Bandit said:
no you are not dense Path. It is because you do not really believe in the bible.
We tie things together from what has been written. You search for answers outside of what has been written to explain things.
I do believe in the Bible, just not in the way that you do. I understand the tying together stuff- I do this all the time. I just also study history, cultural context, linguistics, etc. because I think this helps illumine what the original authors were saying and doing; it narrows the scope of my misunderstanding down- getting rid of my own inevitable cultural baggage and bias. Of course, I also read with the Spirit, with an inner intuition. And there are certain things about Paul that just don't sit right with that intuition. Maybe in time they will... I'm always open for revisions!
His writings were letters to the established churches concerning many issues of how they were leaving what was first delivered to us by Jesus & what happened after the book of Acts. The man really did love the Lord Jesus.
Paul also wrote & was given the final mysteries behind who Jesus is & the symbolic woman God was waiting for through Jesus.
This is partially why I treat Paul's epistles as I do. I agree that he loved Jesus. So do I. But I don't think either one of us is infallible in our actions or words. Even a saint is human. I also think because the letters were written to certain churches to address certain issues, we have to try to understand how relevant they are for us today- how much of them was speaking to specific problems of the early Christian church and how much to universal issues. For example, Paul says for women to cover their heads in modesty (sounds a bit like Islam, n'est pas?), but I don't know of any mainstream church that follows this "infallible, inerrant" command today. To the best of my knowledge, only the Amish, Mennonites, and Hutterites do this. So, like it or not, we're all interpreting Paul and pulling apart what he meant for the folks of his time versus what he meant for us. As for the final mysteries- well, I guess that's handy for the people who really need the details. It doesn't much matter to me, because my faith in Jesus was always based on the teachings and Spirit, on his life and death, and not the accounts of signs and miracles. So I find all those stories interesting, and certainly relevant in their symbolism in tying Jewish roots to Christ (many of the stories have their roots in the OT, some say by prophecy and others say by the interpretation of the writers of the gospel), but not particularly critical in whether or not they are literal. For me, it matters not whether Jesus literally was born of a virgin, or tempted by an actual physical Satan, or whatever- it is the message behind the symbols (whether literal or not) that matters.
There is more to Pauls writings than you realize, such as the upmost importance of faith & prayer, the gifts & fruits of the spirit etc. etc. etc...
These are the parts I cherish and believe were truly inspired. These are the parts that resonate with my experience of God.
I can say is the Truth has always been kept hidden & safe, until God is ready to reveal it to us and/or we are ready to recieve it.
I completely agree. Probably not in the way that you mean- only from the Bible- but in a broader sense I agree. The Truth is incorruptible and eternal, and it, like God, are revealed when we sincerely seek for them. And as we grow spiritually, God reveals ever more Truth to us.
Ridding of Paul is just one angle some use to rip the bible to shreds & when they cannot achieve that with a believer, they start in with the other books trying to prove them wrong. It is actually rather odd that some even feel they need to do that, I think. Kind of like jealosy or something.
You do not do this to us Path, & I appreciate that.
I should hope I don't do that! Like I've said, there's some great stuff in Paul's epistles; some of my favorite passages come from Paul. I don't think he was a bad guy or uninspired or anything, I just don't think inspiration yields perfection and infallibility. I do think, to his (and God's) credit, Paul tried to separate out what he was getting from God and what his own opinions were- all those passages- "from the Lord" and "I, not the Lord"... And we know God was certainly working in Paul to effect the kind of transformation he underwent.
It's an interesting question, if Christianity would have made it to the gentiles without Paul. I'm going to go against the grain and say yes, eventually. In studying comparative religion, you find what I think of as echoes of the Christ and our God in other religions. Some indigenous people had concepts of a great Something beyond all they knew, and many religions have a concept of a sacrificial god whose ultimate gift to humanity of his/her own life allows for the continuity of creation and various gifts to be given to people. I think these were inspired visions that shamans and such the world over had that foreshadowed the Christ. There are legends that Druids prophesied the coming of Jesus (which, according to legend, they were happy about- they already had myths of a Divine Child of Light), and then also prophesied the coming of the Romans with Christianity (which, according to legend, they were not so thrilled with- the Romans did a lot of damage). I think Paul made the right choice by following God, of course, but even if he had used his free will to rebel, Christ would have reached the gentiles. Indeed, in a way, he already was.
I don't think anything should
ever be taken out of the Bible. I've found truth and wisdom and beauty- the very Spirit of God- in every book I've read. It is a sacred text and I think the only question I have is one of interpretation.
