|
|
Post by DamieQue™ on Feb 19, 2008 9:59:59 GMT -5
What was Paul's Major Contribution to Christanity in your opinion. Open question to all Christians, Skeptics, Biblical Scholars and the like.
|
|
|
|
Post by Nupey on Feb 19, 2008 10:29:48 GMT -5
It is not wise to Impersonate Jesus, in Real life or e-world...
|
|
|
|
Post by water on Feb 19, 2008 10:40:54 GMT -5
I'm so grateful to Christ Jesus for making me adequate to do this work. He went out on a limb, you know, in trusting me with this ministry. The only credentials I brought to it were invective and witch hunts and arrogance. But I was treated mercifully because I didn't know what I was doing—didn't know Who I was doing it against! Grace mixed with faith and love poured over me and into me. And all because of Jesus.
Here's a word you can take to heart and depend on: Jesus Christ came into the world to save sinners. I'm proof—Public Sinner Number One—of someone who could never have made it apart from sheer mercy. And now he shows me off—evidence of his endless patience—to those who are right on the edge of trusting him forever.
Deep honor and bright glory
to the King of All Time—
One God, Immortal, Invisible,
ever and always. Oh, yes!
I'm passing this work on to you, my son Timothy. The prophetic word that was directed to you prepared us for this. All those prayers are coming together now so you will do this well, fearless in your struggle, keeping a firm grip on your faith and on yourself. After all, this is a fight we're in.
|
|
|
|
Post by jay0heavenly on Feb 19, 2008 10:52:00 GMT -5
To me, Paul's greatest contribution was his stance on the requirements of the law. Paul emphatically OPPOSED circumcision as a requirement for being a Christian and that stance has done a world of good for preventing legalism to rule the faith.
In Galatians, you see Paul attending something called the Jerusalem conference. Peter, James (Jesus' Brother) and many other big wigs in The Jesus movement were there and one of the topics of discussion was circumcision. In fact, this was one of the very FEW discrepancies among Peter and Paul. Not too much is written about the details, or what was said specifically, only that they agreed circumcision would not be necessary.
What this did was enable Gentiles to be followers of Christ WITHOUT CHANGING THEIR CULTURE! Jesus never came to change anyones culture, just the way we relate to the One and Only God. Obviously people's culture changed insomuch as they were ridding themselves of pagan worship; however, they did not have to live like Jews. They ate the same foods as before, practiced medicine the same etc.
So in sum, that was Paul's greatest contribution, that the Jewish CULTURE would NOT dominate as necessary to follow Christ.
|
|
|
|
Post by jay0heavenly on Feb 19, 2008 10:54:14 GMT -5
Oh and in regards to the Paulianity comment....I've probably read more books on the New Testament and the Apostles in a month than most people have read in their lives and I've never heard that assertion from anyone respected in ANY theological background.
|
|
|
|
Post by jay0heavenly on Feb 19, 2008 11:08:34 GMT -5
LOL.... your hilarious man... and I don't even know if you are kidding or not... I go to a VERY liberal Theological Seminary and I've read PLENTY of Atheist, Jewish and Muslim authors as well.
|
|
|
|
Post by jay0heavenly on Feb 19, 2008 11:10:21 GMT -5
Just for kicks...
Bertrand Russel
Arthur C. Clarke
Both Atheists...
|
|
|
|
Post by DamieQue™ on Feb 19, 2008 11:11:50 GMT -5
My opinion is that Paul's greatest contribution to Christianity is to show - that it's NOT too late to serve God. Whatever you did in your past, whatever it is you think God would never forgive you for, is nothing to an Almighty God - He can still use you, you can STILL be one of His Children. That example, to me, is worth more than a thousand epistles, a thousand admonitions, and a thousand warnings to the church. The simple message is NOT about him (Paul) and what he said, but what about God did through him.
This is part of the reason why I continue to have a problem with people who seem to put more emphasis on Paul than the God to Whom he was in service.
|
|
|
|
Post by jay0heavenly on Feb 19, 2008 11:11:54 GMT -5
@ Bush...
