-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Epistles of Paul as the Word of God?
- Thread starter Halcyon
- Start date
I don't think there's any contradiction with Saul on the road to Damascus. My version says the men couldn't understand the voice in Acts 22:9. The part about falling and standing could have been a couple of things. They either fell and then stood up or it could have been an expression like we might say "I can't stand you" although we are sitting when we say it.
Darkness
Psychoanalyst/Marxist
rocketman said:
I really have no problem with an uninvolved God, but a God who actually commits sins, Him I have a problem with. The fair thing would to be for God to die (annihilation) for His sins. I know you say He has a higher purpose, but the judgment He judges us with He should use to judge himself. If we are annihilated for murder or other sins, then so should He be.
rocketman
Out there...
That makes sense to me.
Personally I can't hold that view however because I see the cascade of sin already in effect, and God only allowing it to flow this way or that way. To my mind, for God to sin, that is, to be classed as a really evil mutha, he would have had to destroy the first one of us the moment we broke the rules, and never given us a second chance.
astarath
Well-Known Member
That post is far from the original question of the thread. You are following a tangent far removed. Paul's epistles hold some extremely valuable teachings and are included in the canonical works because it was agree by the holy see that he was inspired by the spirit when writing his works and as such they to are the word of God. For myself however, as an ebionite, I see Paul not to be the great and true apostle of christ that he is made out to be but rather a mere mislead follower whose church happened to gain the favor of Rome.
For the message of Paul that the law has passed and serves us no longer is indeed contrary to the teachings of the Christ that not a jot nor a tittle of the law shall pass. I have always wondered why if you cherish the teachings of Paul so greatly that encourage us to be Christ-like in our actions why we would not act according to the Law as Christ did.
Now enters the debate as to what Law Christ followed... this is a no brainer as the is only one true Law of God. If Christ has transgressed against a single one of these laws he would have been with sin and this would have tainted the blessed image of the saviour we now hold.
I am not saying that we are capable of living an existence void of sin because it is as the scripture says the spirit is willing but the flesh is weak. But this is no excuse to not try.
If we are to try to adhere to the tenets of the Law then there is indeed value of them contrary to the teachings of Paul. If there is error in his teachings then they can not be God breathed as God is infallable.
This is just the typical Ebionite stance that there are several aspects of Paul's teachings that hold merit however his whole work is not without flaw and as such should not be text included in the canon nor accepted as the Holy Word of Yahweh.
For the message of Paul that the law has passed and serves us no longer is indeed contrary to the teachings of the Christ that not a jot nor a tittle of the law shall pass. I have always wondered why if you cherish the teachings of Paul so greatly that encourage us to be Christ-like in our actions why we would not act according to the Law as Christ did.
Now enters the debate as to what Law Christ followed... this is a no brainer as the is only one true Law of God. If Christ has transgressed against a single one of these laws he would have been with sin and this would have tainted the blessed image of the saviour we now hold.
I am not saying that we are capable of living an existence void of sin because it is as the scripture says the spirit is willing but the flesh is weak. But this is no excuse to not try.
If we are to try to adhere to the tenets of the Law then there is indeed value of them contrary to the teachings of Paul. If there is error in his teachings then they can not be God breathed as God is infallable.
This is just the typical Ebionite stance that there are several aspects of Paul's teachings that hold merit however his whole work is not without flaw and as such should not be text included in the canon nor accepted as the Holy Word of Yahweh.
Pershaps you would have to look at the purpose of the law. I would suggest it was to bring us into a relationship with God like it was in the garden of Eden before there was any sin. The law shows it is impossible to keep all the laws. Jesus was the only one who could keep the law. And yet there were times He purposefully broke them. For example, He told the lame man to pick up his mat on the sabbath, he used religious jugs to make wine at the wedding, He picked grain on the sabbath. So, I would suggest the real way He kept the law was the intent of it which was to love God and to love your neighbour. So, Jesus' death freed us from keeping the law but to do all in love which God wanted from the beginning. And this is what Paul was talking about.
astarath
Well-Known Member
You see this as a breaking of the law, yet you accept the Christ is God. When Christ corrects and says sabbath is made for man not man for the sabbath God was teaching us that his work is meant to be done even on the sabbath. As far as miracles are concerned the wedding at cana was a relgious ceremony and the food and drink a part of that ceremony. Christs works there were not a breach in the law but rather a blessing on the union.
