Paul contradicts Jesus

reply to post by pthena


The "hierarchy" is the universe itself, it controls us in certain ways with the laws of physics. We are stuck within this universe and stuck on this planet (for now) because of the "hierarchy" of the functions of the universe.

Look up at the sky and you will see the "hierarchy", it is the firmament that keeps us in place and where everything holds together.

reply to post by Akragon

I don't even consider Pauls work relevant

Which is pretty close to my personal view too. But on the other hand, since I almost memorized Paul in my youth, and don't feel any need to read him much, the occasional pithy phrase does pop into my mind from time to time. Then, I go ahead and quote him. That's probably the way Paul used the Old Testament.

The entire body of Pauls work relies on the reader to assume that his conversion on the road to Damascus actually happened... the reader must take his word for it..

That story in Acts probably wasn't written until Paul was gone, so his actual work in life did not rely upon that particular version of events.

Paul didn't know anything about Jesus, but he knew his name was great....

And I don't know anything about the biography of Jesus either. To me, it isn't the name I consider great, but the god himself, on a personal level. The sayings I use as teacher. The god himself, did not teach me except in a very profound personal way that doesn't particularly translate to me teaching that to anyone else.

Therefore, I must rely upon what I have in common with other people, the Gospel stories and Paul, not that I know these things more than anybody else does, so I cherry pick, which is what other people do also.

Paul used the name of a great man to obtain the following he desired.... He wanted to be great... He wanted followers like Jesus had... and he used the name of Jesus to get exactly that... NOT the lessons he taught

Maybe you are Paul, rather than me. You know so much more than I do about him.

But seriously, today is a different day. Paul was no more a singular figure in his day, than any sect leader is today. He wasn't "big boss man" like today. Think of him as like, say, the Patriarch of the Ethiopian Church. There are also a few other Patriarchs around, and there's the Pope, and there's all the other sects that have committees rather than a President.

He was one among many. No one picks on those other people, because we don't know their names. So Paul, because we do know his name, takes the fall for himself and all those other leaders or whatever we regard them to be.

Now I'm rambling. Don't appeal to Paul then for authority, he's just a guy, like we are all just guys and gals on a forum.

reply to post by windword

Does an asteroid suffer when it slams into the sun? Does the land suffer from a volcanic eruption, an earthquake or a tsunami? Is a black hole evil?

We are sentient beings who do feel and are distressed.

If we created a imperfect universe as a reflection of our imperfect nature, who created us in "their image"?

I didn't say that it is imperfect because we are.
A universe can't just happen instantly and be perfect at that same instant.
I suppose you think that it can and it is.
And so why I am against worshipping material things.
I believe in perfect spiritual beings, and that we are not and can not be perfect ourselves (at least not right now) and reflect the current condition of the universe (that we are a part of since the universe came into existence).

reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1

People like you are one of the main reasons we pollute so much. You don't appreciate what you have already been given, you only appreciate what you THINK is coming after this life.

This right here, is where you are mimicking Windword. Windword is respected, so you mimic Windword to have that respect rub off on you. Can you see how this works?

reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1

What happens on this tiny speck of dust called Earth does not define what the universe is as a whole.

I think it gives a good indication. I don't think that it is reasonable to believe that we picked the only bad spot in the universe to make our home.

Also, if we caused the universe to come into being like you say, wouldn't that mean that we are the creator?

Not necessarily.
I think the actual hands-on part is done by a third party contractor.

reply to post by jmdewey60

A universe can't just happen instantly and be perfect at that same instant. I suppose you think that it can and it is.

Is a rose less perfect in a seedling form than in the form of bud? Is a rose bud more or less perfect than a rose in full bloom?

And so why I am against worshipping material things.

What is "worship", in your mind?

I don't "worship" anything! I believe that God has a body, and that body is the universe. I also have a body. "As above so below." I am not my body, I am a spiritual being having a temporal physical experience. So is God.

I believe in perfect spiritual beings, and that we are not and can not be perfect ourselves (at least not right now) and reflect the current condition of the universe (that we are a part of since the universe came into existence).

How is that Jesus commanded:

Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.