But your proposal would be somewhat of a trick question....the VAST majority of non- Christian theologians steer clear of the specifics of Christianity and focus on either religion or Christianity as a whole.
What you are insinuating (Paulianity) comes mostly from Liberal Christian Authors, NOT those outside of the faith.
*Shrugs*
|
|
|
|
Post by jay0heavenly on Feb 19, 2008 11:15:04 GMT -5
My opinion is that Paul's greatest contribution to Christianity is to show - that it's NOT too late to serve God. Whatever you did in your past, whatever it is you think God would never forgive you for, is nothing to an Almighty God - He can still use you, you can STILL be one of His Children. That example, to me, is worth more than a thousand epistles, a thousand admonitions, and a thousand warnings to the church. The simple message, to me, that it seems one should gather is NOT about him and what he said, but what about God did through him.
This is part of the reason why I continue to have a problem with people who seem to put more emphasis on Paul than the God to Whom he was in service. Very good point my purple typing brother... Paul even mentions this in 1 Timothy 1:16 "But for that very reason I was shown mercy so that in me, the worst of sinners, Christ Jesus might display his unlimited patience as an example for those who would believe on him and receive eternal life." |
|
|
|
Post by DamieQue™ on Feb 19, 2008 11:24:59 GMT -5
Jay-o, what is your disposition on the apparent rift between Peter and Paul - and how it impacted their theology. So you don't think I'm setting you up for a trap (which I am known to do) I am really just doing an inventory on Paul and his work within Christianity. I do not share his view on a number of topics. I do agree wholeheartedly with him on some...
...but what does it all mean? Also what, in your view, is the purpose to learning Judaism, Islam, as well as writing of atheists at a Seminary.
|
|
|
|
Post by jay0heavenly on Feb 19, 2008 13:27:31 GMT -5
The ONLY purpose for me learning of Judaism, Islam and Atheists in Seminary is for me to get good grades...lol...As I said before, my school is real liberal so they have they have their own agenda.
As for Paul and Peter's rift, I think it stemmed from control over the newly forming Jesus movement. Up to that point, there was absolutely NO formal rules for the "Christians", only Jewish customs. The early church met in synagogues and were Jewish in every respect except for the obvious, the teaching that Jesus Christ was Lord and Messiah.
Yashua al Mensaheh (Jesus the Messiah).
Theologically, I think both men were influenced by their target audiences. Paul, surrounded by Gentiles operated under the revelation that circumcision was no longer necessary and Peter surrounded by devout Jews, maintained that some pieces of Judaism should remain. Basically, both men, like us today are theologically products of our "horizon".
Horizon is a theological term that I like to use to describe our experiences, culture, what we have been exposed to etc. My horizon is America in which I have been exposed to Islam, Judaism, Christianity, Red-Neck Christianity, homosexuality, Capitalism etc... I can select from my horizon what I agree with and/or do NOT agree with.
Theologically speaking, Peter and Paul had different horizons UP UNTIL they came together at the Jerusalem Conference where Paul brought Barnabbas, a gentile Christian with him to meet with Peter.
What in Paul's writing do you disagree with? (if you don't mind sharing)
|
|
|
|
Post by DamieQue™ on Feb 19, 2008 14:14:52 GMT -5
Was it not Peter who first heard from God that the Gentiles were included in salvation? Why then would he be influenced more by men saying that elements of Judaism should remain? I start having problems with the Apostles not following the original charge given by Jesus. Did the Great Commission have anything to do with circumcision or lack thereof or was it about preaching salvation through Christ the Son of God and risen Savior? My problems with Paul begin before Paul even really enters the picture (Acts 15 specifically) and they have less to do with Paul and more to do with how people treat the epistles.
I need to compile an comprehensible list of these things (and I am) but in Acts 15 I am trying to understand by what authority do the men and the elders decide what is good and what is not for the Gentiles. There is a conspicuous LACK of a mention that the Holy Spirit made the decision, but rather those men got together and made that decision.
