geish - there is merit to the message from Paul - for the most part. It's the god-breathed part that is suspect. For instance, do we as women refrain from cutting our hair because of something Paul said? I can think of 3 Christian denominations off the top of my head that demand that women not cut their hair - based on that one scripture. Women serving in a leadership capacity - I think Paul said something about that in what - 2 places? That's good enough for several mainstream denominations to exclude women from ordination and eldership. On the other hand, how many have excluded themselves from leadership based on the letter to Timothy? Not that many. How convenient.
Clearly he says many things that are worth listening to and living by. The problem is where to draw the line. The problem has always been where to draw the line. It's pretty hard to find that sweet spot where to draw the line when someone thinks that everything that he wrote down and said is as though it came right from god's mouth.
Paul had his detractors. We don't know who they were or what they preached, but the truth is that it probably wasn't much different than what we experienced in TWI when VPW died and others looked to unseat Craig by sending out letters like the PoP and the 37 page letter from the people who eventually formed CES. TWI wasn't successful in destroying the letters and what was written caused some people to question TWI and eventually caused a lot of damage. Paul didn't get into what was being taught by these detractors, only that it was being done and not to believe them - sorta like what TWI did. I bet that more than a few left over the disagreements. Just like we left. One has to go outside the "bible" to find out what some of the differences were. Then people did whatever they could do to destroy those teachings that didn't agree with Paul. Those that weren't destroyed were hid away - buried and forgotten about, until someone dug them up. We have no idea what else is out there. Then we have the problem of people who did agree with Paul, but didn't agree with what Paul meant. This is parallel to what is taking place in TWI and STF right now.
There are no discussions in scripture about Paul's weaknesses - only that he had some. The truth is that we really don't know the content of his character and I personally believe what we do have is a highly sanitized version of who he was, and that is because a few someones made a decision about what to include well before there was any "canon" of scripture; well before any of the words were considered "holy". The idea that god had a hand in that process is just that - an idea, and I believe it's mainly to discourage people from having these kinds of conversations. But I think we need to remember that it isn't a fact. Amazingly enough, the canon of scripture really wasn't regarded as "god breathed" until well after the decisions were made. Conversely, the Jewish bible has never been regarded as god-breathed to the Jews. It is continually under scrutiny.
Let me say ahead of time that I'm reporting was is widely known, not my opinion.
2 Tim. 3:16 in GREEK does not contain the word IS. The first is, that is. In other words, All Scripture God breathed is profitable.... I quit trying to refute this. Perhaps if we look at it in this light, some of our questions can be answered. If truly God did not breathe ALL scripture but the scripture He did inspire is profitable for doctrine, reproof and correction, then clearly not all scripture came from His Lips. This would surely explain "contradictions", how many roosters crowed, how many were crucified, what day of the week the crucifixion took place, how Noah could have possible told the difference between a male and female cockroach, etc. If our salvation does not depend (and I repeat myself) on whether or not we cut our hair, or if women have to shut up in the church, etc., then let's just friggin forgetaboutit. Of course, as for Paul, when all is said and done, not only was he human, he was a man! (Just throwing that in for the sistas!)
I think Paul was actually trying to introduce LSD and the Grateful Dead in the first century. I wish you could hear it in the original concert bootleg recording.
I think Paul was actually trying to introduce LSD and the Grateful Dead in the first century. I wish you could hear it in the original concert bootleg recording.
Nonsense!
The Grateful Dead were still in Jr. High in the first century.
geish - there is merit to the message from Paul - for the most part. It's the god-breathed part that is suspect. For instance, do we as women refrain from cutting our hair because of something Paul said? I can think of 3 Christian denominations off the top of my head that demand that women not cut their hair - based on that one scripture. Women serving in a leadership capacity - I think Paul said something about that in what - 2 places? That's good enough for several mainstream denominations to exclude women from ordination and eldership. On the other hand, how many have excluded themselves from leadership based on the letter to Timothy? Not that many. How convenient.
When I speak of the merit of Paul's message, I may actually mean something other than what you might think. Because it is a message to the church about God, I mean to consider first his teaching on the Messiah, which is the focal point of our faith. . . . if he is the least bit wrong in his usage of the OT, the foretelling of Christ, and what he says about Jesus after Jesus' death and resurrection, and also what he, Paul says Jesus will do in the future, then its merit is suspect. If Paul epistles were not God-breathed(and that is a bit different than TWI's take on inspiration IMO) than all of it is useless. . . because Paul is a sociopath and a liar. For him to lie like that about God is an egregious act. People were severely judged by God in the OT for just such acts . . . . Paul was a religious zealot at one time. . . . he would have known this and believed it.
How could Paul. . . . writing out of his own situation. . . give us the criteria for what spiritual influences are of God? He could not. He wasn't conveying a cake recipe. Paul spoke authoritatively. Albeit, with humility. Either he was equipped with spiritual gifts and specific ministries of Apostle, teacher etc . . . . or he was crazy. Paul's writing is a reflection of his gifts and education . . . they also reveal a very disciplined mind.One also has to look at who was supporting Paul. . . . Luke, Peter and the gang. They all become suspect, and don't forget. . . . Peter was with the Lord. How far do you have to take this. . . all the way.
