Should Paul be removed from the NT?

[JJM]

[color=black]

Originally Posted by Abogado [/color

del Diablo]

It's not a question of "how" one is "saved" - that's another question I have little to no interest in. It's a question of what it means to be "saved" or "what is salvation". How and why is obtaining personal salvation the centerpiece of a supposedly altruistic religion? Wouldn't it be more meaningful to be true to yourself and remain open minded rather than have "faith" out of fear of being or not being "saved?" Isn't that exactly the whole point - freedom?

Well then the answer to your first question is simple being in heaven is the definition of being saved. I think that it is possible to be opening minded and have faith. Being open minded to the fact that you could be wrong doesn't mean you can't believe what you think is right. I'm open minded to what others have to say. However if they can't give good reasons for what they are asking me to have faith in or what they are saying makes little sense then I’m not likely to accept it. I'm convinced that there is a God out there, because I can feel it. so either I’m right or I'm hallucinating, but if the second is true then it doesn't really matter what I believe so I'm going to assume the first. Now I have always been Christian but I've looked into Judaism and Islam and I’m still convinced that Christianity is the truth. Now Christ said that Satan wouldn't prevail against his church. This means that the church Christ founded must have existed since the beginning of Christianity and must not be incorrect. Only three Christian Church claim this so if all of them are false Christianity is false. Thus either I'm right about Paul or Christianity is false either way WolfgangvonUSA is wrong. However he hasn't given any good reason to think Paul false. Most of his reasons are simply lies (or at least obvious falses he hasn't picked up on) and the rest are misconceptions or stretches. As far as the purpose of freedom goes, it is to have the ability to reject God but to still accept him. That is the Purpose of freedom it has no other true purpose that I can think of. Also you aren't supposed to accept him because you are afraid. He'll accept that but you are supposed to accept him because you love him. Just like a father. A good son doesn't obey his father because he fears what his father can do to him. He obeys him because he loves, respects, and wants to please his father. However most fathers will accept that their children behave out of fear as long as they behave but that doesn't mean that's the point or purpose of the father’s goal.



Also Notice I said "is to achieve salvation and bring others to that salvation" Now truthfully the main purpose of a Christian is to do God's will. His will however is that as many people as possible go to heaven. The reason I said that one of the main Goals is to achieve your own salvation is because it is the easiest person to bring to salvation because you can control yourself where you can only convince others to control themselves. Now obviously no one wants to go to Hell but by bringing yourself to Heaven you are still doing God’s will. So in this one instance by doing good for yourself you are still doing good for your God.

[color=black]

Originally Posted by Abogado [/color

del Diablo]

I'll be honest with you, even though I was a rabid evangelical for years, I never really understood Christianity until I walked away from it for a decade and studied the myths of cultures I wasn't brought up in. When I came back to Christianity and studied it, not out of an obligation to tradition but looked at the early writings and examined its history and context for myself, it actually made sense to me - but I found it means something radically different than tradition had led me to believe - in fact, almost the opposite of what tradition teaches.

Well in truth I have never stepped out of Christianity. I’m looking into Christianity a little differently. As I stated before in my opinion if I can prove wrong three sects of Christianity then I prove wrong all of Christianity. So the way I study it is simply to know more about it and to try and find fault in it. But the more I look for fault the more firmly I find myself believing. You say that you where an evangelical. Well I’ll tell you that I agree the traditions of the Evangelicals are radically different from those of Christianity. So, the fact that you concluded this does not surprise me in the least. However I’d like to hear what radical differences you found about Christianity that are contrary to your traditions. I’m interested truly not to say oh ha your wrong but to say ok well maybe that makes sense and I need to think about it or well that does fit into my tradition. So if I may I’d like to ask what these radical differences are.

[JJM]

QUOTE=lunamoth]When I hear someone say they are "saved" I usually assume that they mean that they that they acknowledge Jesus as their Lord, that they believe the Holy Spirit resides in their hearts, and that they will get into heaven (be close to God) when they die. [/QUOTE]
I don't mean this as an insult but this is the perfect example of what I mean by my third use of salvation. That is the incorrect one. Assumption of salvation is very dangerous and is something that at least Paul if not others warn against.

