Thus Saith Paul

[Broken Arrow]

It is interesting to note how most modern Christians unquestionably accept the canonization of scripture which was done by a Roman pope well after the death of the apostles. That very well may be a flawed major premise in VPW's whole approach. The OT seems to be relatively well packaged with the "jots and tittles". The NT, not so much - harmony of the gospels has seen plenty of struggles, even if the 4 viewpoints approach is valid. The different letters, extrapolating to THE answer to EVERYTHING FOR ALL time may be a leap - they were personal to an individual or a church. Dispensationalism, or administrations - TWI's teachings on the tithe and debt have so many logical disparities that all the distinctions taught there may not be as distinct as you would think - people like things fitting into nice little buckets.

Can I still believe "holy men of God wrote as they were inspired by the Holy Ghost"? Yes. I think so. Inspiration is the basis for all good writing. What about contradictions? Well, people in and of themselves are inherent contradictions, so that's no surprise.

First of all...you're right. Most Christians accept the canonization of scripture without question and that is unfortunate. I'll take that one step further and I think you'll agree. Most people believe what they believe without putting much thought into it.

By the way, canonization of scripture was not done by a Roman pope. No doubt you are referring to Constantine. Constantine called a meeting, or council of bishops (which in those days just meant leaders. Not like the Roman Catholic Bishops of today) to determine and organize the beliefs of the Christian Church (I'm sure someone more educated in church history is grimacing right now, but this is roughly the purpose of the council.) I believe it was the Council of Nicea. Out of that came the canonization we have today. The choices were not as arbitrary as VPW made it sound back in the day. Part of the major criteria was what was already being accepted as scripture in the existing Christian churces. Some of the writings were letters to individuals or individual churches, some were not. I don't believe there are claims in any of the scriptures that state that it has the answers for everything for all time.

[Broken Arrow]

Imagine.. in about 7/10 of a second, one finds all one believed to be well.. wrong.. what would you do?

it may happen one day..

I don't have to wait 7/10 of a second...I'm wrong about stuff all the time not the least of which was TWI. I would say, in the most authoritative, spiritual tone I could muster..."oops!" Hell, that could be a mantra for me! Is there some deep point you're trying to make here that I'm not seeing?

Edited February 4, 2010 by erkjohn

[Broken Arrow]

A thousand years from now-----

"He sacrificed his very own eye for his keeeds. And, when that wasn't enough, he turned his face to the wall and, with a broken heart and shattered liver, was heard to say, 'I wish I was a man. I know I could have been.'"

So much for you not wanting to impugn the character of the Apostle Paul, eh? There is not one shred of evidence that equates the conduct of the Apostle Paul with VPW. There are other profane writings that were written during the time of Paul plus I've already mentioned in other posts the way the believers, especially the Apostles related and approached Paul. There is no evidence that he was a womanizer, drunkard, glutton, thief etc. after his conversion.

Edited February 4, 2010 by erkjohn

[waysider]

I don't have to wait 7/10 of a second...I'm wrong about stuff all the time not the least of which was TWI. I would say, in the most authoritative, spiritual tone I could muster..."oops!" Hell, that could be a mantra for me! Is there some deep point you're trying to make here that I'm not seeing?

Hey! No fair.

"OOPS!" is MY mantra.

Get your own.

[Broken Arrow]

Hey! No fair.

"OOPS!" is MY mantra.

Get your own.

Um...okay..."whoops!"

[geisha779]

You're kiddin', right?

"All prophesy of the scripture is God breathed"

How do we know that's true?

Well, it says so in the scriptures and because "All prophesy of the scripture is God breathed", it must be true.

:blink:

Kinda reminds me of that song by Nick Lowe (a man)-----

No I wasn't kidding. We know that it is true . . . . when it comes to pass in the course of human history.

[waysider]

Um...okay..."whoops!"