Tzaia you are a smart woman, and you know as well as I do that cultural norms change, but the demeanor behind a custom can still be kept. If people want to take things to such extremes it may be they are missing the true demeanor Paul was conveying when addressing a specific issue such as hair length. In that culture only a prostitute or a radical feminist would shave her head . . . . if a woman, not just religious, rejected a covering, which was a symbol of cultural submission . . . it brought shame. It is not a law from God but, a cultural custom.
Paul also got on the rich who would bring food to the observance of the Lord's supper and not share with the poor. That specific rebuke carries a demeanor behind it. . . . also the wealthier women were adorning their hair with jewels . . . . causing the poorer women, jealousy. It became a distraction from the Lord.
Are you sure that it is simply two verses which are the basis for the exclusion of women in certain positions in some denominations? I ask because there is a whole theological case made for this exclusion. Not of a womans value or worth or intellect or ability, but of order and unique function. I am not making a judgment on it as correct, but theologically I understand the perspective. We are designed right down to the nitty gritty to be complimentary to each other as male and female. I could not agree MORE about your perspective on many men and Timothy though. Thought it myself many times. . .
Clearly he says many things that are worth listening to and living by. The problem is where to draw the line. The problem has always been where to draw the line. It's pretty hard to find that sweet spot where to draw the line when someone thinks that everything that he wrote down and said is as though it came right from god's mouth.
Just as you would be culturally sensitive in another culture . . . our approach to Paul's epistles in light of cultural sensitivity clarifies many issues. I think that the reason some of these things are even included in scripture are for a church to have a map. . . boundaries, and they are coarse boundaries, and an understanding of demeanor. You wouldn't show up for a board meeting with a boom box and ripped jeans? You would not apply for a bank loan wearing a tee-shirt tat says "I am so broke I can't pay attention". Same principle.
I understand the frustration, but as Christians we belong to a church. . . first and foremost our demeanor has to reflect the love we have for one another . . . it is all useless without that. We also need a certain humility(which I have yet to get) in receiving help, instruction, and support with these questions. . . . from each other. There are teachers within the church, but I really understand once bitten . . . . but, it is a mutual reaffirmation of our basic faith, which helps us understand what has been communicated in scripture. How we approach scripture. . . . I believe, determines how we read it. As Christians, we have an example in Jesus and his approach to the written word. He really didn't say too much that was new. . . . it was HOW he revealed it.
Paul had his detractors. We don't know who they were or what they preached, but the truth is that it probably wasn't much different than what we experienced in TWI when VPW died and others looked to unseat Craig by sending out letters like the PoP and the 37 page letter from the people who eventually formed CES. TWI wasn't successful in destroying the letters and what was written caused some people to question TWI and eventually caused a lot of damage. Paul didn't get into what was being taught by these detractors, only that it was being done and not to believe them - sorta like what TWI did. I bet that more than a few left over the disagreements. Just like we left. One has to go outside the "bible" to find out what some of the differences were. Then people did whatever they could do to destroy those teachings that didn't agree with Paul. Those that weren't destroyed were hid away - buried and forgotten about, until someone dug them up. We have no idea what ewere else is out there. Then we have the problem of people who did agree with Paul, but didn't agree with what Paul meant. This is parallel to what is taking place in TWI and STF right now.
We don't know what region they came from, but we do understand from Paul addressing the specific issues that they were teaching salvation dependent on circumcision and keeping feasts. . . . the calendar of fasts. . . . and becoming full blown proselytes of Judaism. In other words, putting people, gentiles, under the law. This is in direct contradiction to the gospel, the whole idea that salvation is attainable through works, is not the gospel, but what we were set free from. They were putting people in bondage while promising freedom. Same as TWI. Liberty is in Christ alone.
There are a couple schools of thought on where they were from. One is from Acts 15 and the Jewish Christians from the strict Jewish wing of the Jerusalem church, remember that church was under James. The other is they were Galatians who were gentiles and had no clue about Jewish Christianity . . . other than what they caught from Paul. We do however, know of some of the other groups infiltrating the church . . . a great deal from the church fathers. The gnostics. Peter and John dealt with them, but Paul would have run into them as well. All we have to do is compare the gospel with what they were teaching.
There are no discussions in scripture about Paul's weaknesses - only that he had some. The truth is that we really don't know the content of his character and I personally believe what we do have is a highly sanitized version of who he was, and that is because a few someones made a decision about what to include well before there was any "canon" of scripture; well before any of the words were considered "holy". The idea that god had a hand in that process is just that - an idea, and I believe it's mainly to discourage people from having these kinds of conversations. But I think we need to remember that it isn't a fact. Amazingly enough, the canon of scripture really wasn't regarded as "god breathed" until well after the decisions were made. Conversely, the Jewish bible has never been regarded as god-breathed to the Jews. It is continually under scrutiny.
TZ. . . . Peter denied the Lord, David was a murderer, Jonah was disobedient, James was with the Pharisees, the other James and other John got their mama in the middle of a fight over who would sit right and left in heaven. . . . Sarah laughed at God . . . . Paul was the first one to call himself, chief among sinners. . . . least of the Apostles. . . . no news flash here. If it is a sanitized version. . . . they forgot quite a few things.
