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

reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1


My pleasure...

Personally I think the sayings of Thomas are real... probably an oral tradition passed down though history by one of his followers... Jesus literally had thousands of followers, but amazingly enough only three people out of all of them wrote anything down.

A man who walked on water, healed the sick, died and resurrected... and performed tons of miracles, yet only three people had the common sense to write anything down?

Makes no sense to me, but that's just my opinion...

Thomas is my favorite book outside of the gospels... I must have read it over 50 times... and the interesting thing is the gospels are actually the keys to understanding the mystical beauty in Thomas

reply to post by Akragon


Grace is God's unconditional love given to all men. None deserve it and none are denied it as some people have claimed that Paul said. Paul never said that anyone would be denied grace. You can believe what you like but Jesus most certainly taught that God loved all men. Paul agrees that Grace is the unconditional love God has for all men. To believe in the 4 gospels is to believe in Paul, only you still don't understand what Paul was saying.

Of course we know this goes nowhere, so have fun with your OP.

reply to post by sacgamer25


Actually I've thoroughly enjoyed this thread...

Thank you...

And Btw, Paul has nothing to do with Jesus...

It's impossible for Paul to be a Christian. The name of Jesus was never spoken by him. He did not know who Jesus was. Paul was about God. The old testament version. He was the craziest follower of God in all of the bible. CRAZY.

reply to post by SinMaker


That is debateable...

Moses was a psycho, and Abraham wasn't quite right In the head either...

Jacob was a soldier, and literally killed thousands in the "name of his God"...

The bible is filled with crackpots bro... That's one of the reasons I stick with "the truth"

and the man who called himself that...

reply to post by Akragon


Are any religious followers sane? Especially from that time period? Those were the days that people found power through a god without a convincing argument. We should call it the "Crazy Era".

Originally posted by SinMaker
reply to post by Akragon

 

Are any religious followers sane? Especially from that time period? Those were the days that people found power through a god without a convincing argument. We should call it the "Crazy Era".

Most are quite sane actually... its only the fanatical ones that are crazy...

A great example is the Westboro Baptist Church...

Those people are bloody batz

Keep in mind, the time you're speaking of had no distractions like the media, or TV like we have today...

Life in a box...

reply to post by Akragon


I agree with that. We are on the same table. Let me go back and star your posts.

Originally posted by Akragon

Can you reject the writing of Paul who actually wrote the bulk of Christian scripture and still consider yourself a Christian?
Books written by Paul (some of which the author is debateable)

Romans
1 Corinthians
2 Corinthians
Galatians
Ephesians
Philippians
Colossians
1 Thessalonians
2 Thessalonians
1 Timothy
2 Timothy
Titus
Philemon

Without Paul the concept of "grace" would likely be absent from the NT... along with many other ideas Paul brought to the world.
So is it possible to reject one of the founders of the religion and still consider yourself a part of said religion?
Explain...

I do not consider myself a Christian and do believe that Jesus' teachings take precedence over Paul's.
So there.

reply to post by Wonders


Glad we agree on some things

Not sure what the attitude is about though, but whatever

reply to post by SinMaker

It's impossible for Paul to be a Christian. The name of Jesus was never spoken by him.

If you were going by what Paul said in his letters, then he did bring up the name, Jesus, a lot.
That was how he opened the letters, by describing his relationship with Jesus.
Paul never mentioned the Old Testament God, and relegated that part of history to being an administration of angels.
Paul raises the new situation to a higher status, where now we have no need for an intermediary between God and man, as Jesus is both, as the Christ.
Paul is who redefined the term, Christ, so saying he was not a Christian seems ridiculous to me.

Originally posted by Akragon
And Btw, Paul has nothing to do with Jesus...

Do you care to elaborate on this? I would love to hear why you say this, if you please.

Originally posted by jmdewey60
Paul raises the new situation to a higher status, where now we have no need for an intermediary between God and man, as Jesus is both, as the Christ.
Paul is who redefined the term, Christ, so saying he was not a Christian seems ridiculous to me.

Thank you for your post(s).
I brought up in my prior posts that Paul did not emphasize the actual personal day to day relationship with Jesus as one's true master. Paul taught that through belief or faith in Jesus, people would enjoy an eventual re-union with God in heaven. Paul's approach tended to abstract Jesus from everyone by making Jesus into a Holy Icon or "Sacred Other" who was elsewhere - and that believers only needed to believe in.

So yes, Paul actually set Jesus up as a mediator between God and man - but this was not what Jesus taught.

Paul's approach is not at all the same as living in a relationship of non-separate love with Jesus moment to moment, as Jesus obviously was offering to his followers with his appearance, core commandments, and Blessings. Yes, Jesus spoke of people worshiping and realizing Unity with God through him but only in the sense that he was living the very Divine to them directly, in life, in ways they could truly see and feel. This is not the same as being yet another objectified mediator that would keep one from realizing the Divine directly - but was offered by Jesus because of his very realization and example that others could see, tacitly feel and recognize the Divine, and so be inspired to take up his way of self-transcending love.

