is... he "almost persuadeth me..." On the more critical side, you might try Heinz W. Cassirer, Grace & Law (subtitle St. Paul, Kant, and the Hebrew Prophets). Interesting guy. A "Jewish classist and philosopher who had not read a word of the Bible before age forty nine." Quote is from the jacket of his translation of the New Testament. Long story short, reading Paul's letters convinced this non-practicing Jew to convert. He had done a lot of translation before this from classical Greek (Aristotle, etc.) Spent his last 21 years studying the Bible. Translation (God's New Covenant) was published posthumously. Grace & Law, while convinced by Paul, offers a searing analysis of Paul's psyche. Not that I agree with this "renowned authority on Aristotle and Kant." Can't think of the author, but another interesting Paul book is Paul's Idea of Community. A great book, though more traditional than N.T. Wright, is F.F. Bruce's Paul: Apostle of the Heart Set Free.
My own mind is that Paul, like myself, experienced something of the living Christ, the resurrected Jesus, the living Lord. It was this experience (which, as we all know, is "no guarantee for truth"!! ha!) recounted in Acts and Paul's epistles that shaped the rest of his life, and (UNlike me!) Christianity as we know it. While I have some (OK, many) lingering questions, I can reconcile Paul with the Gospels, James, and the truth, as I currently understand it.
The salient part of the "new understanding" of Paul relates to "God's righteousness" and the "righteousness" of Jewish practitioners in Paul's day, and it is something I think you already firmly believe: God disapproves of stuck-up exclusivist "believers." The righteousness of God (literally, His faithfulness and love) is contrasted with "their own righteousness," which has to do with their separateness, their reliance on birthright, etc. Both Jesus and Paul hammered them. I'm sure a great number of verses come readily to mind.
Forgive me, but one more point, sort of on topic. Dispensationalism has, in my mind, been a very destructive force dividing the Church into Paulists and Jesus-ists. My pendulum did a lot of swinging when for me, THAT shoe fell! I became extremely repentant of how I'd let MY theology separate me from the commands and teachings of Jesus. This opened up a huge opportunity for me to re-study the Gospels, something I am still doing.
Enjoy the process, my dear. God not only has spoken, but is speaking!
Dan <-- exWay, exWOW (4x), exFamCorps14. Feel free to email me, anyone.
Edited by anotherDanLink to comment
Share on other sites
TheEvan
I've nothing to add, but I enjoyed your post, A. Dan
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Shifra
Welcome to our sharing, "Another Dan". This discussion is a good one, because we are gaining insights as well as fine friends.
I must say I feel a bit inferior among such folks as you guys. But every once in awhile, I have to sit up a little straighter and smile ... like when one of you tells me that Thomas Jefferson was skeptical of Paul too.
Anyhow, "Another Dan", I googled N.T. Wright, as you suggested, and really couldn't grasp what he was saying. Way too intellectual for me. Maybe you could translate?
And "Invisible Dan", I also read the article you suggested about Paul's suspected connections with Nero, who of course was a bad guy who hated and hurt a lot of Christians. The speculation in this article is that Paul's connections with Nero occurred AFTER the events in Acts, as well as BEFORE Paul's zap on the road to Damascus. It sorta matches my proposed scenario that Paul was sent on a mission to destroy, and sent by some anti-Christian agency. It sounds like he was "reporting back" when his mission was accomplished. I clipped a piece of this article. Check it out:
------------------------------------------------------------
The Book of Acts ends with Paul awaiting trial in Rome. Prior to this he had been arrested and detained at Jerusalem (circa 61-62 A.D.) for causing a riot and then appealing to Caesar in his defense. For two years after this (circa 62-63 A.D.), we are told that Paul lived under a nominal house arrest and continued to evangelize boldly. We are not told what happened to Paul at the end of those two years. Nor does the Book of Acts give the slightest premonition of the horrors that so shortly were to come upon Christians in Rome and throughout the empire. One is rather left with the impression that the greatest trials of the new faith were past. According to Josephus however, the most controversial acts of Saul/Paul and those in league with him came not before but after his coveted audience with Nero. For Robert Eisenman, this not only casts a shadow on the finale of Acts but over the entire work.
From Josephus it appears the author of Acts knew that the disposition of Paul’s hearing was just as Paul expected, favorable. Acts could have ended on this particularly high note, but instead leads the quasi-informed reader to assume that Paul in communion with other persecuted Christians was a victim of Nero in 64 A.D. On the other hand, beginning in 63 A.D., Josephus makes Saul the valet of Nero at Jerusalem, and again in 66 A.D. when the Jewish Revolt breaks out. The shocking presence of Paul at the epicenter of that unfolding trauma, very much still alive and kicking at the pricks, naturally places his life and mission in a far more bedazzling light. In response, the New Testament is blinded and cannot speak.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
... So how come he refers to this as "bedazzling"? To me, it sounds like Paul was in cahoots with Nero. Did I get that right?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Abigail
Why are there only two choices? Why only one of two extremes? Why not a balance of something in the middle?
How many people do you know who have never had times when they felt drown trodden, beaten up by the world? Is that not a part of life too?
Can we not live the good life at the proper times, and likewise at the proper times deprive ourselves of earthly pleasures for a time?