It's sweet to be able to say I agree, Geisha. I love agreeing. I also love disagreeing though because it allows that further scrutiny. There is one point, however (of course), that I'm not so sure on. You said Jesus didn't say anything new. I don't know about that. Maybe not new in the sense of there's no new thing under the sun, but he did do things that seemed new to the people in his time. The Jews in no way wanted to play nice with the Gentiles. Over and over again Jesus played nice with them anyway. Even John the Baptist had to send his disciples to ask if Jesus was the one who was the come. Obviously he knew who Jesus was. He said as much when he baptized him, his mom prophesied about Jesus, they were cousins for pete's sake. But, Jesus wasn't doing what everyone expected him to do, John included. He wasn't overthrowing the government and crowning Israel triumphant. As far as I can tell the prophesies in the Old Testament about the Messiah were not recognized as such until after the resurrection. Hindsight is a wonderful thing and a curse at the same time. Even the apostles didn't get it until after the resurrection.
Jesus loved to use the Samaritans as examples. Plenty of Samaritans knew the Old Testament. They had Hebrew blood. The woman at the well knew about the Messiah. Once again, Jesus did the unexpected. Not only was she a Samaritan, she was a woman! Same with the lepers, et al. He constantly broke tradition. Whores? Sure, they were no different to the Lord, only to the people he lived among.
Yes, the old testament said love your neighbor. But, someone had to ask Jesus who is my neighbor? His answer would probably disgust most of us today if you switch the word Samaritan to the word terrorist, for example. Jesus' answer was go into a place you don't want to go, help out someone you consider an enemy, who is wounded, touch him (what if he has AIDS?), help him, put him on your bike and you walk beside him, get him to the ER, pay for his care and come back and make sure he's taken care of. Right.
(It's easy to love someone who loves you back; what about our enemies?)
I think Jesus' answer to John the Baptist was his way of saying it wasn't the time for Israel. It was time to heal, time to love, time to bring people together.... Look what I've done, John. I've healed the sick, the lame walk, the blind see. That's what I have come to do. So, what exactly is it WE are here to do?
And, of course, let's throw women into the stew for a second. Luke and Acts and countless other places show the importance women played in getting the Word out. They financed Jesus! How could anyone honestly consider women second-class citizens? It had to be custom.... Jesus surely didn't exempt himself from women. Women weren't the ones who turned away. Shoot, he appeared to a woman first when he was resurrected.
What I wonder is.. what would Paul say, confronted by a lot of modern opinion that he was some kind of saint.. that he breathed out the breath of gawd.. along with the statues and such.. murals.. some people clinging onto every recorded word he uttered like it were God himself..
if it were the vicster, I think he would think its a "hoot"..
There are no discussions in scripture about Paul's weaknesses - only that he had some. The truth is that we really don't know the content of his character and I personally believe what we do have is a highly sanitized version of who he was...
I really don't see Paul's character or background as being sanitized. We know that he approved the stoning of Stephen and stood by as it happened. We also know that he "began to destroy the church. Going from house to house, he dragged off men and women and put them in prison" (Acts 8:3). And right up until his conversion he was "still breathing out murderous threats against the Lord's disciples" (Acts 9:1).
You can't really sanitize that can you? It would seem that the only way to be redeemeded of that reputation is to get a pass from The Man Himslef.
I really don't see Paul's character or background as being sanitized. We know that he approved the stoning of Stephen and stood by as it happened. We also know that he "began to destroy the church. Going from house to house, he dragged off men and women and put them in prison" (Acts 8:3). And right up until his conversion he was "still breathing out murderous threats against the Lord's disciples" (Acts 9:1).
You can't really sanitize that can you? It would seem that the only way to be redeemeded of that reputation is to get a pass from The Man Himslef.
JMHO
And I might add to that that Paul obviously had wanderlust before and after his conversion!Also, he was obviously a driven man who took his beliefs to the extreme, good or bad. It took someone with those qualities to light a match to the first century church's behind. He knew there was a Messiah coming, he was a Pharisee. But, he had to rethink his beliefs (hence his few years sabbatical) and adjust them accordingly and then he was able to use what he learned and how he figured it out, to teach others. I love how God's providence shines through with the people He chose/chooses. Think about Moses, who better to lead Israel through the desert than someone who had just spent 40 years roaming around in it? Just one example....
I really don't see Paul's character or background as being sanitized. We know that he approved the stoning of Stephen and stood by as it happened. We also know that he "began to destroy the church. Going from house to house, he dragged off men and women and put them in prison" (Acts 8:3). And right up until his conversion he was "still breathing out murderous threats against the Lord's disciples" (Acts 9:1).
You can't really sanitize that can you? It would seem that the only way to be redeemeded of that reputation is to get a pass from The Man Himslef.
JMHO
You bring up a good point. Much was written about all the stuff he did before, but once he converted most of that behavior just went away. He was a changed man. Radical conversion. Well except for that incident with Barnabas over John Mark. No blame was assigned. I read one commentary about it being ok because it wasn't a doctrinal dispute, rather it was a falling out over a difference of opinion. Really?
One of the things I've noticed about human nature is the tendency to overlook the bad in someone that is liked, respected, or admired and overlook the good in someone that is detested.
What he did was call out and ordain people who agreed with him, encouraged people to shun and avoid people who didn't agree with him, tell people how to run their fellowships, what to teach, what to wear, how to live - all by the presumed authority given to him by Jesus himself - whom he never met in life. People just did it, ironically on the basis of Barnabas' testimony about Paul.
The same thing happened in TWI. It had to since TWI patterned itself after the first century church (more accurately Paul's church).