Originally Posted by lunamoth

But what do these words mean? I think they are representations of a Truth that is beyond expression in words that cause us to lead a life of compassion, one where we try to keep in mind our connectedness to others. I agree that the Kingdom of God is all around us, and I don't think it is restricted to Christians, considered saved or otherwise.

Well I would agree that this is true. And kind of dips into the purpose of my first use of the word salvation. It is what causes us to want to lead the life you speak of. I also agree the kingdom of God is all around us and it is not restricted to those who are Christian. I do however think it is restricted to those who would go to heaven if they died at this moment. By that Special connectedness do you mean the Communion of Saints or how our actions ultimately affect others?

[lunamoth]

Originally Posted by JJM

By that Special connectedness do you mean the Communion of Saints or how our actions ultimately affect others?

Hi JJM,

Thanks for your reply. First I'd like to say that I am one of those who have stepped out of Christianity, but now have stepped back in and am trying to find my way. Salvation is not something I have spent a lot of time thinking about. I was not insulted by you saying that my first "definition" is the one you consider incorrect. I don't think of heaven as a closed gate kind of place. In fact, I don't think that heaven is a material place at all, which I worry will make me a heretic among Christians. I was just describing the impression I get when other people say they have been saved, or accepted Christ, or have been born again. I think the most dangerous part of believing you are saved is when you start to judge who might not be saved. And if there is something to being saved, I agree that it is a continual effort and process.

As to your question above, I'm not exactly sure what the Communion of Saints is, but perhaps you refer to all baptized Christians? If so, I mean something broader than that, but stronger than just how our actions affect others. I believe that we really are all connected to each other, every living being. It sort of takes the wind out of the sails of personal salvation. We are all in this together.

[JJM]

I agree you can't possible judge others because to the one who more is given more is expected and to the one less is given less is expected. You have no Idea what the have received. They may not even know what they have received. However I don't think that this means you shouldn't point out to them what they are doing wrong simply not condemn them because of it.



I think it is likely you meant the communion of Saints. This is the best way know how to explain it. It’s from a Catholic perspective but the meaning is the same. It's a quote by Stanley Vishnewski:

The doctrine of the mystical Body of Christ made our faith a living reality. The church was not just a brick building that stood on the corner. The Church was not Father Paulowski of Sister Perpetua. It was we who where the Church! It was the union of all the faithful! The Church was all united among the Kingship of Christ. It was Christ who was our King. It was Christ, our brother, who acted as our mediator with God the Father.
If one of us suffered, then everyone suffered. If one of us was happy and rejoiced, then everyone was happy and shared, in a mystical manner, in the rejoicing. It was indeed consoling to know that I was not alone and that the Mystical Body of Christ both rejoiced and suffered with me. I would wake up in the middle of the night and know that at that particular moment I was sharing in the fruits of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass that was being offered up throughout the world. What consolation it was to know that as I slept Choirs of contemplative nuns and monks were chanting the Devine Office and that I as a member of the Mystical Body was sharing in their prayers.

I began to realize how important my actions and prayers were to the health and well-being of the Church. For the first time I understood what Dorothy meant, that cold morning, when she told me that by missing Mass I was hurting the work.

I became aware that my prayers, my sacrifices, would and could contribute to necessary graces to keep alive the faith of some poor prisoner locked away in a Communist or Fascist concentration camp. My prayers and good works also had power to convert his captors.



May I ask what you mean by heaven may not be a place? My church says that this may or may not be true but the Idea doesn't make sense to me. because even if it is mearly a state isn't the place you are while you are experiencing this state the place which can be given the same name as the state?

[Abogado del Diablo]

Originally Posted by JJM

Now Christ said that Satan wouldn't prevail against his church. This means that the church Christ founded must have existed since the beginning of Christianity and must not be incorrect.

Doesn't that seem like circular logic to you?