[WordWolf]

Sometimes things get silly with people, and they argue. So at the heart of this is whether or not the Bible is God's Word, or whether it simply contains God's words. Now then,... which parts do we start crossing out? I am reminded of the Movie - Galaxy Quest and the references to the "Historical Record". Pretty funny stuff!

Maybe the whole Bible was just a TV show and the writers were really really slow at writing the episodes.

Maybe, in spite of all that was wrong with the Way, man's basic spriitual problem really is..... ,,,eh?

Well we get to choose, don't we?

We had a thread a while back that began with a very short post.

It said that "man's basic spiritual problem" is SIN.

I can't argue with that, myself.

[penworks]

Well, to me it's a matter of holding a certain viewpoint as to whether or not we get a story with so much continuity etc. as Geisha stated, "how we got a story full of continuity and congruence over 3 continents, 3 languages, 1500 years, 66 books, and 40 authors from all walks of life telling one story about one particular man to come . . . having arrived. . . did what He did and left. .. promising to return."

This is wide open for interpretation and debate and in my view most likely belongs in the doctrinal forum.

[chockfull]

First of all...you're right. Most Christians accept the canonization of scripture without question and that is unfortunate. I'll take that one step further and I think you'll agree. Most people believe what they believe without putting much thought into it.

By the way, canonization of scripture was not done by a Roman pope. No doubt you are referring to Constantine. Constantine called a meeting, or council of bishops (which in those days just meant leaders. Not like the Roman Catholic Bishops of today) to determine and organize the beliefs of the Christian Church (I'm sure someone more educated in church history is grimacing right now, but this is roughly the purpose of the council.) I believe it was the Council of Nicea. Out of that came the canonization we have today. The choices were not as arbitrary as VPW made it sound back in the day. Part of the major criteria was what was already being accepted as scripture in the existing Christian churces. Some of the writings were letters to individuals or individual churches, some were not. I don't believe there are claims in any of the scriptures that state that it has the answers for everything for all time.

Good thoughts, erkjohn.

I'm certainly not the Catholic history buff. But yes, they've always functioned holding "traditions of the church" as paramount.

On the claims of the scriptures, there is 2 Peter 1:3 (NIV) His divine power has given us everything we need for life and godliness through our knowledge of him who called us by his own glory and goodness.

[geisha779]

Well, to me it's a matter of holding a certain viewpoint as to whether or not we get a story with so much continuity etc. as Geisha stated, "how we got a story full of continuity and congruence over 3 continents, 3 languages, 1500 years, 66 books, and 40 authors from all walks of life telling one story about one particular man to come . . . having arrived. . . did what He did and left. .. promising to return."

This is wide open for interpretation and debate and in my view most likely belongs in the doctrinal forum.

Well, it wasn't really offered for debate. . . it was a declarative statement concerning how "inspiration" was an explanation for me concerning the continuity of the bible. So, no worries :) . . . I wasn't really speaking for anyone else. . . . it is okay to make declarative statements concerning my own reasoning. . . right?

Although, now I am really amused.

Continuity is a reason why the NT books were chosen. . . . why we even have a canon. . . a man made later canon . . which is apparently why some do not believe the validity of the bible. It is the definitive revelation of Jesus Christ with Apostolic validity and authority for the Church concerning faith and life. That is the purpose of the bible.

It would make better sense to argue it is a contrived continuity.

I can't help it if a Messiah is the subject matter of scripture . . . of the bible. . . the OT foretelling . . . the NT affirming Jesus as the Messiah . . . and of course the whole point of the Christian faith. I didn't write scripture. . .or put it together in a book. I simply believe it. A cursory reading reveals consistent subject matter.

But, I wasn't trying to speak on behalf of anyone else.

____________________________________________________________

WordWolf's amazingly astute comments in the doctrinal forum really struck me yesterday. He was not speaking to this topic, but, for me, they resonated here.

"The books of the book (the codex, really) span thousands of years. Just because they're

not written in the CURRENT style is no reason, in and of itself, to throw up one's hands

and say "it's illogical, it's anti-science, it's anti-reason."