I'm not saying that Paul was bad, or anything like that. What I am saying is that we (as a species) were bestowed with the ability to be mindful, and I believe* we need to
Yes, the old testament said love your neighbor. But, someone had to ask Jesus who is my neighbor? His answer would probably disgust most of us today if you switch the word Samaritan to the word terrorist, for example. Jesus' answer was go into a place you don't want to go, help out someone you consider an enemy, who is wounded, touch him (what if he has AIDS?), help him, put him on your bike and you walk beside him, get him to the ER, pay for his care and come back and make sure he's taken care of. Right.
(It's easy to love someone who loves you back; what about our enemies?)
Judging from Jesus' words, a "neighbor" isn't just anybody (i.e. the guy next door), but somebody who helps another, someone with good intentions.
I found this teaching to be quite sobering. My selfish motto nowadays is something along the lines of, "No good deed goes unpunished." lol (just kidding...I try, I try.)
Judging from Jesus' words, a "neighbor" isn't just anybody (i.e. the guy next door), but somebody who helps another, someone with good intentions.
I found this teaching to be quite sobering. My selfish motto nowadays is something along the lines of, "No good deed goes unpunished." lol (just kidding...I try, I try.)
In rereading what I posted, I guess it could be taken to mean just someone far away and not your neighbor also. That's not really what Jesus did. He took care of things as he went along. Sure, sometimes he went out of his way to get somewhere to do something special, but mostly not, I think. If this is where TWI got their WOW ideas, etc. shame on them. Shoot, shame on them anyway. Plenty of people in Acts owned homes and stayed put. Don't get me started.... :wacko:
The "nostalgia for research" article/thread prompted me to contemplate the significance of "inerrancy".
...
What if Paul was really a forerunner of what we now call "con men"? What if Paul was the VPWFHDAT? (VPW for his day and time) It certainly shines a very different light on the importance and "inerrancy" of The Epistles.
Getting back to the OP...
I was never sold on the inerrancy thing to begin with. But, if we were to discount all of the Pauline epistles as the writings of a "con-man", we would still have, NT-wise, the four gospels, the Book of Acts, Hebrews (I think), and Revelation.
Yeah...it would be a much smaller book, I suppose.
I was never sold on the inerrancy thing to begin with. But, if we were to discount all of the Pauline epistles as the writings of a "con-man", we would still have, NT-wise, the four gospels, the Book of Acts, Hebrews (I think), and Revelation.
Yeah...it would be a much smaller book, I suppose.
If that is the case I gotta got with the LSD and the Grateful Dead - thanks anyway
It's sweet to be able to say I agree, Geisha. I love agreeing. I also love disagreeing though because it allows that further scrutiny. There is one point, however (of course), that I'm not so sure on. You said Jesus didn't say anything new. I don't know about that. Maybe not new in the sense of there's no new thing under the sun, but he did do things that seemed new to the people in his time. The Jews in no way wanted to play nice with the Gentiles. Over and over again Jesus played nice with them anyway. Even John the Baptist had to send his disciples to ask if Jesus was the one who was the come. Obviously he knew who Jesus was. He said as much when he baptized him, his mom prophesied about Jesus, they were cousins for pete's sake. But, Jesus wasn't doing what everyone expected him to do, John included. He wasn't overthrowing the government and crowning Israel triumphant. As far as I can tell the prophesies in the Old Testament about the Messiah were not recognized as such until after the resurrection. Hindsight is a wonderful thing and a curse at the same time. Even the apostles didn't get it until after the resurrection.
Jesus loved to use the Samaritans as examples. Plenty of Samaritans knew the Old Testament. They had Hebrew blood. The woman at the well knew about the Messiah. Once again, Jesus did the unexpected. Not only was she a Samaritan, she was a woman! Same with the lepers, et al. He constantly broke tradition. Whores? Sure, they were no different to the Lord, only to the people he lived among.
Yes, the old testament said love your neighbor. But, someone had to ask Jesus who is my neighbor? His answer would probably disgust most of us today if you switch the word Samaritan to the word terrorist, for example. Jesus' answer was go into a place you don't want to go, help out someone you consider an enemy, who is wounded, touch him (what if he has AIDS?), help him, put him on your bike and you walk beside him, get him to the ER, pay for his care and come back and make sure he's taken care of. Right.
(It's easy to love someone who loves you back; what about our enemies?)
I think Jesus' answer to John the Baptist was his way of saying it wasn't the time for Israel. It was time to heal, time to love, time to bring people together.... Look what I've done, John. I've healed the sick, the lame walk, the blind see. That's what I have come to do. So, what exactly is it WE are here to do?
And, of course, let's throw women into the stew for a second. Luke and Acts and countless other places show the importance women played in getting the Word out. They financed Jesus! How could anyone honestly consider women second-class citizens? It had to be custom.... Jesus surely didn't exempt himself from women. Women weren't the ones who turned away. Shoot, he appeared to a woman first when he was resurrected.
Don't ya love this stuff?
I do love this stuff, and more and more it becomes clear to me, at least, that it is not a myth or fairy tale. I say this in part, because of the way Jesus interacted with people and the way He understood human nature. There are times I am astounded by the perfect responses He gives. The people writing about Him, were not those kind of people. . . . His understanding is fairly unique and the product of an amazing heart. They couldn't make this stuff up. . . . :) They were not cut from the same cloth!
But, I did not say, He didn't say anything new . . . I said, He didn't say too much that was new . . . .but, it was how He revealed the things He did say. Similar to what you are saying really.