Christ could not say to not follow the law as previously stated because this would make God hypocritcal. God is infallable and as such can not be hypocritical. Paul was speaking to gentiles and comforting them in telling them they need not be worried by foreign traditions but rather could go on living their sinful lives knowing they are saved by Grace.
Christ could not say to not follow the law as previously stated because this would make God hypocritcal. God is infallable and as such can not be hypocritical. Paul was speaking to gentiles and comforting them in telling them they need not be worried by foreign traditions but rather could go on living their sinful lives knowing they are saved by Grace.
astarath
Well-Known Member
His works met the requirements of the Law and he did this through love.. but those rules you refer to Christ himself described as our greatest commandment at their essence. Those rules have existed for over 5000 years as a sign of God's love for us and his desire for us to live in a loving relationship with each other and him.
astarath
Well-Known Member
That's good enough for me...except that Paul tells that story differently 3 times in acts and another different telling in Galatians. The rest of the tellings dont have this proclamation of the Lord. But I will chalk that up to another typographical error on Paul's part...but wait if it's God's word it needs to be infallable so we will need to start all over again wont we.
Captain Civic
version 2.0
Or perhaps more succinctly; love IS the rules.
Dirty Penguin
Master Of Ceremony
Yea this thread had been dead for a while so I'm suprised to see it come to life again.....
It is said that Luke wrote the book (letter) of Acts to Theopolis. Luke Got his information from other people. He does not reveal that he was even with Paul on the road to Damascus. We can assume that he received this information second hand about Paul's encounter.
It was Paul who said he "heard the voice of Yeshua". Mind you this story is told three or four different ways bu Paul. I must note that Paul never knew Yeshua. There is no information that he met Yeshua when he was alive or that he attended any sermon Yeshua ever gave. I also want to note that Pail never quotes anything Yeshua ever said. The story of who hear what and saw what is suspect and seemed to change depending on who he was telling his story to.....(maybe is just me and my interpertaion).....Paul was a self proclaimed deciple.
Dirty Penguin
Master Of Ceremony
I like when you post. I think I've told you this before.
I always saw Paul as a self proclaimed apostle. He is that kind of person that Yeshua warned everyone about (those that came in his name).
rocketman
Out there...
There is certainly no contradiction, only a suitably orated version for each situation.
Paul was focused on the living Jesus, for that is how Jesus came to him. No one complains that the other disciples didn't really 'get' it until they saw the risen Jesus. After the death of Jesus his followers had a whole new view of the old testament.
And who better than an expert like Paul to explain the consequences of Jesus death and resurection in the context of Judaic Law to the gentiles who knew nothing of it. It all makes perfect sense to me.
One good thing about Paul is that he tells us when he is giving his own opinion. I don't see what all the fuss is about. Pauls core theology is no different than that of Peter and John. Look at what Peter said in Acts 15:10,11 for example. Frankly I'm astonished that people think that Paul 'invented' Christianity.
lunamoth
Will to love
Excellent. :yes:
astarath
Well-Known Member
In the canonical works you are correct however the extra-canonical works of the other apostles do show they held a deeper understanding of the teachings of Christ that far escaped the reach of Paul and were almost always to the contrary.
Interesting as an expert in the Law missed the purpose and value of it. Not only this he missed the point that Christ upheld in his travels as he frequently clarified and acted according to the Law.
Finally, the conditions of a text being included in the canon were in fact that all thoughts presented come from God, either through direct speach or writings. Personal opinions other than those of Christ hold no merit if they contradict a teaching of Christ. Paul on more than one occasion was scorned for his misinterpretation and communication of the Law to the Gentiles. In fact, the Jewish people who did have an excellent grasp on the Law were in fact so perturbed by his skewed and jaded teachings they went so far as a desire to charge him with blasphemy! As far as his invention of Christianity may go... there are many different schools of Christianity today but are all represented bytheir source in Paul and all of them hold his contempt for the value of the Law. There were other schools of course that do not originate in Paul that hold an alternative view on the Law and purpose of Christ's life. These schools are no longer allowed to be associated with the term Christianity however as they are indeed so far removed from Paul's teachings. Pauline Christianity is the accepted faith of Christians these days and as such he is responsible for the invention of Christianity as you know it!