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

reply to post by NOTurTypical


No, but I do know he rejects any kind of Gnostic literature. Him being a Christian makes that scenario a conflict of interest.

Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

And where is your proof of Peter's literacy? Are you just making that up to fit it in with your conclusion? Sounds like it to me.

What I find funny is that when I threw out the idea of Paul and Peter being the same person in another thread, you countered that with Peter being illiterate and unable to write Paul's epistles.

I never said that, that's either a lie or you have me mistaken for someone else.

reply to post by Akragon

Can you reject the writing of Paul who actually wrote the bulk of Christian scripture and still consider yourself a Christian

Nope, because Paul was filled with the Holy Spirit. Reject the Holy Spirit and you reject everything Christ taught because it's his spirit, ergo you are not a christian because everything Jesus taught came straight from the Holy Spirit. Paul was given as apostle to the gentiles not the jews, if it weren't for him we wouldnt even know what Jesus is and would doubtless still be praying to statues and lumps of wood carved dolls. You can't have one without the other. The other apostles vouched for Paul, and he resurrected the dead and healed people so the Holy Spirit vouched for him also.

Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

No, but I do know he rejects any kind of Gnostic literature. Him being a Christian makes that scenario a conflict of interest.

That would be a circumstantial ad hominem fallacy. His position or bias is irrelevant. I could just as arbitrarily claim that Gnostics only venerate those texts because they are Gnostics.

Re-think and come up with a legitimate counterpoint.

Originally posted by adjensen
So what is Christ saying here? He's explicitly rejecting the view that simply being born of the (Jewish) flesh got you a Golden Ticket. You also needed to be born of the spirit, becoming a new person who picked up their cross and followed Christ.

Right, there is no automatic salvation based on one's birth status, just like there is no set of prescribed behaviors that are going to get one saved. What Jesus was also teaching was that through the direct spiritual relationship with him one can live his commandments of love, and also be spiritually saved from death via seeing beyond the mortal body-mind. Jesus granted great exoteric wisdom (his core commandments) and esoteric wisdom (his Blessing Transmission) - all combined in the simplicity of his gift of relationship to those that chose (choose) it.

Originally posted by adjensen
So this isn't a lesson in duality, it's the case that there are two types of births, but they are complimentary, not contradictory, as the Gnostics taught.

I agree with you that Jesus was not teaching that the body-mind (flesh) is in conflict with the Spirit. He was transmitting his Blessing and initiating his disciples in order to show them that the Divine Spirit Light transcends the flesh, but not that the flesh was inherently bad or had to be shunned, as many Gnostics presumed. That is not what Jesus was saying with that quote - he simply was granting his followers the means to love the Divine, to see they are beyond the mortality of the flesh body, even while still being alive in the body-mind.

On this basis of the physical and spiritual relationship with, and blessing from, Jesus, they could live his commandments with the whole body-mind turned to him and therefore the Divine.

reply to post by NOTurTypical


It's also called a conflict of interest. Two sides of the same coin.

reply to post by NOTurTypical


Lol ok... Well i'll just let you believe whatever you like...

I didn't see him speaking up about his expertise in said area... And im also very sure you don't get into many conversations about gnostic writing here either...

One can be well read on gnostic writing and still hardly dare to claim to be an expert on the subject...

Hell.. I've read every piece of gnostic writing available... And i wouldn't make that claim either...

This is all completely off topic in any case... But i assure you.. There are no experts on gnostic texts here...

And if there is... That person has managed to avoid being noticed

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by Witness123

 

Not everyone accepts that the Apostles verify that. Some speculate that James was a critic of Paul as evidenced in his epistle.

That's an outdated view that goes back to Luther.
Today that view is not upheld by biblical scholars who now have a better handle on the language and rhetoric of that time when those books were written.

That view doesn't go back to Luther. It goes back to yesterday when I wrote it. What Luther believed was that James contradicted Paul, for instance, in saying Abraham's was justified by his works, whereas Paul says it was by faith.

Now, what I'm saying goes further than what Luther said. I am saying that James is literally calling Paul out in his entire letter and is attempting to restore order that was disrupted by Pauline heresy. I disagree with Luther. James is inspired. Paul's epistles are not.

reply to post by Witness123

I am saying that James is literally calling Paul out in his entire letter and is attempting to restore order that was disrupted by Pauline heresy.

I don't know who else would support that idea.
I've bought several commentaries on James and I don't see them supporting that conclusion.

Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

It's also called a conflict of interest.

Two sides of the same coin.