When that lawyer or expert in Mosaic law stood up to challenge Jesus. . . . Jesus had just said. . . .Thou didst hide these things from the wise and intelligent and didst reveal them to babes" Next thing you get is an "expert" with a hypocritical posture . . . . questioning the Lord. Jesus asked him. . . . well, how do you read it? Implying there is a right way and a wrong way to read it.In fact, He told the guy . . . he was right. I imagine the guy was taken aback.. . . and looking for an argument. . . . that he got so flustered . . . . He blurted out. . . . . . who the heck is my neighbor.
Jesus even had to rephrase his question a bit . . . . because the question revealed the man's heart. Jesus answered more along the lines of "Who am I to show myself a neighbor to" . . . . . . Everyone, even your enemies.
I think instead of getting worked up about inerrancy and personality. . . .we just read it and see if these things don't come together. It never hurts to read it with a little humbleness and always prayerfully seeking.. . . . but, there are as many ways to read into scripture as there are hearts that read it .
Getting back to Paul, he is a fairly big deal because as you noted . . . . the time for the gentiles had not come while Jesus ministered. Paul, was called to be a light to the gentiles. So, he was kind of fulfilling the second half of Jesus' ministry. Paul's compassion was for Israel. . . .of all people Paul, would not be first to run to the gentile. . . .
If we are going to be mindful of things . . . . we really should consider when basing some of our assumptions on the workings of cult which poorly tried to mimic(with THEIR understanding of) the first century church. It doesn't make any sense at all to use VP's vision of Paul or VP's counterfeit church to evaluate anything, but another counterfeit.
Paul, at least in the epistles, was not micromanaging the churches. . . . he was correcting gross error. But, if one does not believe there is a standard or right vs wrong. . . . true vs false. . . . . concerning the church or God. . . . than I can see where these assumptions might come in. . . . What did Jesus say?. . . . How do you read it? No one comes to the Father . . . I am this, I am that, I am, I am,, I am. Scripture is filled with declarative statements. This is this. . . that is that. . . . and that is the reality.
As humans. . . . life is lived in the gray. . . . therein lies the challenge.
I do love this stuff, and more and more it becomes clear to me, at least, that it is not a myth or fairy tale. I say this in part, because of the way Jesus interacted with people and the way He understood human nature. There are times I am astounded by the perfect responses He gives. The people writing about Him, were not those kind of people. . . . His understanding is fairly unique and the product of an amazing heart. They couldn't make this stuff up. . . . :) They were not cut from the same cloth!
But, I did not say, He didn't say anything new . . . I said, He didn't say too much that was new . . . .but, it was how He revealed the things He did say. Similar to what you are saying really. Yes, you have made some beautiful points. Jesus surely did have a way with words!
When that lawyer or expert in Mosaic law stood up to challenge Jesus. . . . Jesus had just said. . . .Thou didst hide these things from the wise and intelligent and didst reveal them to babes" Next thing you get is an "expert" with a hypocritical posture . . . . questioning the Lord. Jesus asked him. . . . well, how do you read it? Implying there is a right way and a wrong way to read it.In fact, He told the guy . . . he was right. I imagine the guy was taken aback.. . . and looking for an argument. . . . that he got so flustered . . . . He blurted out. . . . . . who the heck is my neighbor.
Jesus even had to rephrase his question a bit . . . . because the question revealed the man's heart. Jesus answered more along the lines of "Who am I to show myself a neighbor to" . . . . . . Everyone, even your enemies.
I think instead of getting worked up about inerrancy and personality. . . .we just read it and see if these things don't come together. It never hurts to read it with a little humbleness and always prayerfully seeking.. . . . but, there are as many ways to read into scripture as there are hearts that read it .
Getting back to Paul, he is a fairly big deal because as you noted . . . . the time for the gentiles had not come while Jesus ministered. Paul, was called to be a light to the gentiles. So, he was kind of fulfilling the second half of Jesus' ministry. Paul's compassion was for Israel. . . .of all people Paul, would not be first to run to the gentile. . . . Yet another one of God's "jokes" in using the right people at the right time. How He has chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise....
If we are going to be mindful of things . . . . we really should consider when basing some of our assumptions on the workings of cult which poorly tried to mimic THEIR understanding of the first century church. It doesn't make any sense at all to use VP's vision of Paul or VP's counterfeit church to evaluate anything, but another counterfeit.
Paul, at least in the epistles, was not micromanaging the churches. . . . he was correcting gross error. But, if one does not believe there is a standard or right vs wrong. . . . true vs false. . . . . concerning the church or God. . . . than I can see where these assumptions might come in. . . . What did Jesus say?. . . . How do you read it? No one comes to the Father . . . I am this, I am that, I am, I am,, I am. Scripture is filled with declarative statements. This is this. . . that is that. . . . and that is the reality.
As humans. . . . life is lived in the gray. . . . therein lies the challenge.