?

If heaven isn't a physical place, then why did Jesus say this:

"Truly I tell you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.

Or this

And from the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven suffers violence, and the violent take it by force.

?

reply to post by windword

Greetings Windword,

If heaven isn't a physical place, then why did Jesus say this:

"Truly I tell you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.

I can't tell if Jesus said these words or if the Gospel writer came up with them himself.

To me, this is an indication to followers of Jesus that they do not have to seek the authority of the rabbinical sages. Since Christianity and Talmudic Judaism were developing at the same time, and the Sages had the notion that they themselves were writing the words that the deity was obliged to follow (sorcery?), this saying borrows the concept and applies it to another group ie. the church.

A similar instance is the saying that "not one jot or tittle will be removed from the Law..." The Sages were busily adding jot and tittles to the Torah at the time the Gospel was being written.

The Talmudic notion that the deity is the slave of the words of men is rather disturbing to me for some reason. It just doesn't seem right. A deity seems more important when he/she has much more freedom of movement.

I doubt that the Christians try to enslave their deity in such a way. I have seen some pseudo-Christian cults do that however.

reply to post by windword

So is God.

Then you really have no definition of God.
You seem to see god as the material universe but just trying it on for size, or playing dress up.
I don't see it that way, but we are the beings that we seem to be and have no other mode of existence, just as God is a spirit and can be nothing else.
Now what that spirit is and what it is capable of, we can't really say for sure, and it could very well appear as anything if it had reason to.

Is a rose less perfect in a seedling form than in the form of bud? Is a rose bud more or less perfect than a rose in full bloom?

Assuming that anything can be perfect in the reality that currently exists, which I am not really willing to go along with, even if just for the sake of making an analogy.

What is "worship", in your mind?

You believe that existence is based on a particular person, which elevates it to a position unique unto itself.
That would make this entity worthy . . of consideration, if nothing else, which is enough to be considered worship.
A reverse of that would be to say that every sentient entity of the god family is essential to the whole, none are more expendable, and none is capable of taking the entirety of all existence upon itself.

How is that Jesus commanded:
Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.

He meant not thinking in a selfish way but from a point of view that takes everyone into consideration.

If heaven isn't a physical place, then why did Jesus say this:
"Truly I tell you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.
Or this
And from the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven suffers violence, and the violent take it by force.
?

Huh? Heaven is the opposite of "physical" as Jesus was trying to explain things on earth from a non selfish point of view.

Originally posted by pthena
reply to post by windword

Greetings Windword,

If heaven isn't a physical place, then why did Jesus say this:

"Truly I tell you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.

I can't tell if Jesus said these words or if the Gospel writer came up with them himself.

To me, this is an indication to followers of Jesus that they do not have to seek the authority of the rabbinical sages. Since Christianity and Talmudic Judaism were developing at the same time, and the Sages had the notion that they themselves were writing the words that the deity was obliged to follow (sorcery?), this saying borrows the concept and applies it to another group ie. the church.

A similar instance is the saying that "not one jot or tittle will be removed from the Law..." The Sages were busily adding jot and tittles to the Torah at the time the Gospel was being written.

The Talmudic notion that the deity is the slave of the words of men is rather disturbing to me for some reason. It just doesn't seem right. A deity seems more important when he/she has much more freedom of movement.

I doubt that the Christians try to enslave their deity in such a way. I have seen some pseudo-Christian cults do that however.

Don't you find that verse to be screaming "Karma"?

reply to post by jmdewey60

Then you really have no definition of God. You seem to see god as the material universe but just trying it on for size, or playing dress up. I don't see it that way, but we are the beings that we seem to be and have no other mode of existence, just as God is a spirit and can be nothing else.

Was Jesus playing dress up when he donned his man suit and sacrificed himself to himself? Are you playing dress up as a human man, when in reality you're a spiritual being?

The natural world, or universe, is the physical manifestation of the spirit and is, in reality, a marriage of both.

For you to say that God is a spirit and nothing else put limits on your God. As we know it, the universe is without limit, making the universe greater than your God.

reply to post by Akragon

Don't you find that verse to be screaming "Karma"?