Jesus did not teach that there should be a mediator between everyone and God because he did not assume the inherent separation between man and God that was traditionally assumed and also assumed by Paul. Jesus called everyone to realize the Divine directly and he blessed them with his company, example, and Spirit Transmission to do so. Jesus was One with the Father and called all of his followers to this same eternal enjoyment and freedom directly.

Paul's teachings do not speak in these terms. He re-created Christianity into a religion that would have followers believe in Jesus and that would become their (eventual) salvation. He did not emphasize this direct personal non-separate love relationship with Jesus as God, nor did Paul speak of being Blessed by God each and every moment of living this relationship, and that by so living this direct relationship, it was also the very means for living Jesus' two great commandments of love. (No conventional human can live those core commandments fully - only one already recognizing the Divine, infilled with the spirit of God, could begin to do so truly.)

After Paul's mystical experience he believed that through Jesus' sacrifice, the traditionally presumed obstructions between man and God were removed by Jesus, and so fundamentally what was now necessary was one's believing in Jesus to insure salvation.

Basically, Jesus offered himself, the Divine, directly to everyone, while Paul did not teach this, but instead told everyone to have faith in Jesus and someday you too will be saved. The latter allowed Christianity to become a very large religious and political institution because of Paul's promises and people needing hope, etc.

Paul basically re-invented Christianity into a faith-based religion where Jesus became the intermediary to be objectified and worshiped by believers in order for them to be saved and re-unified with God in heaven someday. This is very different from Jesus' gift of direct relationship with him as the very Divine, available to all who surrender to the Divine every day and allow themselves to be infilled and altogether transformed with his blessing love and inherent capacity to live the life of loving God with the whole body-mind and neighbor as oneself - i.e., inherently, and from the beginning, recognizing one's non-separate unity with God.

Jesus' way, when fully lived, is direct and tangibly felt as one's own self-sacrifice in the Divine as love - not just believing, as Paul would have, that Jesus had somehow magically undone the need for one's own self-transcendence in love.

reply to post by bb23108

Do you care to elaborate on this? I would love to hear why you say this, if you please.

Sure...

Paul didn't know Jesus.... Never met him... Didn't teach anything from his lessons...

And I personally believe his little encounter with Jesus After he died... Never actually happened.

Paul wanted a following, and he used the name of a great man who had a huge following.... to become a great man with a huge following.

reply to post by Akragon


Paul does seem to contradict Jesus. Jesus says not one jot or tittle of the law will be annuled. It comes from God and will always be. And Paul says those under Christ are no longer under the law. Paul is very didactic and pharisee like ( I guess because he was one) It's easy to not like him. But you have to remember Jesus chose him. And he knew what Paul was going to do and say.

reply to post by Hillarie

But you have to remember Jesus chose him. And he knew what Paul was going to do and say.

Well that's one way to look at it...

Another way is that Paul made up his encounter with Jesus to gain a following...

IF he met Jesus... he would have taught at least a few of his lessons... but he didn't.

I look at all the books as codes and academia. But as a Christian, who sometimes sees Christ as real and other ties as metaphor, and oft as both, I look only to his example, see him as trying to set our minds free and showing us how to progress/ascend. And there may have been much more.

Originally posted by Akragon
reply to post by felonius

 

Show me ONE place where J.C. used fear to gain deciples. You cant do it.

Actually I can...

Though im getting the impression you don't know who you're speaking to... So lets just agree to "crap can" paul and his writing

Fair enough?

obviously I dont know who this is. I guess were on a similiar page about paul.



honestly you dont require the bible at all to be "xtian". gnostics for example.

btw where did jc use fear to wrangle in the converts? u have me curious.

Originally posted by felonius

Originally posted by Akragon
reply to post by felonius

 

Show me ONE place where J.C. used fear to gain deciples. You cant do it.

Actually I can...

Though im getting the impression you don't know who you're speaking to... So lets just agree to "crap can" paul and his writing

Fair enough?

obviously I dont know who this is. I guess were on a similiar page about paul.



honestly you dont require the bible at all to be "xtian". gnostics for example.

btw where did jc use fear to wrangle in the converts? u have me curious.

Matthew 10:28
And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell

Now personally I don't believe in "hell"... I believe he was talking about an entirely different thing then Christians will tell you...

but there it is...

Originally posted by Akragon
... and the interesting thing is the gospels are actually the keys to understanding the mystical beauty in Thomas

Another interesting statement from you I meant to ask you about earlier. Have you written any details about these "keys" elsewhere? I would also think that what you are referring to as keys are aspects of Jesus' teachings that are not covered by Paul?

reply to post by bb23108

Another interesting statement from you I meant to ask you about earlier. Have you written any details about these "keys" elsewhere?

I don't believe I have... The only way I can explain it is this...

IF you read Thomas without understanding the gospels... Thomas is obscure, confusing in some cases...

That is not the case once one understands the gospels. I've been on both sides of the fence... Thomas was one of the first books that caught my interest... After reading it, I needed more information on Jesus... Thus I had to turn to the only reliable place to find his words... Once returning to Thomas I saw what is said more clearly

I would also think that what you are referring to as keys are aspects of Jesus' teachings that are not covered by Paul?

What exactly did Paul cover in Jesus' teachings?