I am currently in a study on Acts and just getting to Paul. I am quite curious, all things considered, to see how this is handled. You are right in saying he didnt' micromanage, but maybe he wrote the office manual? Job qualifications? Job descriptions? I realize in looking over this stuff that TWI surely didn't come up with anything too original. Church in the home? John Wesley had a handle on that one way before TWI. And there were probably others before him. Like we said, no new thing under the sun....
anyway, i guess where i learned about jesus christ was from the catholic church (which i detest) and i'm sure i learned a lot of stuff from the way international (and i detest veepee, et al)
i was thinking of a really great song i heard by mark hagerling (or something like that)
it was called "through changed eyes" -- i loved it. wish i could hear it again
it was the short guy in the 7th corps -- musically an unbelievable person (not cheryl's husband from HQ)
but he says, "now we wait -- a joyful nation -- come oh christ our life's elation...."
knowing then we'll see it all through changed eyes. it was like a really cool hymn
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
73
31
47
76
Popular Days
Feb 3
25
Jul 16
21
May 15
21
Feb 21
21
Top Posters In This Topic
Raf 73 posts
geisha779 31 posts
waysider 47 posts
TLC 76 posts
Popular Days
Feb 3 2010
25 posts
Jul 16 2018
21 posts
May 15 2019
21 posts
Feb 21 2010
21 posts
Popular Posts
Sunesis
Well, we do have over 30,000 Christian denominations, so I don't think you're going to see all Christians agreeing. I imagine that's why it is more important to God that we keep the unity of the Spir
Broken Arrow
I think I get what you're trying to do here as far as getting people to think through something that may have simply been accepted blindly. I'm not going to offer a lengthy defense as to the authenti
Raf
First, to DWBH, please, let's keep it about content and not about people. And in that vein...I for one don't care one whit about what TLCÂ might see or think on the matter. I only care about the actual
Posted Images
Tzaia
geish - there is merit to the message from Paul - for the most part. It's the god-breathed part that is suspect. For instance, do we as women refrain from cutting our hair because of something Paul said? I can think of 3 Christian denominations off the top of my head that demand that women not cut their hair - based on that one scripture. Women serving in a leadership capacity - I think Paul said something about that in what - 2 places? That's good enough for several mainstream denominations to exclude women from ordination and eldership. On the other hand, how many have excluded themselves from leadership based on the letter to Timothy? Not that many. How convenient.
Clearly he says many things that are worth listening to and living by. The problem is where to draw the line. The problem has always been where to draw the line. It's pretty hard to find that sweet spot where to draw the line when someone thinks that everything that he wrote down and said is as though it came right from god's mouth.
Paul had his detractors. We don't know who they were or what they preached, but the truth is that it probably wasn't much different than what we experienced in TWI when VPW died and others looked to unseat Craig by sending out letters like the PoP and the 37 page letter from the people who eventually formed CES. TWI wasn't successful in destroying the letters and what was written caused some people to question TWI and eventually caused a lot of damage. Paul didn't get into what was being taught by these detractors, only that it was being done and not to believe them - sorta like what TWI did. I bet that more than a few left over the disagreements. Just like we left. One has to go outside the "bible" to find out what some of the differences were. Then people did whatever they could do to destroy those teachings that didn't agree with Paul. Those that weren't destroyed were hid away - buried and forgotten about, until someone dug them up. We have no idea what else is out there. Then we have the problem of people who did agree with Paul, but didn't agree with what Paul meant. This is parallel to what is taking place in TWI and STF right now.
There are no discussions in scripture about Paul's weaknesses - only that he had some. The truth is that we really don't know the content of his character and I personally believe what we do have is a highly sanitized version of who he was, and that is because a few someones made a decision about what to include well before there was any "canon" of scripture; well before any of the words were considered "holy". The idea that god had a hand in that process is just that - an idea, and I believe it's mainly to discourage people from having these kinds of conversations. But I think we need to remember that it isn't a fact. Amazingly enough, the canon of scripture really wasn't regarded as "god breathed" until well after the decisions were made. Conversely, the Jewish bible has never been regarded as god-breathed to the Jews. It is continually under scrutiny.
I happen to think that the scrutiny is healthy.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
irisheyes
Let me say ahead of time that I'm reporting was is widely known, not my opinion.
2 Tim. 3:16 in GREEK does not contain the word IS. The first is, that is. In other words, All Scripture God breathed is profitable.... I quit trying to refute this. Perhaps if we look at it in this light, some of our questions can be answered. If truly God did not breathe ALL scripture but the scripture He did inspire is profitable for doctrine, reproof and correction, then clearly not all scripture came from His Lips. This would surely explain "contradictions", how many roosters crowed, how many were crucified, what day of the week the crucifixion took place, how Noah could have possible told the difference between a male and female cockroach, etc. If our salvation does not depend (and I repeat myself) on whether or not we cut our hair, or if women have to shut up in the church, etc., then let's just friggin forgetaboutit. Of course, as for Paul, when all is said and done, not only was he human, he was a man! (Just throwing that in for the sistas!)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Inerrancy-----I stated that in the initial post.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
RumRunner
I think Paul was actually trying to introduce LSD and the Grateful Dead in the first century. I wish you could hear it in the original concert bootleg recording.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Nonsense!