Originally Posted by JJM

Only three Christian Church claim this so if all of them are false Christianity is false.

I'm not following what you mean here. Can you clarify, please?

Originally Posted by JJM

As far as the purpose of freedom goes, it is to have the ability to reject God but to still accept him.

Is faith a gift from God so that no man can boast?

Originally Posted by JJM

That is the Purpose of freedom it has no other true purpose that I can think of. Also you aren't supposed to accept him because you are afraid. He'll accept that but you are supposed to accept him because you love him.

In a manner of speaking I agree completely with this. Those "he" and "him" mean something different that tradition teaches IMO.

Originally Posted by JJM

Also Notice I said "is to achieve salvation and bring others to that salvation" Now truthfully the main purpose of a Christian is to do God's will. His will however is that as many people as possible go to heaven.

Can you provide a citation for this?

Originally Posted by JJM

The reason I said that one of the main Goals is to achieve your own salvation is because it is the easiest person to bring to salvation because you can control yourself where you can only convince others to control themselves. Now obviously no one wants to go to Hell but by bringing yourself to Heaven you are still doing God’s will. So in this one instance by doing good for yourself you are still doing good for your God.

And that's not based on fear, how?

Originally Posted by JJM

Well in truth I have never stepped out of Christianity. I’m looking into Christianity a little differently. As I stated before in my opinion if I can prove wrong three sects of Christianity then I prove wrong all of Christianity. So the way I study it is simply to know more about it and to try and find fault in it.

That's a self-fulfilling prophecy. You can't see the faults unless you change perspective.

Originally Posted by JJM

But the more I look for fault the more firmly I find myself believing.

Of course.

Originally Posted by JJM

You say that you where an evangelical. Well I’ll tell you that I agree the traditions of the Evangelicals are radically different from those of Christianity. So, the fact that you concluded this does not surprise me in the least. However I’d like to hear what radical differences you found about Christianity that are contrary to your traditions.

Everything you've said so far is what I believed as an Evangelical. So far there's no appreciable difference as far as I can see.

Originally Posted by JJM

I’m interested truly not to say oh ha your wrong but to say ok well maybe that makes sense and I need to think about it or well that does fit into my tradition.

But you aren't interested in stepping outside of Christianity, so what I have to say won't mean a thing to you.

[lunamoth]

Originally Posted by JJM

May I ask what you mean by heaven may not be a place? My church says that this may or may not be true but the Idea doesn't make sense to me. because even if it is mearly a state isn't the place you are while you are experiencing this state the place which can be given the same name as the state?

I'll put my answer in the thread on salvation--to help keep this one on track.

[cosmo]

JJM,

I will gladly compile all the scripture that you asked for. I will try to have it for you by tomorrow. I'm at lunch now and have no time.

Have a great day,
cosmo

[Marsh]

Originally Posted by WolfgangvonUSA

But remember, the burden of proof is not to refute Paul's claim to apostleship, but to prove it in the affirmative.

The ball is in your court. From the works of the original apostles, please prove that another apostle would arrive to rule over them all.

But remember that Jesus never foretold of any new apostles; He only foretold of the arrival of false apostles!

Actually, I believe that you are mistaken on both counts. First of all, Jesus not only fortold the arrival of new apostles but he encouraged it. The apostles were the close followers, believers, and friends of Jesus Christ, and Jesus said that anyone willing to deny themself, pick up their cross and follow Jesus could do the same.

Secondly, I don't feel any burden at all to prove that Paul was an apostle, no more than I feel any burden to prove that Jesus is the Messiah. Paul was a great Christian in that he gave up his life to spread the good news to those who hadn't heard it. Read 1 Corinthians 13; there is no way that a false apostle (who is, in fact, an antichrist) could have written such a beautiful explanation of the importance of love.

Paul was a Christian: He believed in Jesus as Messiah, confessed him as Lord, and devoted his life to preaching Jesus as Lord to those who hadn't heard. If he is false, then I would surmise that we are all false.

