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

Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
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?

That isn't the point, go back and reread what I wrote.

So the Christians who were being persecuted decided what would go I to the bible before Constantine ever canonized it?

I know that you're not a fan of history, but yes. The Christian Church (which would eventually become the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches) determined Biblical canon, and did so when they were still being persecuted. Constantine's involvement is a myth, demonstrably so, because we still have records of what was discussed at the Council of Nicaea, and Biblical canon wasn't it.

Only complete dupes believe that Constantine and/of the Council of Nicaea determined what books went into the Bible.

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?

Gnosticism was rejected by the church in the Second Century, at least a hundred years before Constantine was born. Again, we have texts from that era which prove it to be the case.

John never had any "gnostic writings", either, no idea where you've come up with that one.

Since the Earth has not disappeared, that means nothing has passed from the law.

Why are you still beating that dead horse? No one ever said that the Earth has disappeared. The Law still exists -- go get a Hebrew Bible and look. Exodus, Deuteronomy and Leviticus are the texts you want to look at. Unless the pages of your book have become mysteriously blank, there's your evidence that the Law still exists.

reply to post by Lucius Driftwood

People knew the earth wasn't flat.

A flat disc.
I don't think your quote supports your argument.

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by Lucius Driftwood

 

People knew the earth wasn't flat.

A flat disc.
I don't think your quote supports your argument.

How about this?

The Myth of the Flat Earth.

A curious example of this mistreatment of the past for the purpose of slandering Christians is a widespread historical error, an error that the Historical Society of Britain some years back listed as number one in its short compendium of the ten most common historical illusions. It is the notion that people used to believe that the earth was flat--especially medieval Christians.

It must first be reiterated that with extraordinary few exceptions no educated person in the history of Western Civilization from the third century B.C. onward believed that the earth was flat.

The claim that Christians believed that the world was flat (and supplemented by the claim that people were put to death for claiming otherwise) is 100% fabricated, in an effort to discredit the religion.

Fix that flat for you?

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

I believe that this is an addled allusion to Karen Armstrong's theory that Jesus' physical ascension was called into question by Galileo's realization that the Earth moves, not that it is flat.

(Her theory is not exclusively Armstrong's, nor was Galileo's exclusively his; in both cases, however, they are especially high-profile expositors of their rspective theories.)

That the earth is not flat is obvious from direct observation of any number of terrestial phenomena, and was surely dead and buried even among scholars (who don't get out much) when Eratosthenes measured the radius of the damned thing. He died in the Second Century BCE.

In contrast, the cognitive illusion that the Earth is stationary is hard to overcome without an understanding of Newton's Laws, which were unavailable to Galileo and not at all obvious to the ancients.

In the stationary Earth system, everything you see in naked eye astronomy was thought to have its proper "shell" about the Earth, so Jesus need only ascend past the starry shell, and he's home. A moving Earth has no shells around it, and a lawful physical ascension wouldn't have an end point.
-

reply to post by adjensen


So you're saying that since Jesus didn't say "try" to be perfect that means it wasn't optional and that it did matter? What exactly is your point because if that was it you just helped my case out.

Who legalized Christianity and put the NT together? Constantine. If he or his people didn't decide what went into the bible then why are so many books written by apostles of Jesus left out? If early Christians decided what went into the bible, the Gospel of Thomas would have been included. Why would they reject a book written by one of Jesus' closest apostles?

Those who believe a guy rose from the dead or walked on water are the dupes if you ask me.

But you think the law ended with Jesus? How is that when Jesus said it would not end until the Earth disappeared?

Originally posted by jmdewey60
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

I think I have a pretty good handle on it from Matthew Henry's Concise.

Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
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.

You're reading it wrong. His statement was never about eschatology.

Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
Who legalized Christianity and put the NT together?

Do you not understand that these are two separate actions? If someone does one, do they need to do both in your world?

If he or his people didn't decide what went into the bible then why are so many books written by apostles of Jesus left out? If early Christians decided what went into the bible, the Gospel of Thomas would have been included. Why would they reject a book written by one of Jesus' closest apostles?

Because it wasn't written by any Apostle, even ignoring that Thomas wasn't one of the closest (which would be Peter, John and James.) The Gospel of Thomas is a known forgery, written, at least in part, in the mid-Second Century by someone who certainly didn't know Jesus and for whom one would be hard pressed to say even agrees with him.

So far as known texts are concerned, there are no books written by Jesus' Apostles that have been left out of the Bible, with the possible exception of the Apocalypse of Peter and that one is a giant stretch (and which you probably wouldn't like anyway.)

But you think the law ended with Jesus? How is that when Jesus said it would not end until the Earth disappeared?

Since you're just acting like an idiot who doesn't understand simple concepts, even though we both know that's not the case, I think we're done with this line of discussion.

reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1

Who legalized Christianity and put the NT together? Constantine. If he or his people didn't decide what went into the bible then why are so many books written by apostles of Jesus left out? If early Christians decided what went into the bible, the Gospel of Thomas would have been included. Why would they reject a book written by one of Jesus' closest apostles?

Because the so-named Gospel of Thomas wasn't written by the disciple named Thomas. It's a 2nd century Gnostic text from Syria. Read the first chapter in the book titled "The Case for the Real Jesus". Craig A. Evans, founder of the Dead Sea Scrolls Institute explains why the early church and modern scholarship rejects Thomas along with other Gnostic texts.

reply to post by NOTurTypical


technically 1st and 2nd peter wasn't written by him either... dictated perhaps

none the less... At least Thomas can be compared side by side with the gospels unlike anything else in the NT

Originally posted by eight bits
reply to post by eight bits

 

In contrast, the cognitive illusion that the Earth is stationary is hard to overcome without an understanding of Newton's Laws, which were unavailable to Galileo and not at all obvious to the ancients.