That's a circumstantial ad hominem, I've pointed this out to you before. Bias has no relevant relationship to truth.

Originally posted by Akragon
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

Lol ok... Well i'll just let you believe whatever you like...

I didn't see him speaking up about his expertise in said area... And im also very sure you don't get into many conversations about gnostic writing here either...

One can be well read on gnostic writing and still hardly dare to claim to be an expert on the subject...

Hell.. I've read every piece of gnostic writing available... And i wouldn't make that claim either...

This is all completely off topic in any case... But i assure you.. There are no experts on gnostic texts here...

And if there is... That person has managed to avoid being noticed

Maybe he's not one to boast?

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by Witness123

 

I am saying that James is literally calling Paul out in his entire letter and is attempting to restore order that was disrupted by Pauline heresy.

I don't know who else would support that idea.
I've bought several commentaries on James and I don't see then supporting that conclusion.

Not to mention James was written before Romans.

reply to post by NOTurTypical


I wouldn't expect him to... But maybe he knows as well as i do that its damn near impossible to be an expert on gnostic writing. The texts don't even agree with each other on most issues.

Theres litterally hundreds of different theologies in gnostic writing.

Even i would put most people to shame on their knowledge of gnostic writing...

And i am no expert

reply to post by NOTurTypical


His opinion is that the Gnostic texts are not legitimate. His opinion does not equal truth, neither does mine nor yours. Opinions are opinions, not truths.

Geez, you guys, stop arguing about me behind my back, lol.

I agree with Akragon that it's difficult to claim to have an expertise in Gnosticism, outside of scholarly circles (I'd call Ehrman an expert, as well as Elaine Pagels, though I disagree with both of them, a lot, lol.) So I would scarcely call myself an expert, given that I'm an engineer, rather than a historian (counter to my academic training, which was, in part, in History.)

But I haven't run across anyone on ATS who has whizzed away as much of their lives on the Gnostics as I have, in all aspects, whether their writings, their opponents', modern day proponents and the general history that surrounds early Christian heresy, so NOTurTypical has a point, as well.

Truth be told, I spent a lot of time on them, as well as Platonism, because at that point in my life, I wanted them to be right. I really thought that I'd stumbled onto something, so ever more was my disappointment when, after sufficient research, I realized that the Christian Gnostics (at least) couldn't possibly be correct. Not "oh, it's one option of many..." or "well, if it worked out this way..." -- they couldn't possibly be correct.

Christian Gnosticism stems from the ever so common attempt to hijack the person of Jesus Christ and insert him into a milieu in which he cannot possibly exist, because he lends credibility to non-credible issues. We can see it throughout the ages after the initial growth of Christianity, up to today, when various politicians claim that Jesus would be in their corner, as opposed to their opponent, despite the fact that, by the text, he'd likely side with neither and chew them both out.

The problem is that it begins with the Bible -- that's where the first documents associated with Christ appear. Historical evidence shows a very clear progression out from there to the documents that were written a hundred or more years later and simply recycled the characters from the most popular spiritual text of the time, repurposing them to the promotion of theology and philosophy that they couldn't possibly have supported.

Any reasonable view of Christ, in my opinion, must be rooted in the Bible, because there is a sufficient gap between those writings and the follow-ons that the fictionalization of him, and his acts, cannot help but be assumed. If a document emerges which is in significant divergence from the canonical texts, it cannot be reasonably accepted as a valid text.

Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
His opinion does not equal truth, neither does mine nor yours. Opinions are opinions, not truths.

Yes, but my opinion is based on fact and evidence, not on my pre-existing bias which leads me to a conclusion outside of, or in conflict of, the facts. That's the difference between a "learned opinion" and a subjective one.

reply to post by bb23108


Sorry, I've read through your post several times and I can't make heads or tails of it. I have little to no interest in eastern philosophy, which is what you seem to be equating that passage to, so maybe you want to "dumb it down" a little for the likes of me.

reply to post by adjensen


Where are these facts and evidences at? You keep saying you have them so why not present them? Provide a link that proves without a doubt that Thomas' gospel was a fraud.

Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
Provide a link that proves without a doubt that Thomas' gospel was a fraud.

You've shown an inability to understand even basic concepts of theology, so what's the point of showing you how The Gospel of Thomas is a fraud?

Pearls before swine, I believe, is the term that Jesus used.

reply to post by adjensen


And you have shown that you do not understand basic concepts of logic.

Funny, because Jesus truthfully answered the Pharisees questions on several occasions. The Pharisees were the swine of their time.

I'm beginning to think that your facts might be made up.