[JJM]

Originally Posted by Abogado del Diablo

Doesn't that seem like circular logic to you?

I think you may misunderstand what I'm saying. From this excerpt it sounds as if I'm saying Christ says this he is God thus it is true but I'm not. I'm saying Christ says this if it isn't true then he isn't God. Christ founded a church. If Christianity is true that Church must still exist and not have false doctrine. If it can be proven that this church doesn't exist then Christianity is disproved.

Originally Posted by Abogado del Diablo

I'm not following what you mean here. Can you clarify, please?

Only three Churches that I know of claim the above so if they can be proved false then Christianity is a false religion.

Originally Posted by Abogado del Diablo

Is faith a gift from God so that no man can boast?

no grace is a gift from God so no man may boast

Originally Posted by Abogado del Diablo

In a manner of speaking I agree completely with this. Those "he" and "him" mean something different that tradition teaches IMO.


Can you provide a citation for this?

1 timothy 2:3-4
3 For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, 4 Who will have all men to be saved, and to come to the knowledge of the truth

Originally Posted by Abogado del Diablo

And that's not based on fear, how?

Well it may be based slightly on fear but the point is that it isn't its purpose. God doesn't mean to scare us into submission. Humans Choose Hell. So the fact that it exists doesn't mean its purpose is to scare us. It's simply the by product of them wanting to sin.

Originally Posted by Abogado del Diablo

That's a self-fulfilling prophecy. You can't see the faults unless you change perspective.

Of course.

Everything you've said so far is what I believed as an Evangelical. So far there's no appreciable difference as far as I can see.

But you aren't interested in stepping outside of Christianity, so what I have to say won't mean a thing to you.

I guess it depends what you mean by stepping out of Christianity. If it means leaving my religion to understand it better then no I refuse to do that but if it is simply looking at it from a different prospective then I will but you need to tell me what that perspective is. So I ask you again what radical differences you see?

[Marsh]

Wolfie,

I finally got around to reading some of the famous Victor's writing on the "Pauline Conspiracy." I got part way through the article on 1 Thessalonians before I had to put it aside.

What a joke!

You asked me to refute him point by point, but what is there to refute? His writing is completely speculatory, and based on historical events rather than on the more important evidence of Paul's writing itself. It reminded me of the work of Michael Moore which, although entertaining, is more propaganda than proposition.

The one good thing that has come out of this debate (for me) is that it's gotten me into questioning the authority of scripture. After all, a wise man once wrote that we should test everything and hold onto what is good.

I think it was Paul, actually

[WolfgangvonUSA]

Originally Posted by Marsh

Actually, I believe that you are mistaken on both counts. First of all, Jesus not only fortold the arrival of new apostles but he encouraged it. The apostles were the close followers, believers, and friends of Jesus Christ, and Jesus said that anyone willing to deny themself, pick up their cross and follow Jesus could do the same.

Secondly, I don't feel any burden at all to prove that Paul was an apostle, no more than I feel any burden to prove that Jesus is the Messiah. Paul was a great Christian in that he gave up his life to spread the good news to those who hadn't heard it. Read 1 Corinthians 13; there is no way that a false apostle (who is, in fact, an antichrist) could have written such a beautiful explanation of the importance of love.

Paul was a Christian: He believed in Jesus as Messiah, confessed him as Lord, and devoted his life to preaching Jesus as Lord to those who hadn't heard. If he is false, then I would surmise that we are all false.

Jesus may have encouraged new disciples to become involved in His teachings, but He never said anything about new apostles, except to say that people would falsely claim to be new apostles:

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:

This verse was directed to the Ephesians, an area Paul had visited.

And I should also mention that an apostleship was an office, whereas a disciple is simply a follower.

On the second point, it is simply a fundamental rule of logic to prove the positive rather than to disprove it. For instance, it is impossible to disprove the existence of God, because He could choose not to be discovered. Or how could you disprove that leprechauns exist or existed. You'd have to search the entire universe at all points in time simultaneously in order not to find one, and even then, he might have the ability to elude your perception.

