Christianity minus Paul

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by Zaakir

i think that christianity - paul = what islam was before Muhammad s.a.w

Thanks for your thoughts.

[Excaliburton]

[quote=cyberpi]Well, Jesus (pbuh) did not directly quote anyone here either.

quote]
Jesus only quoted from the OT, and His message was complete and final, so Paul was not abiding in Jesus' teachings but was adding to them. Paul never even quoted any of Jesus' teachings or parables but instead added a brand new gospel that did not abide in Jesus' teachings.



Available Translations and Versions for 2Jo 1:9KJV - 2Jo 1:9 -Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son. King James Version 1611, 1769
NKJV - 2Jo 1:9 -Whoever transgresses and does not abide in the doctrine of Christ does not have God. He who abides in the doctrine of Christ has both the Father and the Son.
Footnote:
NU-Text reads goes ahead. New King James Version © 1982 Thomas Nelson
NLT - 2Jo 1:9 -For if you wander beyond the teaching of Christ, you will not have fellowship with God. But if you continue in the teaching of Christ, you will have fellowship with both the Father and the Son. New Living Translation © 1996 Tyndale Charitable Trust
NIV - 2Jo 1:9 -Anyone who runs ahead and does not continue in the teaching of Christ does not have God; whoever continues in the teaching has both the Father and the Son.
New International Version © 1973, 1978, 1984 International Bible Society
ESV - 2Jo 1:9 -Everyone who goes on ahead and does not abide in the teaching of Christ, does not have God. Whoever abides in the teaching has both the Father and the Son.
The Holy Bible, English Standard Version © 2001 Crossway Bibles
NASB - 2Jo 1:9 -Anyone who goes too far and does not abide in the teaching of Christ, does not have God; the one who abides in the teaching, he has both the Father and the Son. New American Standard Bible © 1995 Lockman Foundation
RSV - 2Jo 1:9 -Any one who goes ahead and does not abide in the doctrine of Christ does not have God; he who abides in the doctrine has both the Father and the Son. Revised Standard Version © 1947, 1952.
ASV - 2Jo 1:9 -Whosoever goeth onward and abideth not in the teaching of Christ, hath not God: he that abideth in the teaching, the same hath both the Father and the Son. American Standard Version 1901 Info
Young - 2Jo 1:9 -every one who is transgressing, and is not remaining in the teaching of the Christ, hath not God; he who is remaining in the teaching of the Christ, this one hath both the Father and the Son; Robert Young Literal Translation 1862, 1887, 1898 Info
Darby - 2Jo 1:9 -Whosoever goes forward and abides not in the doctrine of the Christ has not God. He that abides in the doctrine, *he* has both the Father and the Son. J.N.Darby Translation 1890 Info
Webster - 2Jo 1:9 -Whoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son. Noah Webster Version 1833 Info
HNV - 2Jo 1:9 -Whoever transgresses and doesn't remain in the teaching of Messiah, doesn't have God. He who remains in the teaching, the same has both the Father and the Son. Hebrew Names Version 2000 Info



And what does "pbuh" mean?

[cyberpi]

Originally Posted by Quahom1

lol, since this is a Christian forum, the argument is mute. And Cyperbi, those that seem to have no trouble telling us troubled Christians what we should think or not, are not in short supply. Indeed, those seem to be quite happy telling us what "morons" we are. Though to your credit, you never use those "terms".

Which is all good.

Is it? I apply the argument in any forum. So you speak for the people of the forum then by the nature that you consider yourself a Christian? Or do you speak for all Christians by the nature of being a moderator in this forum? Or do you speak for the people of this forum by the nature of being a moderator? I bet that you and I think, believe, and know differently. Don't you? I say the same for everyone, including my wife and family. I don't speak for my wife... she speaks for herself. 'WE', 'US', 'OUR', 'THEM' are powerful words, often misused and abused. The words imply a relationship. Or more commonly... a desired relationship.

Regarding 'moron'. Certainly not my intent. Any alledged wisdom in my words is not wisdom if it doesn't help anyone. If any alledged wisdom in my words is wisdom, then I assure you that it did not originate from me.

[Excaliburton]

Originally Posted by Excaliburton
Weren't the seven churches in Anatolia established by the apostle John?
And in Rev 2:2, the church of the Ephesians was congratulated by Jesus for rejecting false apostles. And Paul had tried to preach his other gospel to the Ephesians and admitted he was rejected by them. Connect the dots and discover the false apostle!

Rev 2:9 also shows the false apostle preaching in Anatolia was not a real Jew but only pretended to be a Jew, and we know that Paul was an Edomite, a tribe composed of Hittites and Hivites, the tribes the Israelites had been commanded by YHWH to utterly destroy in Deu 7, lest they lead Israel to forsake the Law.

Originally Posted by Quahom1

Indeed, and apparently maintained by Paul

2Ti 1:15 This thou knowest, that all they which are in Asia be turned away from me; of whom are Phygellus and Hermogenes.

