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

reply to post by jmdewey60


Yes it does since Paul is the one who wrote the book on Christianity. Chances are if you are Christian you believe every word Paul wrote.

So in order to undermine Paul and his teachings, they put his letters into the bible and called them the infallible word of god? How does that make any sense? If anything, by labeling his letters as the word of god, they were doing the opposite of demonizing him.

Luke wrote both Acts and his gospel at the same time. You're telling me that his gospel is 100% true while Acts is mostly fictional? If Acts is fantasy then so is his gospel, they were originally one work.

reply to post by adjensen


I didn't catch where Jesus said "try" to be perfect, I only see where he tells him definitively to be perfect. If Jesus knew the man couldn't reach perfection he would have have said "try to be perfect" not just the definitive "be perfect".

Someone chose what went into the bible didn't they? Whether Constantine himself chose what went into it or not is not relevant, what is relevant is that HIS people are the ones who canonized the bible and legalized it.

I was talking about verse 18. He says nothing about the Earth passing away after he fulfilled the law, nothing.

reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1

No, the dislike of him comes mostly from the letters he wrote.

I'm not seeing that here.

As I said before, a few people on this board not liking Paul doesn't even begin to compare . . .

I think it is representative of that is going through a lot of people's minds out there.

. . . how the Jews have demonized him? . . . he wrote with his own hands are what demonize him, not Acts.

He never said he ever committed any violence, or ever sanctioned it, or condoned it.
All that comes from Acts and none of it from himself.

reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1

I didn't catch where Jesus said "try" to be perfect, I only see where he tells him definitively to be perfect.

Here is another attempt by me to enlighten people on what was a well-known pilosophical term that ended up in the New Testament that you are having problems understanding.

An excerpt from Robert Newton Flew is helpful at this point:

"We must turn to the later stoics and to Philo for light on the Pauline use of Teleios . . . The word is used as the culminating stage of the good life, towards which the philosopher is called to strive. In his Encheiridion, or popular handbook, Epicteus appeals to his reader for action: You are no longer a lad, but already a full-grown man (Teleios) . . . Live as a mature man (Teleios) who is making progress (prokopton)."
being perfect

Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by adjensen

 

I didn't catch where Jesus said "try" to be perfect, I only see where he tells him definitively to be perfect. If Jesus knew the man couldn't reach perfection he would have have said "try to be perfect" not just the definitive "be perfect".

No he wouldn't. Think about it for a minute.

When you have kids, do you intend to tell them "do the right thing" or "try to do the right thing"? The second implies that a) it's optional and b) it doesn't really matter if you do it or not.

Someone chose what went into the bible didn't they? Whether Constantine himself chose what went into it or not is not relevant, what is relevant is that HIS people are the ones who canonized the bible and legalized it.

Again, let's try to break free from those "fictional account chains" of yours -- the New Testament canon was not put into place by "HIS" people, it was almost entirely declared while Christians were enemies of the State and being thrown to the lions in the Coliseum.

I was talking about verse 18. He says nothing about the Earth passing away after he fulfilled the law, nothing.

Who cares? If he said so in verse 17, don't you think that the concept kind of carries through to the next sentence?

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1

 

I didn't catch where Jesus said "try" to be perfect, I only see where he tells him definitively to be perfect.

Here is another attempt by me to enlighten people on what was a well-known pilosophical term that ended up in the New Testament that you are having problems understanding.

An excerpt from Robert Newton Flew is helpful at this point:

"We must turn to the later stoics and to Philo for light on the Pauline use of Teleios . . . The word is used as the culminating stage of the good life, towards which the philosopher is called to strive. In his Encheiridion, or popular handbook, Epicteus appeals to his reader for action: You are no longer a lad, but already a full-grown man (Teleios) . . . Live as a mature man (Teleios) who is making progress (prokopton)."
being perfect

So that understanding applies to God also? Jesus also says Father is "perfect".

reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1


Maybe this will help..

What if I said:

"Heaven and Earth will not pass away until I get a chance to see the Grand Canyon. And I'm going this summer to see the Grand Canyon."

If I went that summer to see the Grand Canyon would you say I never did because heaven and Earth never passed away?

reply to post by jmdewey60


This thread is about Paul's teachings, his letters, not Acts. People dislike Paul because of his teachings.

Billions of followers and believers in Paul is far from discrediting him.

Are you sure about that?

1 Corinthians 15
9 For I am the least of the apostles and do not even deserve to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God.

1 Timothy 1
13 Even though I was once a blasphemer and a persecutor and a violent man, I was shown mercy because I acted in ignorance and unbelief.

Seems to me like Paul readily owned up to his persecutions and violence.

reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1

. . . they put his letters into the bible and called them the infallible word of god?

You are basing your arguments on a fantasy version of the creation of the Bible.
Paul wrote letters and they were published and the editions were very successful and in high demand.
People developed a huge desire to read everything they could get their hands on by Paul or about him.
The demand exceeded the supply, so things were fabricated fraudulently because they would sell, at a guaranteed high bounty.
What we call the New Testament was how churches created collections of Paul's, or books thought to be Paul's, and then other things added, like the Gospels and Acts.

. . . they put his letters into the bible and called them the infallible word of god?