This makes a lot of sense. My studies have indicated that the common belief at that time was that the earth's surface was flat and that the depths of the earth were dark, and there was a crystal vault that encapsulated the earth's surface on up to the sky and stars. The stars suspended from the top of the crystal vault and God resided above this vault and stars.

I should have said that the common belief at the time was that the earth's surface was flat - not that the earth was flat. Obviously that was not the gist of what I was trying to communicate - but that belief in the whole structure, including the dome covering the earth's surface, was what also supported the presumption that Jesus could ascend to the heavens.

Originally posted by eight bits
In the stationary Earth system, everything you see in naked eye astronomy was thought to have its proper "shell" about the Earth, so Jesus need only ascend past the starry shell, and he's home. A moving Earth has no shells around it, and a lawful physical ascension wouldn't have an end point.

Thank you for that analysis and clarification. And yes, it still fully supports why the physical ascension of Jesus was readily acceptable at the time.

Originally posted by Akragon
none the less... At least Thomas can be compared side by side with the gospels unlike anything else in the NT

Only in part. A lot of the sayings in Thomas are completely foreign to Christianity, which explains why that text was never considered for inclusion in the canon. Not regarded and rejected, never even considered.

Originally posted by Akragon
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

technically 1st and 2nd peter wasn't written by him either... dictated perhaps

none the less... At least Thomas can be compared side by side with the gospels unlike anything else in the NT

1 Peter was written by his amanuensis Sylvanus, and 2 Peter was by his own hand. 2 Peter is very rough Greek. Most likely written from a prison cell. But the use of a ready-writer or amanuensis isn't the same thing whatsoever as a pseudo-graphical text written over a century after the purported author was martyred.

reply to post by adjensen

I am not sure if you missed my reply to you or if I missed your response - or if you are not responding for some other reason. I would be very interested in yours and others' thoughts about my response here (way back on page 7):

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Thank you.
.

Originally posted by bb23108
reply to post by adjensen

 

I am not sure if you missed my reply to you or if I missed your response - or if you are not responding for some other reason.

Yes, I ignored it, because a) it's off-topic and b) it gets tiresome replying to the same old claims in the same old fashion because, as was noted as regards Paul and Jesus contradictions, all of this has been brought up before, there are reasonable responses to all of it, so it's a bit pointless to debate.

At any rate, you can find my response in numerous other threads, this being the most recent.

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by bb23108
reply to post by adjensen

 

I am not sure if you missed my reply to you or if I missed your response - or if you are not responding for some other reason.

Yes, I ignored it, because a) it's off-topic and b) it gets tiresome replying to the same old claims in the same old fashion because, as was noted as regards Paul and Jesus contradictions, all of this has been brought up before, there are reasonable responses to all of it, so it's a bit pointless to debate.

At any rate, you can find my response in numerous other threads, this being the most recent.

Actually my response was not off topic - it was in response to your challenge to find a major difference between what Jesus spoke of and what Paul spoke of. So the matter of what I thought Jesus meant by the ascension was brought up in terms of Jesus speaking about everyone needs to be born from above.

You brought up the matter of reincarnation - I was not responding to that, only to the consideration of the ascension. Your link to your most recent response was about reincarnation, not about ascension. Do you have a prior post you spoke of relative to the ascension specifically and the quote I responded with?

reply to post by bb23108


So you don't believe in reincarnation?

In that case, my response is what it was before -- your Gnostic reading of the text is invalid. Gnosticism and the life and teaching of Christ are simply not compatible, and Gnosticism is not the subject of this thread. Once again, you will find plenty of posts of mine that are in opposition to Christian Gnosticism, complete with explanations of the contradictions.

And Adj is literally the foremost expert on Gonsticism in this forum. I suggest listening to his expertise.

reply to post by adjensen
I do believe in reincarnation but that is not what I am bringing up.

I am new to this Forum, but when someone offers a challenge and another person takes the time to respond, a brush-off and ignoring of their posts is not the best response, on this or any Forum. You probably shouldn't have posted the challenge if you don't want to respond.

I can understand if you are tired of debating something, but again, I am new here, and if you can simply link me to your responses about ascension and that quote I posted, I would appreciate it. If not, that is okay too, but please don't post such challenges then, okay?

reply to post by bb23108

The "challenge" was to demonstrate differences between the teaching of Paul and the teaching of Christ. Your response is to misrepresent the teaching of Christ, in order to claim that there is a disparity between the two. To that end, I agree -- if Christ was truly the Bringer of Gnosis, and the Gospels hint at his Gnostic teaching, then he and Paul, as well as John, Peter, James, Jude, Matthew, Mark and Luke, would be in contradiction.

However, as Jesus was an orthodox Jewish Rabbi, not a Greek philosopher, he was obviously not the Bringer of Gnosis, and within the context of that reality, scripture such as you cite have clear interpretations that have nothing to do with reincarnation, ascension or Gnosis. If that's contrary to the way that you read the text, that's fine, but it's proof of nothing, apart from your invalid reading.

Claims by people who are ignorant of the core concepts of either (or both) theologies notwithstanding, orthodox Judaism and Gnostic Christianity are not compatible, never mind the fact that we know by whom, when and why the latter religion began, and it wasn't with Christ.