Come on, Thomas - I was really hoping to have a more intelligent discussion with you, but if you're going to play games you're doing is allowing Victor's assertions to stand.
So far you have not provided any counter-argument, but instead appear to be posturing and playing around with semantics for fun.
That's a shame, as you seem to have originally started this thread suggesting an intent for exploration, which could have been interesting.
Don't worry, Brian; Thomas isn't the only one who thinks that you and Victor are nuts
Just kidding, of course.
I said:
In this in-depth scholarly thesis by victor, he systematically analyses the letters of Saul - to set up his ultimate prosecution, and the accusation that Saul of Tarsus did not simply usurp the embryonic Jerusalem Church under Jesus's brother James, but that he also corrupted the entire original message of Christianity as it was then into something utterly alien.
Let me keep it simple: Paul did not write his letters with the intention of getting them into the Bible, like it was some sort of Reader's Digest contest or something. Paul went on missionary trips to spread the gospel of Jesus Christ, and in the process many people believed, and those people got together into congregations and formed churches. Paul's letters (with the exception of Romans, I guess) are all written to those individual churches with their individual needs, or else to individual Christians with individual needs (like Titus and Timothy). The problem is that these letters have been interpreted as being universal in time and space (much like the gospels), rather than pertaining to their actual audience. In some ways they are (like when Paul says that there is no more condemnation for those who are in Christ), and in some ways they are not (like when Paul says that women, who at that time generally would not have received an education, should not speak in church).
Here's the thing: If you were an ambitious person who was looking for a way to twist the Bible to make it sound like it says things that it actually does not, where would you start? The gospels? Old Testament prophecy? Or would you start with the epistles-- and by extension, since he wrote most of them, with Paul?
If the character of Paul and the entirety of his writings are taken into account, it becomes clear that
nothing he says runs against Jesus' teachings or the word of God. In another thread we're arguing over the meaning of "obey authorities." Jesus himself obeyed authorities he didn't put stock into when he paid the temple tax, didn't he? Do you really think that Paul means "above all else, obey authorities, even if it means you need to quit loving your neighbour and start hurting him instead?" OF COURSE NOT! But you can't argue that to the conspiracy theorists because they've already got their minds made up on the matter.
It's like anything else with the Bible: Interpret a few lines in isolation and you've got a controvercy; interpret them with the big picture in view and you've got harmony.