Or putting it another way, in the words of the late Carl Sagan: "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof."

[JJM]

Originally Posted by Marsh

Wolfie,

I finally got around to reading some of the famous Victor's writing on the "Pauline Conspiracy." I got part way through the article on 1 Thessalonians before I had to put it aside.

What a joke!

You asked me to refute him point by point, but what is there to refute? His writing is completely speculatory, and based on historical events rather than on the more important evidence of Paul's writing itself. It reminded me of the work of Michael Moore which, although entertaining, is more propaganda than proposition.

The one good thing that has come out of this debate (for me) is that it's gotten me into questioning the authority of scripture. After all, a wise man once wrote that we should test everything and hold onto what is good.

I think it was Paul, actually

Yeah I made it through the second chapter and I realized how much of a waste of time it was. I noticed that he cuts off contradictory verses just at the right spot to support his Idea. And other times he says that something is in Paul’s writings that simply aren’t there.

[Abogado del Diablo]

Originally Posted by JJM

I think you may misunderstand what I'm saying. From this excerpt it sounds as if I'm saying Christ says this he is God thus it is true but I'm not. I'm saying Christ says this if it isn't true then he isn't God.

How do you know God can't lie, or we can't misunderstand, or (quite possible) someone wrote a story in which chirst says this when it didn't actually happen?

Originally Posted by JJM

Christ founded a church.

There's no evidence of that.

Originally Posted by JJM

If Christianity is true that Church must still exist and not have false doctrine.

Why? Isn't "Free Will" an aspect of christianity? Couldn't everyone choose not to be a part of "that Church" or decide they prefer "false doctrine"? Then there wouldn't be a church even if christianity were "true".

Originally Posted by JJM

If it can be proven that this church doesn't exist then Christianity is disproved.

Huh!? Shall I build a bridge out of it?

Originally Posted by JJM

Only three Churches that I know of claim the above so if they can be proved false then Christianity is a false religion.

I'm sorry. I still have no idea what you are talking about here.

Originally Posted by JJM

1 timothy 2:3-4
3 For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, 4 Who will have all men to be saved, and to come to the knowledge of the truth

I don't see anything about heaven or hell there. I do see "come to the knowledge of the truth" though.

Originally Posted by JJM

Well it may be based slightly on fear but the point is that it isn't its purpose.

How do you know what it's purpose is? It sure seems like it's based on fear. Even Mary, the Mother of Jesus is reported to have said it's based on fear. Simon Peter supposedly said it was still a requirement, too.

Originally Posted by JJM

God doesn't mean to scare us into submission. Humans Choose Hell.

No they don't. Faith is a gift from God so that no man can boast (you said so yourself). God must choose to give some humans no faith and send them to hell. What is hell, anyway? And how do you know that?

Originally Posted by JJM

So the fact that it exists doesn't mean its purpose is to scare us. It's simply the by product of them wanting to sin.

What is "sin" according to Paul?

Originally Posted by JJM

I guess it depends what you mean by stepping out of Christianity. If it means leaving my religion to understand it better then no I refuse to do that but if it is simply looking at it from a different prospective then I will

Not possible. Sorry.

[Abogado del Diablo]

Originally Posted by JJM

no grace is a gift from God so no man may boast

Whoops, I read your post wrong. That'll teach me to write at 5 am!

Ephesians 2:8: "For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith--and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God-- 9not by works, so that no one can boast. 10For we are God's workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do."

Or the NKJV: "8For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God,"

Faith is a gift of God's grace. This makes sense with the literalist christian tradition. The faith we're talking about is faith in the historical reality that Jesus Christ was God made flesh who died for our sins. Obviously, ancient aboriginal americans and New Zealanders never even heard the story of Jesus. So faith is indeed a gift of being born at the right place and time, at the very least. The rest were created for the purpose of sending them to hell.

[Abogado del Diablo]

Also Philipp. 1:29:

"For to you it has been granted on behalf of Christ, not only to believe in Him, but also to suffer for His sake"