I'm not saying that they were right or wrong, but how can one conclude that it is the perfect Word of God when the text specifically says that they decided it. There are plenty of other places in the Bible were we specifically here they were guided by the Holy Spirit to do certain things. Here there appears to be none.
To me it is this same sort of presumptiousness that leads to a Council of Nicea. That we human beings decide what is canon and what is apocraphal. Maybe what they decided was right - maybe it wasn't. There are many things that Paul says that I agree with (especially his discussion on the nature of man knowing what is right to do, and yet still wanting to do that which is wrong and/or forbidden). But there are things such as - his discussion on the role of women in the church and their attire - that I simply disagree with.
And see to me, disagreeing with that does not invalidate the message of the Bible because the key all along was Jesus. He is the one that ties the Old Testament to the New Testament. He fulfills prophecies, and speaks others that come true later on. As Son of God, ANYTHING He says to me is absolute truth, you can take it to the bank and cash it twice. Anything that anyone else says - well - we test and see.
If we agree that the apostles were all filled with the Holy Spirit, how could they have any theological disagreements concerning circumcision (among other things)? If they were instructed by the Holy Spirit there was NOTHING for them to decide. When the Holy Spirit forbade them from entering certain lands, they didn't get together and decide what they should do as men... they simply obeyed and didn't go into those lands. So why was there even a question about circumcision?
So as you can see, my issue is not so much with Paul, it's with people who feel the epistles are on equal footing with the Gospels of Jesus. I have yet to see a compelling perspective that resolves this issue. Your thoughts?
|
|
|
|
Post by Search1906 on Feb 19, 2008 15:28:35 GMT -5
Damie. I share/shared some of your feelings about decisions that were made in scripture. I guess my advice would be to look at things in context. Prime example....there are many who use Paul's writings in 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 to oppress women in the church which is short sighted. One must look at why Paul gave this instruction. At the church of corinth you had jews who were intermarrying with foreigners who had no knowledge of the Torrah or other scriptures. As was Jewish custom the women and men were seperated during worship often times with a curtain in between them. What was happening was the foreign wives were yelling over to there husbands during service when they didn't understand things and it was disruptive. Chaos was ensuing so Paul gave instruction that women were to be silent and not speak but ask their husbands when they got home. There are a lot of other scriptures sighted for this view but one has to delve into the climate and view toward women at the time to sift through what was of God and what was of the spirit. A preacher hit me in the head with something real deep...he said God entrusted Mary to carry and bring the WORD(Jesus) into this world then why wouldn't he let a women bring the WORD to the world? Its food for thought. We put god in a box and make him small we need to leave room to just let God be God.
As it relates to the Apostles and their squabbles we only have to look at ourselves and what goes on in our churches. We may be filled with the spirit but we are flesh and human which means we are perfect in spirit but flawed in the flesh so were the apostles. They were plagued by the same things we are which is why God gave us the provision of grace because he knew even with the spirits help we'd still get it wrong sometimes.
|
|
|
|
Post by akbarjones on Feb 19, 2008 16:44:18 GMT -5
I would say spreading the gospel and living a Christ like life.
|
|
|
|
Post by water on Feb 19, 2008 16:50:33 GMT -5
When we say church . what do we mean.?...we have the body of Jesus Christ made up of Believers and we have fellowships or assemblies. At one point the two were the same. but as this movement grew men gained entrance without ever having their heart circumcised by the Master. Some of these men and women became leaders and 2000 years later we Have Denominations and independent fellowships. many sprung from a model that is based on the catholic church which is based on some sort of priesthood temple system.
No matter how we try to make a better church system the problem is what most base their concept on ..Traditions....