Rev 2:2 I know thy works, and thy labour, and thy patience, and how thou canst not bear them which are evil: and thou hast tried them which say they are apostles, and are not, and hast found them liars:

Rev 2:9 I know thy works, and tribulation, and poverty, (but thou art rich) and [I know] the blasphemy of them which say they are Jews, and are not, but [are] the synagogue of Satan.


Rev 3:9 Behold, I will make them of the synagogue of Satan, which say they are Jews, and are not, but do lie; behold, I will make them to come and worship before thy feet, and to know that I have loved thee.

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by cyberpi

Is it? I apply the argument in any forum. So you speak for the people of the forum then by the nature that you consider yourself a Christian? Or do you speak for all Christians by the nature of being a moderator in this forum? Or do you speak for the people of this forum by the nature of being a moderator? I bet that you and I think, believe, and know differently. Don't you? I say the same for everyone, including my wife and family. I don't speak for my wife... she speaks for herself. 'WE', 'US', 'OUR', 'THEM' are powerful words, often misused and abused. The words imply a relationship. Or more commonly... a desired relationship.

Regarding 'moron'. Certainly not my intent. Any alledged wisdom in my words is not wisdom if it doesn't help anyone. If any alledged wisdom in my words is wisdom, then I assure you that it did not originate from me.

Why do you keep bringing up moderator, when I am not? eh? this seems to be becoming personal...which means I must notify the Administration, because you apparently have a problem with my very presense, let alone my thoughts.

[cyberpi]

Originally Posted by Quahom1

Why do you keep bringing up moderator, when I am not? eh? this seems to be becoming personal...which means I must notify the Administration, because you apparently have a problem with my very presense, let alone my thoughts.

Tell you what, whereever you see someone using the phrase "We think", "We know", or "We believe"... and it encompasses a group of people without at least a vote taken, a verbal understanding or written and agreed to document, then please give me a PM so that I can come be what I am best... a thorn. Most especially if it is a religious or political forum.

A document called the Qur'an contains statements, "We believe". I think you will have no problem finding that people overstep the Qur'an with that phrase. The US Declaration of Independence, my marriage certificate, home purchase, and probably some 100 different documents that I've signed contained "WE".

I take personally the ones that I personally witness. If I didn't have a say, then I am a thorn. Remember though, even roses have thorns and it is rumored that God (swt) designed them along with everything else.

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by cyberpi

Tell you what, whereever you see someone using the phrase "We think", "We know", or "We believe"... and it encompasses a group of people without at least a vote taken, a verbal understanding or written and agreed to document, then please give me a PM so that I can come be what I am best... a thorn. Most especially if it is a religious or political forum.

A document called the Qur'an contains statements, "We believe". I think you will have no problem finding that people overstep the Qur'an with that phrase. The US Declaration of Independence, my marriage certificate, home purchase, and probably some 100 different documents that I've signed contained "WE".

I take personally the ones that I personally witness. If I didn't have a say, then I am a thorn. Remember though, even roses have thorns and it is rumored that God (swt) designed them along with everything else.

Fair enough...thorn.

[cyberpi]

Originally Posted by Excaliburton

Jesus only quoted from the OT, and His message was complete and final,

I fully disagree... I think you should find clear evidence in John that indicates otherwise. Also, why do you quote Revelations then?

Originally Posted by Excaliburton

so Paul was not abiding in Jesus' teachings but was adding to them.

Can a person not add AND abide in the teachings from Jesus (pbuh)? If not, then every preacher in a church, every religious leader, and every person who posts here are all failing to abide in the teachings from Jesus (pbuh). Everyone is adding. Whereas I think communication is a necessity for Faith... and saying more than bible phrases is a necessity to convey information. If I were to work for you, and you for me, then you and I would develop clear communication. A student works for the teacher, a worker for the employer, a child for their parents, and wonderous communication happens without a single bible verse. If I go to a church I hear a lot more than a bible verse. A whole lot more. If I go to a Mosque, same thing. Paul is just another example. I agree with you that putting his words on equal with Jesus (pbuh) would be a mistake. Likewise, using a more worldly example, I tend to take information from a professor that spends a life studying a single subject than I do myself. But I fully disagree with using 'addition' as a test for whether or not a person is 'abiding'. I consider 'deletion' or 'editing' to be the more questionable actions.

I think the church of Corinth is a good example. Being a well travelled city between Athens and a land mass with few roads, I can just imagine the type of atmosphere there and the questions the people might have. So when confronted with questions, what does a person do... hand them a Gospel? It was a church so they already had it and they still had questions. They asked Paul for answers. As I read it, Paul did not want to answer their questions with yes / no answers or making commandments for them. It would not be from Christ (pbuh), so he answered with values and his logic that he applied to them. I think he put some good thought into it and I see how some of it relates to what Jesus (pbuh) taught. I am a fan of 1st Corinthians 13... but do I think it was the word from God (swt)? Maybe not untainted... but it does provide some insight. That is exactly what you will find at any church or mosque, and dare I say synagogue or other religious establishment that I have not been to. A whole lot more than reading verses.

Originally Posted by Excaliburton

Paul never even quoted any of Jesus' teachings or parables but instead added a brand new gospel that did not abide in Jesus' teachings.