Of course, if one has ALREADY MADE UP THEIR MIND to dismiss the Bible, it doesn't matter

WHAT the contents say, the only thing one will see is pretexts to ignore it, and a reasoned

discussion is already precluded. "

[waysider]

I can't help it if a Messiah is the subject matter of scripture . . . of the bible. . . the OT foretelling . . . the NT affirming Jesus as the Messiah . . . and of course the whole point of the Christian faith. I didn't write scripture. . .or put it together in a book. I simply believe it. A cursory reading reveals consistent subject matter.

I don't know. It seems to me like a good part of the modern Christian faith is not so much based on Jesus but on what Paul said in the Epistles. At least that was the case in The Way.

Edited February 5, 2010 by waysider

[Tzaia]

Of course, if one has ALREADY MADE UP THEIR MIND to dismiss the Bible, it doesn't matter WHAT the contents say, the only thing one will see is pretexts to ignore it, and a reasoned discussion is already precluded. "

Of course, if one has ALREADY MADE UP THEIR MIND to dismiss the Bible, it doesn't matter WHAT the contents say, the only thing one will see is pretexts to ignore it, and a reasoned discussion is already precluded.

It works both ways.

[Jim]

I'm not saying Paul would not have garnered a following if he had been a Wierwille, Smith, etc. My point is that the mainstream church would not have embraced his writings had his conduct been as such. The church in Jerusalem along with its leadership as well as the churches in Rome, Antioch and what was then considered Asia all recognized and accepted Paul's leadership. If he had been a Wierwille, Smith etc., he would have been branded a false teacher by those churches. It was not as if those churches had not pointed out other false teachers and warned their fellow Christians about them. I'm suggesting as evidence of his authenticity the way he was accepted by his peers whom we know were true believers. That is, the Apostles at Jerusalem along with James and Barnabus. "Run out of town on a rail" is probably a bad choice of metaphor but I used it to indicate the mainstream church would not have embraced him had he been a womanizer, glutton, drunkard, and pedophile.

I feel myself being pulled into the vortex of circular logic again.

The record of Paul was written by people that loved Paul. Just as VPW was described by us to others in the 70's, those records may not reflect the true Paul. We don't know. Or rather, I don't know. You are convinced that you know and that's ok, but I don't. Mohammad gained a huge following and is venerated amongst the Muslims at least as much as Paul is amongst Christians. Can we apply that as a standard of goodness or rightness or righteousness?

[Tzaia]

I feel myself being pulled into the vortex of circular logic again.

The record of Paul was written by people that loved Paul. Just as VPW was described by us to others in the 70's, those records may not reflect the true Paul. We don't know. Or rather, I don't know. You are convinced that you know and that's ok, but I don't. Mohammad gained a huge following and is venerated amongst the Muslims at least as much as Paul is amongst Christians. Can we apply that as a standard of goodness or rightness or righteousness?

If you don't mind, may I take this a bit further? Paul's own writings were from his own convictions. Those who wrote about Paul and in support of Paul were by people who loved and cared about Paul. He was not taught by the master himself, or anyone who had a personal relationship with the master. Everything he taught was revealed by the hs, which (to me) is something that is obviously flawed. It has come to Paul's word being as good as Jesus' when there is no evidence to suggest that he ever had any real authority other than what he bestowed on himself.

We really don't know what the (supposed) "false" teachers and "false" prophets said, other than disagreeing with Paul. It is clear that Paul and Peter (to a certain extent) quickly moved away from strict Jewish observances. What is not clear, but what appears to be somewhat alluded to (by the absence of) is that Peter and Paul probably had a falling out over how far to take that.

What I find more than a bit puzzling is that most of what we take as "true" Christianity comes from someone whose only encounter with his savior was through a miracle, and the people who actually hung out with this savior and were taught by this savior personally became afterthoughts.

[penworks]

Nicely put, Taz.