Acts gives the real model local community based fellowships . families coming together in houses sharing and praising the Lord Yahshua......
with the family unit at the center of fellowship activity ....marriage will become honorable again . No more popes .....fellowship will be led by Jesus Christ. The same way he choose Paul is how it really is. Oh you didn't know Yahshua is still knocking people off of Horses. now thats enough get out my head because churchianity is dead.
|
|
|
|
Post by denounced on Feb 23, 2008 12:52:24 GMT -5
I guess Acts 9 didn't open your eyes the last time Damie. It doesn't matter to whom and when the mandate was given, only that it was given. If you read Galatians 2 in context, Peter was acting in accordance with Jesus' mandate of accepting Gentiles. But I suggest you read why Paul had to address/rebuke Peter.
The question of circumcision was an issue, because poeple "CERTAIN" Jews did not want to accept their beloved religious practices as unnecessary. In short, pride, bondage, and control were of chief importance. M, M, L, And J will show you that.
As for the Council of Nicea, you were not there, so all that you speak is conjecture.
You take to the bank what he said, then you believe that He is God, and the Son of God. It amazes me to no end that people can trust some parts of the Bible, but not others. It all has to do in departing from our wicked ways, not hiding behind PARTIAL INSPIRATION OF SCRIPTURE, and one's inability to read the totality of scripture to obtain a clear understanding.
|
|
|
|
Post by DamieQue™ on Feb 24, 2008 13:57:27 GMT -5
You and I will never agree on anything on anything Biblical - so you can feel free to avoid commenting and/or responding to me in the future. You believe your blind dedication to a doctrine is faith and that your persecution of others is evidence of your zeal for Christ - and NEITHER is true. That is why I suspect no one is ever built up, edified, or brought closer to God from having listened to you.
It is ironic that you could argue so intensely with Konfuscious1911 and somehow NOT see that it is PRECISELY people like you who are partially responsible for him rejecting Christianity. A question about God isn't always an attack on faith, it can be an opportunity to nurture growth (an opportunity that you routinely forego).
You can't nurture growth through intransigence. And you can't do it if you are more pre-occupied with defending a doctrine than bringing those who have questions, closer to the God on which the doctrine is based. So really - feel free to avoid commenting to me. Because I lightly regard anything you say if I even read it.
|
|
|
|
Post by water on Feb 24, 2008 19:52:18 GMT -5
intransigence
NOUN: The quality or state of being stubbornly inflexible: die-hardism, grimness, implacability, implacableness, incompliance, incompliancy, inexorability, inexorableness, inflexibility, inflexibleness, intransigency, obduracy, obdurateness, relentlessness, remorselessness, rigidity, rigidness, stubbornness. See RESIST. The capital of intransigence is a place where there is no love and that is a terrible state to be in. 
|
|
|
|
Post by denounced on Feb 25, 2008 6:15:13 GMT -5
Pointing out one's refusal to hypocrisy and compromise will never bother me one bit when the person on the other side of the aisle is just as obstinate. If you noticed, I did not EVER answer Kon1911 about the resurrection for biblical reasons. I love to see people grow when they ask specific questions, and they receive biblical answers.
The Gospels have been under much scrutiny. The coming crucifixion was was debated in the minds of the disciples, and they were in the very presence of Jesus. The Bible is just a clearly written and honest representation of the hearts of men, as well as the truth. So if the disciples doubted and debated then, why wouldn't they later, as in immediately following the death of Jesus. The debate of the circumcision was worked out for the sake of the all mankind, not just a simple debate among newly converted Jewish Christians wanting to cling to Jewish customs.
|
|
|
|
Post by denounced on Mar 4, 2008 6:56:02 GMT -5
Now I have another serious question. If you want to believe the words written "about" Jesus, why not the ones written by Paul. They all had the same source. What gives one the right to believe the gospels, but not the epistles? If you believe the gospels, then Acts must be believed, because one of the authors that wrote a gospel wrote Acts. So the words of Jesus about Paul, must be valid to the reader as well, unless they want to knowingly ignore the facts.