You take me to task, my friend.

This is where I must break down and confess that the Christian understanding of judgment according to works is still very much a part of my mind-set. I don't even know whether that is a good thing or a bad thing. I suspect that it is a good thing, so I don't toss it out.

Jesus seemed to teach a judgment. He taught that we do not escape the consequences of our deeds, including words as deeds. To take the "no jot or tittle" statement:

Matt 5:18 For most certainly, I tell you, until heaven and earth pass away, not even one smallest letter or one tiny pen stroke shall in any way pass away from the law, until all things are accomplished. 19 Whoever, therefore, shall break one of these least commandments, and teach others to do so, shall be called least in the Kingdom of Heaven; but whoever shall do and teach them shall be called great in the Kingdom of Heaven. 20 For I tell you that unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, there is no way you will enter into the Kingdom of Heaven.

Many people interpret this to mean that the Law is still binding and must be obeyed. I have a different opinion.

Since men are the ones writing the Law, they are the ones that the Law is a witness against in judgment. By saying it will never pass away is to say that in the judgment, this Law will come forward and testify against the people who wrote it. If they sought to enslave the deity, they themselves are entrapped.

Is this what you mean by Karma?

reply to post by pthena


To an extent yes...

The law being the hundreds moses made... 613 to be exact... yet if you read through those laws, you can see many of which would actually create a Karmic debt...

Words and actions that are not loving create that debt...

Some if not most Karma can be resolved within this incarnation, yet there are other things that can not be resolved within one life time... such as murder...

Blasphemy... More then you think it is?

not sure if you've read that thread or not...

As far as the law that Jesus said would not pass away... I don't believe he meant the law of moses... He meant the law that has always existed, that has remained unchanged from the beginning...

That being the two commandments he gave...

Another good example of Jesus teaching about Karma by the way...

19 Whoever, therefore, shall break one of these least commandments, and teach others to do so, shall be called least in the Kingdom of Heaven;

reply to post by Akragon

not sure if you've read that thread or not...

My speed at reading is not so great, I probably have not read that thread yet. I will try to remember to get back to it.

As far as the law that Jesus said would not pass away... I don't believe he meant the law of moses... He meant the law that has always existed, that has remained unchanged from the beginning...

I feel more comfortable with my interpretation at this time, and as usual, I reserve the right to change my mind later if it seems appropriate.

That being the two commandments he gave...

I choke and gag upon the name YHWH, therefore if an all encompassing One is to be spoken of, I may have to think in terms of Brahman rather than YHWH, since that name carries such a bad load of baggage for me.

If you were to say, "Love Brahman with all your heart and soul" there's no problem from me there.
"Love your neighbor as yourself" I've never had any trouble seeing that as a guiding principle, although the carrying out of this principle is more difficult than many may assume.

Suddenly, I can't remember if I had any other point that I wanted to make. I should probably take a break from writing and just read for a while.

reply to post by pthena

I feel more comfortable with my interpretation at this time, and as usual, I reserve the right to change my mind later if it seems appropriate.

Im not here to convince anyone brother...

Just to ramble on about the thoughts in my head...

Fortunately barely a day goes by that I don't think of the gospels in some way...

reply to post by Akragon

Im not here to convince anyone brother...

And now my shame is exposed. I did read that thread before, in fact the last post is made by me. But I re-read it to see how you handled the discussion. And I see now that you do a better job than I do at running a thread.

reply to post by lonewolf19792000
I'm sorry lonewolf. I accused you of superstition. I too am very superstitious about the Book. To me the Old Testament is like a prison for a jinn, think "Aladdin's Lamp" sort of thing. If I open the Book, and start reading, the jinn starts suggesting that I let him out. I've fallen for the seduction more than once in my life. That's why I try to handle with a buffer of skepticism.

reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
I'm sorry for being such an officious Jerk. And thank you for this:

Look up at the sky and you will see the "hierarchy", it is the firmament that keeps us in place and where everything holds together.