Now a word from our sponsor...

Argument clinic

[geisha779]

If you don't mind, may I take this a bit further? Paul's own writings were from his own convictions. Those who wrote about Paul and in support of Paul were by people who loved and cared about Paul. He was not taught by the master himself, or anyone who had a personal relationship with the master. Everything he taught was revealed by the hs, which (to me) is something that is obviously flawed. It has come to Paul's word being as good as Jesus' when there is no evidence to suggest that he ever had any real authority other than what he bestowed on himself.

We really don't know what the (supposed) "false" teachers and "false" prophets said, other than disagreeing with Paul. It is clear that Paul and Peter (to a certain extent) quickly moved away from strict Jewish observances. What is not clear, but what appears to be somewhat alluded to (by the absence of) is that Peter and Paul probably had a falling out over how far to take that.

What I find more than a bit puzzling is that most of what we take as "true" Christianity comes from someone whose only encounter with his savior was through a miracle, and the people who actually hung out with this savior and were taught by this savior personally became afterthoughts.

And how did your encounter with Jesus come about? Seriously, don't you do some kind of worship thing with a church? You must worship the Lord if you participate or plan music for worship service?

It can't just all be an exercise in futility?

______________________

One would think that out of all the people on this planet. . . . ex-way would be the last people to say something like (supposed) false teachers. . .we know they preached another gospel(Paul) . . . . we know they denied Jesus Christ had come in the flesh(John). . . . we know their characteristics(Peter). . . We know they came into the church with stealth(Jude)We know they come as wolves in sheep's clothing(Jesus)

We know they make merchandise of people, have eyes full of adultery, and like to argue over words. . . . we know they speak perverse things. . . . . we know they don't spare the flock, and we know the way of truth will be maligned because of them.(Yeah, I wanna still carry THAT banner) We know they live lives of sensuality. We know they are motivated by greed. We know they turn the grace of God into a license to sin.

And from some church fathers we know some of their names. . . .their canon. . . . what they taught . . . and where their churches were.

We don't even need to bother with all that . . . just read these frickin forums!!!

And someone thought Paul had authority because he founded most of the churches. He was a missionary who carried the light to the gentiles. If you want to get technical about it he actually fulfilled the second part of Jesus ministry. . . .and we do still have a church to this day.

Wow.

[waysider]

We only "know" these things because we read them in the epistles.

[geisha779]

We only "know" these things because we read them in the epistles.

You know. . . there is not much I can say to that. . . I am gobsmacked.

The advantage you have to see the relevance of Paul's words is staggering. There validity can be borne out by your own experience sitting under the "teacher". You lived it.

I have no possible idea how to respond to your comment.

[waysider]

"You lived it"???

What does that mean? We didn't live it. We only pretended to live it. There is nothing about the way we tried to mimic "life in the first century church" that even remotely resembles the original. Not the culture, not the structure, not the daily routines. Nothing. I spent multiple years in a program that was supposed to replicate the way "believers" lived in the first century. You know what? It was really just an exercise in communal living. That's all it was. A commune with a religious twist.

[Jim]

Well said Tzaia and Waysider.

Edited February 6, 2010 by Jim

[Ham]

I dunno..

did Paul "see the light"? Maybe that's the question..

a lot of us have seen that..

this lifetime, I turned my back to using it to my advantage..

no followers, no persecution.. no nonsense.. I make a difference, one soul at a time, when I am allowed..

does this make sense, or is it just the rambling of a half-crazed Squirrel..

[Tzaia]

I don't know if I'm living "it". I do know that I'm moving further way from Paul's version of Christianity and trying to move closer to what Jesus actually taught. Jesus didn't demand worship of him and what he was doing. He wanted people to do what he was doing - and in my mind there is a significant difference.

[Jim]

did Paul "see the light"? Maybe that's the question..

Don't think that's the question. VPW, Joseph Smith and Mohammad all saw the light.

[waysider]

Even HANK SR. saw the light.