Some people may think so. I believe that the Apostles were given a special spiritual gift to start the church, by being commissioned to do so directly by Jesus. In Paul's case, that was in heaven with the risen, glorified Christ. That only applies in the NT to those books actually written by the Apostles. Some, I do not believe were, included among those, specifically would be those supposedly written by someone thought to be a man named Luke, being, Luke and Acts.

If Acts is fantasy then so is his gospel, they were originally one work.

I'm not sure that they were written by the same person. Traditionally it has been thought that they were. I don't think they were written at the same time, or added to the 'New Testament' collections at the same time.

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

I guess we're saying the same thing, Moses was not perfect. Only Jesus was.

I was applying some things I learned about Moses and that event on the mount with Jesus, from reading Yarbro-Collins' commentary on Mark, something I would recommend anyone to read if they can get their hands on a copy.
The mythology of the day on Moses was that he was translated directly to heaven and why there wasn't something like a "tomb of Moses". And also the company of Elijah, who went in the same way.
What I was taught in church is different, that they represent the two ways one can get to heaven: raptured, or resurrected. According to their belief then, he was taken 'body and soul'.

edit on 29-3-2013 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)

Why would people think he was translated to heaven when the Bible says God buried him and also says that Satan fought with Michael over the "body" of Moses?

reply to post by NOTurTypical

So that understanding applies to God also? Jesus also says Father is "perfect".

"As your heavenly Father is". Your version of addressing God is inaccurate.
God is 'complete' and 'mature'.
So, yes, God is perfect,
I don't understand why you would consider the possibility that He wasn't.

reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1

This thread is about Paul's teachings, his letters, not Acts. People dislike Paul because of his teachings.

A lot of what people think are Paul's teachings, aren't.
They are actually just made up philosophy by whoever wrote Acts.
You can throw in half the books in the New Testament that had been traditionally considered to be written by Paul.
Anyway, I would like you to prove your point that what people really object to about Paul is based on anything actually written by him.
Or is it just people who really like Judaism and hate Paul on principle because they think Paul ruined a normal form of Judaism they think Jesus taught.

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

So that understanding applies to God also? Jesus also says Father is "perfect".

"As your heavenly Father is". Your version of addressing God is inaccurate.
God is 'complete' and 'mature'.
So, yes, God is perfect,
I don't understand why you would consider the possibility that He wasn't.

I didn't say He wasn't complete, and the term mature implies there was a point He was immature. That I would reject.

reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1

1 Timothy 1
13 Even though I was once a blasphemer and a persecutor and a violent man, I was shown mercy because I acted in ignorance and unbelief.

First and Second Timothy were not written by Paul.
I know that is a shocker, and I was surprised to lean that just a few years ago.
When I looked into it, I realized a lot of my theology was based on fraudulent books, and had to start completely over from scratch to build a new theology.
I have been doing it mostly right here on this forum.

reply to post by adjensen


So when you tell your kids to do the right thing, you're really telling them to do something that is impossible? If doing the right thing were impossible then maybe you'd have a point, but as of right now you only reinforced my opinion. Doing the right thing is not impossible, just as being perfect is not impossible, if it were impossible you wouldn't believe a man was god.

So the Christians who were being persecuted decided what would go I to the bible before Constantine ever canonized it? What about John's gnostic writings? Why weren't they included in the official canon if someone other than Constantine's people decided what made it into the bible?

Fulfilling the law does not mean ending it! If Jesus came to end the law then why did he say that nothing would pass from the law until heaven and Earth disappeared? The Earth is still here isn't it? Since the Earth has not disappeared, that means nothing has passed from the law. Read verse 18 slowly and clearly. It says nothing about him ending the law by fulfilling it.

reply to post by NOTurTypical

Why would people think he was translated to heaven when the Bible says God buried him and also says that Satan fought with Michael over the "body" of Moses?

You know, there was a lot of that sort of thing going on and that was what Jesus was up against.
The 'scribes and the Pharisees'.
That quote of yours is from Jude, in the New Testament.

reply to post by NOTurTypical

I didn't say He wasn't complete, and the term mature implies there was a point He was immature. That I would reject.

The subject is more complex than what is evident from that one quote.
If you want to get a grip on it, there is a very thorough explanation that takes up an entire big fat book called:
Paul and the Stoics, by Troels Engberg-Pedersen

reply to post by NOTurTypical


In that situation, I would assume you were wrong about the Earth passing away. Are you trying to say Jesus was wrong when he said the Earth would pass away? Because it obviously didn't.

This belief about the physical body of Jesus ascending into the heavens was more readily acceptable back then given people believed the earth was flat

reply to post by bb23108


Isaiah 40:22 [It is] He who sits above the circle of the earth, And its inhabitants [are] like grasshoppers, Who stretches out the heavens like a curtain, And spreads them out like a tent to dwell in.

Approximately 740 BC this was written.
People were not stupid. People knew the earth wasn't flat.
History is bunk. Or rather, the history we are taught is bunk.

reply to post by jmdewey60


Tell me, if Acts was put into the bible to demonize Paul, why are the teachings within his letters more popular than ever today? Like I said, the popularity of Christianity and Paul's teachings reflect how respected he really is. If he wasn't respected, no one would follow his teachings.

Most scholars agree that they were originally one work.