Edited by AbigailLink to comment
Share on other sites
anotherDan
Thanks for the welcome and the comments. Shifra, if NT Wright doesn't "speak" to you, I can totally understand. Some of his writings are more accessible than others, and he's quite over my head much of the time! Yet he did help me to appreciate that Paul's writings may have been profoundly misunderstood, particularly from the Reformation onward. He's also great at dispelling the postmodern thinking that fuzzes everything up. (Truth is relative.)
I couldn't find the link you quoted from (the one Invisi-dan suggested); can you repost the link? The quote doesn't make sense to me, because I'm pretty sure that Josephus never mentioned Paul at all in his writings. The quote seems to imply he did.
Part of your theory is that Paul's writings were at cross-purposes with the teachings of Jesus. (Am I correct?) Perhaps part of the conversation could focus on that. My understanding of your position is that the Gospels are more to be trusted than what is purported to be the writings of Paul. I may be over-stating your case, I'm not sure. You wrote emphatically that you're Christian. In this part of your journey, do you feel the Gospels can be trusted?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jeaniam
During my recent stay in Washington D.C., I had the privilege of spending some time in the Jefferson Memorial, and reading some of his writings that are engraved on the walls. It seems that Jefferson deplored the continuing practice of slavery, and foresaw the coming conflict that it would eventually cause many years before the actual Civil War. I have a vague notion that he arranged for the liberation of his slaves on the occasion of his death, but I could be mistaken.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Shifra
Good mornin' !
Abigail, your picture shows a sweet little girl, but when I read your posts, I imagine you as a very wise old woman. Please take this as the ultimate compliment from me. I have been with the Crow Indians long enough to pick up how they treasure the wisdom of the old ones. So much to learn.
Another Dan, go to page 9 of this thread and scroll down to the 4th post. It's from Invisible Dan, and it gives the site for the article about Nero.
And yes, I think you've got the gist of my "theory". Good question ... about whether I believe the Gospels are for real. Yep. No problem there. I'm sure we don't quite understand all of it, but to me the Gospels offer hope for freedom and a clearer sense of how much God values us (so in turn, how much we are actually worth!) Paul, however, lays down the law while simultaneously telling us we're free. He's confusing, and scary and his teachings are ripe for controversy - which I think was his whole purpose - while the teachings of Jesus are simple and clear. Also, Jesus never makes himself out to be the big shot, but Paul is boastful.
Where's DrWW and Eeyore?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Larry N Moore
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Abigail
ROFLOL - that picture is a picture of me as a girl. I think it was taken at my dad's house when I was somewhere between 8 and 10. I am 40 now, BTW.
But thank you, I get the heart behind what you said. :) :wub:
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Shifra
After a little retreat from this topic, I've had another thought pop up, in part prompted by AnotherDan's "survey" thread. What about this? Do you really think the ticket to eternal life is as simple as Romans 10:9-10? Not only the Way, but a whole lot of evangelical groups take great pride keeping tally of how many people they have "saved", based on their "confession" of these two verses Paul wrote.
But then there's the Nicodemus story about getting born again, starring none other than JC himself - part of AnotherDan's survey.
So ... whichi is it? Paul's route is easier. Could this be another con to divert believers who were actually doing their best to follow Jesus? Was Paul giving them a false shortcut with these two verses? Jesus asks us to be born again, which involves a major switch in our thinking. Shoot, several of us are seeing therapists to switch our old TWI thinking. Getting born again is way bigger than dumping Waybrain. I don't know. Too much thinking for this lady.
Faith, works, Paul, Jesus, PFAL, Prevailing Word in the Promised Land. Give me some chocolate ... now.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
cman
All have eternal life.
It's just a matter of when one sees it.
If all do not have eternal life then the hate groups are right and war and murders are justified.
As well as cults (another word for hate group) and torture and forcing beliefs onto others.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Abigail
I guess I more or less believe in reincarnation. Our souls come back again and again until they have gained the wisdom they need.
God says he will write his word in our hearts. Does he do that because one spoke forth a couple of verses? What about those who never even heard the verses, do they just miss out?
I believe the wisdom we gain through living is the process by which God writes his word in our hearts.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Shifra
That's awesome, guys. Just doubting a little further the "apostleship" of Paul. Wondering about how he maybe minimized the Christian lifestyle by suggesting that a couple of verses would do the trick, lifestyle or no.
When I thought about this shortcut to heaven, it reminded me of when I was a little girl, and I watched the "Peter Pan" movie. When Peter was teaching Wendy and her brothers how to fly, he said, "Just think good thoughts, add a little Pixie Dust, and jump!"
After my family got home from the theatre, we all went to bed, thinking about the movie. Late that night, I got up, sneaked into the bathroom, put the lid down on the toilet, climbed up and stood on it, thought good thoughts ... and jumped. When I hit the floor, I woke up everyone else in the family, who all came running and laughed and laughed! My big brother told me the problem - no Pixie Dust.
Edited by ShifraLink to comment
Share on other sites
anotherDan
Honestly, I don't think Paul offered any shortcut at all. TWI as well as many denominations might make a shortcut of it, but to both Paul and Jesus, the process of salvation was just that, a process, and it included sanctification, a righteousness that exceeded the righteousness of the Pharisees (and no, it wasn't a fairyDust implication of righteousness ala PFAL and dispensationalism, wrapped in "spiritual celophane.")
(((((( shifra )))))))'
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Shifra
Mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
Thanks!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
anotherDan
For the chocolate, or the words?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Shifra
Both.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sushi
At the risk of permanently killing yet another thread, I post this at the request of my lovely bride.
(Again, there is the use of 'adult' language, so be ye forewarned)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.