I agree with you thats a problem if anyone reads it like a new gospel and puts the words on equal footing with any quotes from Jesus (pbuh). I think a summary should have been added in front of chapters to indicate the known history of translations and the source of the chapter. Or add it to the back. But with computers and internet now, the world of information is changing.

I am a fan of a library like I'm a fan of the internet. There is a lot of garbage in the library. Everyone and their neighbor can add to it. Everyone and their neighbor finds different things in it. Is it unfair that Paul's words get a special seat in an important book following the golden words from Jesus (pbuh)? I don't know... but I do think both are better than some of the translated 3rd party teachings that preceded it. I am more of a fan of add and organize than I am of edit and delete. Paul's words my not leave the world, but new words will surely be added. Without removing words, I think new generations searching for answers are more apt to look in new places and in new ways.

[Student1975]

Originally Posted by China Cat Sunflower

Paul wrote: 1st Thessalonians, Galatians, 1st and 2nd Corinthians, Romans, Philemon, and Phillippians. Phillippians is actually three letter fragments, written at different times, and pieced together later.

Chris

I dont believe there is any consensus about every book attributed to Paul. On some of them it depends very much on what the eye will see. Some believe Colossians and Ephesians were written and composed by someone else than Paul. Some believe Paul instructed a person to write the letters for him and he then agreed to the content. The fact that pseudographica were quickly detected and rejected supports that.

[Student1975]

I can not imagine Christianity without Paul. Some thoughts on this:

1. Most believers are not taught that the old covenant did not end in AD 33 when the new began, but in AD 70 when the Tempe was destroyed and the old covenant heavens and earth as in Mat 5:18 passed away. So in AD 33-70, there were two covenants, one of them “about to dissolve” (Heb 8:13). This explains that the apostles adhered to the Law and Paul when dealing with the Jews in Acts adhered to the Law and offered in the Temple. Jesus and the apostles said they were living in the last days, so if you believe in the Bible, you can not say they were wrong.

2. The differences between Paul’s ministry and the apostles are generally explained away. His ministry was unique and was addressed to the uncircumcised (later “neither jew nor gentile” all people), while the apostles preached to the circumcised/jews and occasional gentile proselytes/converts. It was impossible for gentiles to be under the Law (Acts 21:24-25). A major difference between his teaching and theirs was justification by God-given faith instead of justification as in the Old Testament; through faith shown through works and works shown through faith (Jam 2:20-25). That whole concept is a curse for sinners, “It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God” (Mat 19:24). Paul declares the Law to be a curse for criminals now removed (1 Tim 1:9, Gal 3:13).

3. You have to believe Jesus did instruct and bless Paul. He asked the same of people in his day. This is a problem to some. I do not think the exercise today is difficult; in any case you either believe the old books or not. There are indications in the Gospels that something else was underway, for instance the situation in Luke 4:24-27 or the “great commission” (fulfilled before AD 70 or soon after according to Col1:23).

[China Cat Sunflower]

Originally Posted by Student1975

I dont believe there is any consensus about every book attributed to Paul. On some of them it depends very much on what the eye will see. Some believe Colossians and Ephesians were written and composed by someone else than Paul. Some believe Paul instructed a person to write the letters for him and he then agreed to the content. The fact that pseudographica were quickly detected and rejected supports that.

There is no unanimous consensus on what is psuedo-pauline. There is, however, broad agreement that the books I listed above are genuinely from Paul's hand.

Chris

[China Cat Sunflower]

Originally Posted by Student1975

I can not imagine Christianity without Paul. Some thoughts on this:


2. The differences between Paul’s ministry and the apostles are generally explained away. His ministry was unique and was addressed to the uncircumcised (later “neither jew nor gentile” all people), while the apostles preached to the circumcised/jews and occasional gentile proselytes/converts. It was impossible for gentiles to be under the Law (Acts 21:24-25). A major difference between his teaching and theirs was justification by God-given faith instead of justification as in the Old Testament; through faith shown through works and works shown through faith (Jam 2:20-25). That whole concept is a curse for sinners, “It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God” (Mat 19:24). Paul declares the Law to be a curse for criminals now removed (1 Tim 1:9, Gal 3:13).

I think that a careful reading of Paul's writings shows that he started out proposing a doctrine of freedom from the Law, got in a bind with the Jerusalem group and other Jewish "Christians", and spent the rest of his writings trying to evolve a consensus theology that was universally palatable. He didn't entirely succeed, but he got pretty darn close with his epistle to the Romans. Unfortunately, Hebrews, for all practical purposes, undoes what Paul was trying to achieve.

Just my opinion.

Chris

[Student1975]

China Cat,

Your opinion proposes that the NewTestament and the disagreements within it is not the work of God's inspiration, but just some man's philosophy. My opinion proposes that the disagreements fit together and that's not unfortunate, that Hebrews (which is generally believed to have been written a few years prior to AD 70) does not teach the Pauline gospel. It's clearly adressed to the circumcised. It would be very unfortunate if Hebrews did teach the Pauline gospel and some even believe that he indeed was the author but wrote anonymously so he did not mix up the two gospels.