The Grateful Dead were still in Jr. High in the first century.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
irisheyes
And I just ate some Ben & Jerry's!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
geisha779
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sirguessalot
seems to me...if what this "saint paul" and the original christians experienced
was anything like the rest of the world's ancient contemplative and monastic histories...
it was more like an ancient form of what we call "hospice" today
as well as "rites of passage" to help us through all the "little deaths" of life
and the bible is part of a much larger legacy of "books of dying" in this regard
which is basically a re-initiation and continuation of the jewish "arts of dying"
which is perhaps closest to the original "higher reason"
for all religious experiences, practices and lifestyles in the first place
as well as an easy and direct common ground for authentic inter-religious realizations of history
but the depths and degrees of the absence of this overall dimension
in later attempts to resurrect the original knowledge and wisdom from the texts
seems both evident and quite related to the depths and degrees of suffering a religion perpetuates in the world
if so
perhaps vpws doctrine and lifestyle was about as much like saint paul
as it was like a tibetan monk's
Link to comment
Share on other sites
irisheyes
It's sweet to be able to say I agree, Geisha. I love agreeing. I also love disagreeing though because it allows that further scrutiny. There is one point, however (of course), that I'm not so sure on. You said Jesus didn't say anything new. I don't know about that. Maybe not new in the sense of there's no new thing under the sun, but he did do things that seemed new to the people in his time. The Jews in no way wanted to play nice with the Gentiles. Over and over again Jesus played nice with them anyway. Even John the Baptist had to send his disciples to ask if Jesus was the one who was the come. Obviously he knew who Jesus was. He said as much when he baptized him, his mom prophesied about Jesus, they were cousins for pete's sake. But, Jesus wasn't doing what everyone expected him to do, John included. He wasn't overthrowing the government and crowning Israel triumphant. As far as I can tell the prophesies in the Old Testament about the Messiah were not recognized as such until after the resurrection. Hindsight is a wonderful thing and a curse at the same time. Even the apostles didn't get it until after the resurrection.
Jesus loved to use the Samaritans as examples. Plenty of Samaritans knew the Old Testament. They had Hebrew blood. The woman at the well knew about the Messiah. Once again, Jesus did the unexpected. Not only was she a Samaritan, she was a woman! Same with the lepers, et al. He constantly broke tradition. Whores? Sure, they were no different to the Lord, only to the people he lived among.
Yes, the old testament said love your neighbor. But, someone had to ask Jesus who is my neighbor? His answer would probably disgust most of us today if you switch the word Samaritan to the word terrorist, for example. Jesus' answer was go into a place you don't want to go, help out someone you consider an enemy, who is wounded, touch him (what if he has AIDS?), help him, put him on your bike and you walk beside him, get him to the ER, pay for his care and come back and make sure he's taken care of. Right.
(It's easy to love someone who loves you back; what about our enemies?)
I think Jesus' answer to John the Baptist was his way of saying it wasn't the time for Israel. It was time to heal, time to love, time to bring people together.... Look what I've done, John. I've healed the sick, the lame walk, the blind see. That's what I have come to do. So, what exactly is it WE are here to do?
And, of course, let's throw women into the stew for a second. Luke and Acts and countless other places show the importance women played in getting the Word out. They financed Jesus! How could anyone honestly consider women second-class citizens? It had to be custom.... Jesus surely didn't exempt himself from women. Women weren't the ones who turned away. Shoot, he appeared to a woman first when he was resurrected.
Don't ya love this stuff?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
What I wonder is.. what would Paul say, confronted by a lot of modern opinion that he was some kind of saint.. that he breathed out the breath of gawd.. along with the statues and such.. murals.. some people clinging onto every recorded word he uttered like it were God himself..
if it were the vicster, I think he would think its a "hoot"..
Paul, I dunno.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
soul searcher
I really don't see Paul's character or background as being sanitized. We know that he approved the stoning of Stephen and stood by as it happened. We also know that he "began to destroy the church. Going from house to house, he dragged off men and women and put them in prison" (Acts 8:3). And right up until his conversion he was "still breathing out murderous threats against the Lord's disciples" (Acts 9:1).
You can't really sanitize that can you? It would seem that the only way to be redeemeded of that reputation is to get a pass from The Man Himslef.
JMHO
Edited by soul searcherLink to comment
Share on other sites
irisheyes
And I might add to that that Paul obviously had wanderlust before and after his conversion!Also, he was obviously a driven man who took his beliefs to the extreme, good or bad. It took someone with those qualities to light a match to the first century church's behind. He knew there was a Messiah coming, he was a Pharisee. But, he had to rethink his beliefs (hence his few years sabbatical) and adjust them accordingly and then he was able to use what he learned and how he figured it out, to teach others. I love how God's providence shines through with the people He chose/chooses. Think about Moses, who better to lead Israel through the desert than someone who had just spent 40 years roaming around in it? Just one example....
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tzaia
You bring up a good point. Much was written about all the stuff he did before, but once he converted most of that behavior just went away. He was a changed man. Radical conversion. Well except for that incident with Barnabas over John Mark. No blame was assigned. I read one commentary about it being ok because it wasn't a doctrinal dispute, rather it was a falling out over a difference of opinion. Really?
One of the things I've noticed about human nature is the tendency to overlook the bad in someone that is liked, respected, or admired and overlook the good in someone that is detested.
What he did was call out and ordain people who agreed with him, encouraged people to shun and avoid people who didn't agree with him, tell people how to run their fellowships, what to teach, what to wear, how to live - all by the presumed authority given to him by Jesus himself - whom he never met in life. People just did it, ironically on the basis of Barnabas' testimony about Paul.
The same thing happened in TWI. It had to since TWI patterned itself after the first century church (more accurately Paul's church).
I'm not saying that Paul was bad, or anything like that. What I am saying is that we (as a species) were bestowed with the ability to be mindful, and I believe* we need to
practice that at all times.
* added in editing
Edited by TzaiaLink to comment
Share on other sites
soul searcher
Nice post, irisheyes.