Sky is my most high god, realizing of course that He is a reflection of Someone/Something greater still.

reply to post by pthena


Mimicking? What are you talking about? My thoughts are my own. Look up the thread "We need Jesus" and you will see me the say the same thing in that thread long before this thread was even thought of. I have said this same thing in several threads before this one.

You are just looking for a reason to disagree and throw me under the bus. That is clear now.

I don't recall windword ever saying anything about pollution, so your accusation that I am somehow mimicking her is off-base and completely out of left field.

reply to post by pthena


The sky and the universe is a reflection of us. We are "greater" than the physical world in a sense because we can morph and form it into whatever we like, we can build skyscrapers from it, computers, books, TV's, cars, the LHC, etc.

The world is a reflection of us because our thoughts mold it into what we want it to be. Our thoughts control our bodies and our bodies and hands are used to build things and change landscapes and build entire cities. All of that originated with thought, so we ARE that "something greater".

reply to post by Akragon


To get back on topic:

Paul does not integrate the idea of reincarnation into his theology. He held the common Judaic idea of resurrection.

In my opinion Jesus also framed his teachings around the concept of individuals held in a "holding area" after death (sheol/hades). So even in death, the soul "gathered to his/her people" was not a bad thing, it was a "resting in the bosom of Abraham" awaiting some future event to bring in the Kingdom and the Resurrection.

By saying "many will come from the east and the west, and will sit down with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the Kingdom of Heaven," Jesus sort of turned the hades notion on it's head. Heaven is where the patriarchs are and not in some subterranean place.

Paul picked up on that

I Thessalonians 4:13 But we don’t want you to be ignorant, brothers, concerning those who have fallen asleep, so that you don’t grieve like the rest, who have no hope. 14 For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so God will bring with him those who have fallen asleep in Jesus. 15 For this we tell you by the word of the Lord, that we who are alive, who are left to the coming of the Lord, will in no way precede those who have fallen asleep. 16 For the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with God’s trumpet. The dead in Christ will rise first, 17 then we who are alive, who are left, will be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air.
. . .
1 Cor 15:20 But now Christ has been raised from the dead. He became the first fruits of those who are asleep. 21 For since death came by man, the resurrection of the dead also came by man. 22 For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all will be made alive. 23 But each in his own order: Christ the first fruits, then those who are Christ’s, at his coming. 24 Then the end comes, when he will deliver up the Kingdom to God, even the Father; when he will have abolished all rule and all authority and power. 25 For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. 26 The last enemy that will be abolished is death. 27 For, “He put all things in subjection under his feet.” But when he says, “All things are put in subjection,” it is evident that he is excepted who subjected all things to him. 28 When all things have been subjected to him, then the Son will also himself be subjected to him who subjected all things to him, that God may be all in all.

You and I both strongly object to the way Paul is merely going along with the Judaic Messianic world-view here. But he didn't invent this by a long shot. I do believe that even the Jewish Ebionites had this long before Paul.

So I fault him, not for innovation, but for a lack of innovation, if you get what I mean. The lack of innovation retains the necessity for a Physical Resurrection of Jesus, a throne, and a future general resurrection. All things that don't fit into a different world-view. So even though Paul saw himself as opening up this Messianic future to Gentiles, he was, at the same time, exposing Gentiles to Judaic world-view.

But to his credit, I know that he opposed the Judaisers who would have imposed the whole Torah upon the Gentiles. If there were no Paul, then all Christians today would be Jewish-Christian. That prospect does not appeal to me one bit.

So for relevancy of Paul. He is relevant to Christians still. You and I? Naw, we don't need him.

Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by KeliOnyx

 

God is all-powerful, so saying he "can't" do something is a bit of a misnomer don't you think?

Sorry if I come off as blunt, I don't mean anything personal by it.

It could have done everything but knows to much and understands to much to do everything. Knowing to much brings a set of limitations that is hard to deal with in a world where you can't act like a selfish one even of many people around you can do it. If god hurts somebody then it knows the hurt that is caused in that somebody. The higher moral ideals you have the harder it is to do things against their nature since you feel empathic.

reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1

You are just looking for a reason to disagree and throw me under the bus.

I'm sorry that I was throwing you under the bus. Can you forgive me?