|
|
|
|
Post by DamieQue™ on Mar 4, 2008 19:04:29 GMT -5
You DID answer K1911 about resurrection. Your response was (and this is just my opinion) a flippant "think like a Jew". Whereas you could have explained it to him plainly because:
1. if his inquiry was sincere then you would have been educating him
2. if his inquiry was sincere you were also demonstrating that Christianity is a living truth and NOT just dogma
3. if his inquiry was insincere it would be obvious in his response to all that read it
4. someone else may have come along who wasn't apart of the conversation and see what you wrote and gather understanding from it
Everything that I said to him you could have said to him and probably even better but you chose not to. I told him that even before and after the passage in question (Matthew 12:38-40) that the text implies that everyone understood the Resurrection to occur in 3 days. Even those who didn't believe it was going to happen, still believed what Jesus communicated was that it was going to happen in 3 days.
That is a simple response. It is the truth that others can look and read for themselves. If anyone chooses to read that explanation and still maintain that there is a conflict, it is because they CHOOSE to, not because no one offered a sincere response. Why couldn't you do that? The answer - you could have. There's nothing that I said that you didn't already know. You could have said that to him JUST as easily as I did and probably with even more supporting evidence. So why not do that? That's what I don't understand. Everytime you speak you have the opportunity to bring people closer to God by giving them the truth.
I'm not sure if you're intentionally or just repeatedly missing my point of contention with some of Paul's epistles. Attacking this head-on doesn't seem to work - so let's try this conversation in reverse, do you agree with Search's contention concerning 1 Corinthians 14:34-35? If so what sources do you cite to support your position. NOTE: THIS is a SINCERE question - not a trap. It is the first in a series of questions that I contemplated time and time again - so understand it is not the last question, but it is also not meant to be a trap.
|
|
|
|
Post by denounced on Mar 5, 2008 6:21:43 GMT -5
When looking at I Corinthians 14, one cannot ignore I Corinthians 11, or I Timothy 2:8-12. While many use it to oppress, one cannot ignore the language. What I will do to answer this question is construct it first in a word file. But I will say this, oppression and roles are two different things. Women want to call it oppression, but societal changes do not necessitate a change in Christian doctrine. MEN have roles in the body of Christ, and WOMEN have their roles. Notice Damie and Search how you all want to say Paul this and Paul said that, but notice my approach; scripture says, which is equivalent to God says. Many tend to want to humanize scripture by mentioning them as if the writer is the inspiration. Isn't this what all religions have done with Jesus, humanized Him, stripping Him of His Deity and Lordship?
That preacher who hit you in the head was not really that deep. A man could not have been impregnated. He is trying to establish freedom via a ONE-TIME occurrence. But guess what, Mary was still subject to Joseph. One thing I would like to bring to the table. How many women pastors do we see in the New Testament? How many women Disciples did Jesus choose? In Acts 6, when the Greek widows came complaining to the Apostles, what did the Apostles tell them to do? Choose seven MEN..... Now here was a grand opportunity for women's equality to be brought to the forefront. I shall return, Lord Willing!!!!!!!!!
|
|
|
|
Post by Search1906 on Mar 5, 2008 11:27:58 GMT -5
Denounced When I refer to paul saying this or that I am merely speaking to the fact that he is the author of the scripture we are dealing with. Further more there are instances where Paul points out his own opinions or recommendation such as when he talks about marriage in 1 Corinthians 7
At verse 12 he points out that he speaks not the lord:
But to the rest speak I, not the Lord: If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away.
So while I believe the bible is the inspired word of God we have to take things in context as I suggested earlier. Use the wisdom that God grants according to James 1:5 which says:
If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.
I don't argue scripture. I will discuss it and we can flesh out our differences. The sad thing is that your approach is lack brotha. I have said before that I find you passive aggressive and sometime outright abrasive. You say my suggestion of acting in love is to compromise while I disagree. There is a way to get a point across with out blugeoning people to death with your tongue or type words. Is there a time for rebuke..of course Jesus did it and I think as believers we are to do so when warranted. But Jesus also said I have come into the word to save it not condemn it. Sadly you do the latter whether you want to admit it or not. While I believe you motives are noble I think your approach is counterproductive and speak to why the body of Christ is ineffective. You will probably say I condone sin and straddle the fence which is fine because you are entitled to you opinion. But I will say as you say to others...examine yourself man.