WRT below...
Judging from Jesus' words, a "neighbor" isn't just anybody (i.e. the guy next door), but somebody who helps another, someone with good intentions.
I found this teaching to be quite sobering. My selfish motto nowadays is something along the lines of, "No good deed goes unpunished." lol (just kidding...I try, I try.)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
irisheyes
In rereading what I posted, I guess it could be taken to mean just someone far away and not your neighbor also. That's not really what Jesus did. He took care of things as he went along. Sure, sometimes he went out of his way to get somewhere to do something special, but mostly not, I think. If this is where TWI got their WOW ideas, etc. shame on them. Shoot, shame on them anyway. Plenty of people in Acts owned homes and stayed put. Don't get me started.... :wacko:
Link to comment
Share on other sites
soul searcher
Getting back to the OP...
I was never sold on the inerrancy thing to begin with. But, if we were to discount all of the Pauline epistles as the writings of a "con-man", we would still have, NT-wise, the four gospels, the Book of Acts, Hebrews (I think), and Revelation.
Yeah...it would be a much smaller book, I suppose.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
RumRunner
If that is the case I gotta got with the LSD and the Grateful Dead - thanks anyway
Link to comment
Share on other sites
geisha779
I do love this stuff, and more and more it becomes clear to me, at least, that it is not a myth or fairy tale. I say this in part, because of the way Jesus interacted with people and the way He understood human nature. There are times I am astounded by the perfect responses He gives. The people writing about Him, were not those kind of people. . . . His understanding is fairly unique and the product of an amazing heart. They couldn't make this stuff up. . . . :) They were not cut from the same cloth!
But, I did not say, He didn't say anything new . . . I said, He didn't say too much that was new . . . .but, it was how He revealed the things He did say. Similar to what you are saying really.
When that lawyer or expert in Mosaic law stood up to challenge Jesus. . . . Jesus had just said. . . .Thou didst hide these things from the wise and intelligent and didst reveal them to babes" Next thing you get is an "expert" with a hypocritical posture . . . . questioning the Lord. Jesus asked him. . . . well, how do you read it? Implying there is a right way and a wrong way to read it. In fact, He told the guy . . . he was right. I imagine the guy was taken aback.. . . and looking for an argument. . . . that he got so flustered . . . . He blurted out. . . . . . who the heck is my neighbor.
Jesus even had to rephrase his question a bit . . . . because the question revealed the man's heart. Jesus answered more along the lines of "Who am I to show myself a neighbor to" . . . . . . Everyone, even your enemies.
I think instead of getting worked up about inerrancy and personality. . . .we just read it and see if these things don't come together. It never hurts to read it with a little humbleness and always prayerfully seeking.. . . . but, there are as many ways to read into scripture as there are hearts that read it .
Getting back to Paul, he is a fairly big deal because as you noted . . . . the time for the gentiles had not come while Jesus ministered. Paul, was called to be a light to the gentiles. So, he was kind of fulfilling the second half of Jesus' ministry. Paul's compassion was for Israel. . . .of all people Paul, would not be first to run to the gentile. . . .
________________________________________________________________
If we are going to be mindful of things . . . . we really should consider when basing some of our assumptions on the workings of cult which poorly tried to mimic(with THEIR understanding of) the first century church. It doesn't make any sense at all to use VP's vision of Paul or VP's counterfeit church to evaluate anything, but another counterfeit.
Paul, at least in the epistles, was not micromanaging the churches. . . . he was correcting gross error. But, if one does not believe there is a standard or right vs wrong. . . . true vs false. . . . . concerning the church or God. . . . than I can see where these assumptions might come in. . . . What did Jesus say?. . . . How do you read it? No one comes to the Father . . . I am this, I am that, I am, I am,, I am. Scripture is filled with declarative statements. This is this. . . that is that. . . . and that is the reality.
As humans. . . . life is lived in the gray. . . . therein lies the challenge.
Edited by geisha779Link to comment
Share on other sites
irisheyes
I am currently in a study on Acts and just getting to Paul. I am quite curious, all things considered, to see how this is handled. You are right in saying he didnt' micromanage, but maybe he wrote the office manual? Job qualifications? Job descriptions? I realize in looking over this stuff that TWI surely didn't come up with anything too original. Church in the home? John Wesley had a handle on that one way before TWI. And there were probably others before him. Like we said, no new thing under the sun....
Link to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
i believe i was born again and saved by his merciful grace way before i ever heard of paul or met veepee
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
One of the best works I've seen on the Book of Acts - - - - - > > > http://my.en.com/~anders/intro.html
The entire book is free for the reading, and printing out on your own. Follow the links to read it in it's entirety.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
irisheyes
THANKS!
Yeah, I think that took hearing about what Jesus did for me too.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
sorry i can't remember what the OP was
anyway, i guess where i learned about jesus christ was from the catholic church (which i detest) and i'm sure i learned a lot of stuff from the way international (and i detest veepee, et al)
i was thinking of a really great song i heard by mark hagerling (or something like that)
it was called "through changed eyes" -- i loved it. wish i could hear it again
it was the short guy in the 7th corps -- musically an unbelievable person (not cheryl's husband from HQ)
but he says, "now we wait -- a joyful nation -- come oh christ our life's elation...."
knowing then we'll see it all through changed eyes. it was like a really cool hymn
--
it might have mark hagard or something like that
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
I didn't think they made it anymore..
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.