Can you reject Paul and still be a "Christian"?

Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

What statement were you talking about then?

If Jesus believed that the Pharisees were sons of the devil then why would he choose one to spread his message?

I was talking about the next verse where Jesus said He came to fulfil the law. Which begs the question, did He do that and this making the law fade away, or did He fail and the law remains to this day?

Because of Paul's unique skill set. And Jesus sent him to spread the gospel to the gentiles after He redeemed him and filled him with His Holy Spirit, not before.

Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by adjensen

 

So loving your neighbor and god is hard to do? Maybe in your world it is impossible because that is what you have been taught, but in my world it is not hard at all. It's as easy as it sounds.

No it isn't.

It doesn't mean "being nice to people" for a little while. It means loving them, truly caring as much about them as you do own self. It means giving up everything that you have in order to make life easier for someone else. It means being ultimately truthful, righteous and just.

AND, it means that you act that way, all the time, no matter what the circumstances are, for everyone. Act that way toward me, towards every homeless person in your city, towards Paul of Tarsus... everyone. Go into a biker or redneck bar, stand up on the counter, tell everyone there that you love them and if they pull you down and start beating you up, love them all the more.

Still think it sounds easy?

reply to post by NOTurTypical


So Jesus' message is only for those who are learned and stable? I thought his message was for everyone?

reply to post by adjensen


Sure, if Jesus could do it then so can everyone else. I dislike Paul but that doesn't mean I don't love him. Just because I call him a hypocrite and liar doesn't mean I don't see him as a human being who had feelings of his own.

Just like Jesus went into the temple and overturned tables, I am overturning tables by calling Paul out. If Jesus never faltered, why did he get so angry at the temple?

reply to post by NOTurTypical


I already covered this, just because Jesus said he came to fulfill the law doesn't mean he was ending it. That's like saying since you fulfilled your duties at work one day, that means you'll never have to work again, kind of ridiculous.

It still stands that Jesus said the law would not disappear until the Earth passed away. The Earth has yet to pass away, meaning the law never went away.

What unique skill set did Paul have that any other non-murderer didn't have?

Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by adjensen

 

Sure, if Jesus could do it then so can everyone else.

So you consider yourself on a par with Christ? Okay, pal, you behave that way and see how far it takes you. If you put aside the arrogance and ignorance, you'd recognize that you likely don't even treat the people you're closest to by those standards.

Just like Jesus went into the temple and overturned tables, I am overturning tables by calling Paul out. If Jesus never faltered, why did he get so angry at the temple?

Because he is ultimately righteous, and what the moneychangers were doing was wrong.

reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1

So you think Acts is fictitious yet you still believe Paul existed? If they created Acts out of thin air, what makes you think they couldn't have invented Paul?

Acts wasn't created out of thin air.
There was a real Paul but there wasn't ever a document tying all his supposed exploits together.
Acts filled that need, but it took certain traditions and filled in holes using the imagination to make a compelling story as myth.
The real Paul writings shows a highly developed methodology that only modern science can now appreciate, that would have been impossible to just fabricate at that early date. It is just to relevant and timely and skilled and focused to have been faked after the fact.

reply to post by adjensen


Sure, why not? If everyone knew that they could be like Jesus then the world would be a lot better off. Since people have been taught that they can never be like Jesus, they don't even try, which is one of the reasons the world is in its current state.

Matthew 5
48 Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

Jesus wouldn't have told them to be perfect if they could never achieve it.

Self-doubt gives others the opportunity to manipulate you. You can continue to believe you're inferior, but I choose not to. You choose to ignore your potential, I don't.

reply to post by jmdewey60


I don't think they were written after the fact, I just think the name at the beginning of each letter was changed.

reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1


Well, then knock yourself out and live under the Law. As it is written -- those who live under the Law will be judged by it, so I hope that you're circumcised, you don't eat the wrong foods, touch the wrong people or break any of the 600+ rules that make up what Jews consider to be the Law.

Originally posted by adjensen
The Law is more than the Ten Commandments (nine, according to Christ.) But it's all summed up into Christ's two -- Love God, and love your neighbour as yourself. Think that's easy to do? Try doing it the way Christ did, even for a day. After you fall on your face trying to do that, maybe you'll understand why no one is saved through the Law.

Yes, those two core commandments seem impossible - in fact, until one first surrenders to the true Source of those laws, they are impossible to do - i.e., no ego can do them.

They were given by Jesus to prepare the whole body-mind (through real self-sacrifice and understanding of one's essential unity with all) for his direct blessing of the aspirant with the Divine Spirit above. The two commandments are Jesus' exoteric teaching, and his Blessing is his esoteric teaching. Both aspects are needed to truly be reborn - as Jesus said:

‘All of you must be born from above.’

reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1

Jesus wouldn't have told them to be perfect if they could never achieve it.

Teleos in that time was a well known philosophical term, like Logos in John 1.
It doesn't mean 'perfect' like what we think in the day of manufacturing quality control.
It means you are on a particular enlightened path.

reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1

I don't think they were written after the fact, I just think the name at the beginning of each letter was changed.

Do you know of a theory where this makes sense?
I don't see the point of doing that.
Paul was the first accepted author of the New Testament and I doubt they could have gotten away with that big of a hoax so close to the actual events.
There were strong traditions in each of the cities where Paul preached and they could show you exactly where he stayed and lived and preached.

reply to post by jmdewey60


There's no evidence of Paul existing outside of the bible, at all. It could have easily been done, especially if Rome was behind it, and Paul was a Roman citizen.

Here's a thread I made not too long ago that explains my theory. You'll probably disagree, but I thought I'd put it out there.

reply to post by adjensen


I see the true law as the 2 commandments. As Jesus said, some of the law was ungodly, created by men for their own benefit. The first 2 are all I need, and if I follow them then I will inhert life, just as Jesus said.

Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by adjensen

 

I see the true law as the 10 commandments. As Jesus said, some of the law was ungodly, created by men for their own benefit. The first 10 are all I need, and if I follow them then I will inhert life, just as Jesus said.

Actually the true law was given by Jesus... and it always has been...

He didn't change it, he merely clarified it...

the 10 are subject to the two he gave... one can not follow the 10 without adhering to the two

reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1

There's no evidence of Paul existing outside of the bible, at all.

Sorry but that is wrong.
I didn't make that up what I said about the cities. That comes from an accredited academic and well respected theologian and author of various commentaries.

If someone wants to look it up, read:
The Theology of the Gospel of John (New Testament Theology), Dwight Moody Smith
page 6
You can read it on the preview on Amazon.

reply to post by Akragon


Oops, you're right.

My statement still stands though, just replace "10" with "2".

reply to post by jmdewey60


John never mentions Paul in his gospel, so a theological book based on John's gospel has nothing to do with the historicity of Paul.

Care to link an article that shows historical evidence of Paul outside of the bible?

reply to post by jmdewey60


Either way, he was telling them to be like God, who is perfect. Jesus wouldn't have told them to be like god if they could never achieve it.