But back to what I was saying....I agree there are roles in the body of Christ but its God that defines them and I am of the thought that if I believe that God is all he says he is he is big enough to settle all the petty things we harp on such as gender roles.
I look forward to seeing your post though.
|
|
|
|
Post by denounced on Mar 5, 2008 18:44:02 GMT -5
Real Quick- Search, you do not know me well enough, and your profile says nothing. So keep your personal judgments to yourself. Thank-You!
I was not even rebuking you, just simply making a point based on experience. People here want to be so secretive, you have to cut teeth to find out where they are coming from. Now that the tone is set, LOL!!!!!
Just quickly before I start:
"Denounced When I refer to paul saying this or that I am merely speaking to the fact that he is the author of the scripture we are dealing with. Further more there are instances where Paul points out his own opinions or recommendation such as when he talks about marriage in 1 Corinthians 7
At verse 12 he points out that he speaks not the lord:
But to the rest speak I, not the Lord: If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away. "
Min. H
Jesus left a comforter called the Holy Spirit. Paul is merely addressing something Jesus did not address directly during His ministry, except for the part when He stated that,
11And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her.
12And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery. Mark 10
Jesus never took it any further, but that does not mean that the Holy Spirit had nothing to add. So Paul is correct in saying that the Lord did not directly speak what he is about to say.
This is not the only time Paul does this, it occurred with communion as well.
Well, I'm off to what is called Bible/Preacha Study. When I return, I will execute Damie's directive.
|
|
|
|
Post by Search1906 on Mar 5, 2008 22:09:04 GMT -5
Hold on dude you make personal judgements all the time. I've seen it with my own eyes on the old site so you can miss me with that one. I must have hit a nerve because as usual you come out swinging. So I guess you proved my point. Had you engaged me countless other times that I have tried to have dialogue with you then maybe you would have known where I stand. I have convos with people all the time. I am not at all secretive about where I stand or who I am. I have engage Jay, H20 and countless others.
I think you are off base because he is making a distinction between what he recommends and what God has says. Its pretty cut and dry. If it was a directive of the Holy Spirit then why make a distinction. See you really aren't aware of who it is you are speaking with. I am cognizant of my spiritual gift and discernment is one of them. Countless times I've held my tongue on certain things just to keep the peace but please believe I can dissect, discern and understand and digest scripture.
<---- Is not a babe in christ.
That being said if this is going to be contentious I'll be Abraham and you can be Lot and we'll part ways with no strife homie.
|
|
|
|
Post by denounced on Mar 6, 2008 5:40:00 GMT -5
I thought you said we were not going to argue scripture. Well is that not what we are doing? Bottom Line: A Christian is not to EVER initiate a divorce, except for fornication. The same man who wrote I Corinthians 7 also wrote II Timothy 3:16. Water, hand me the passy! LOL!
Now to the exact point of contention, you said, "If it was a directive of the Holy Spirit then why make a distinction." I told you why he said what he said, and it makes perfectly good apologetics, plus gave TWO examples. What did you give me? You own personal feeling, not discernment on the matter, then added your PRIDE behind it. Boasting of gifts does tend to blow people up.
Now for your original post on I Corinthians 14:34-35, what is the context, is that all the history dug up on it you could find. Where are the referencing scriptures? You didn't even address verse 35.
Don't worry Damie, we'll get to the subject at hand. Oh and Damie! I am not worried about any traps.
|
|
|
|
Post by Search1906 on Mar 6, 2008 9:50:00 GMT -5
Dude you are funny. How is that boasting. I merely made you aware. There is a difference. Boasting would be I know and dicern scripture better than you or anyone else and that your interpretation is wrong. Have I done that? As I review my post I can't see where I did but then again I'm used to you reading a post and putting your own spin on it. As I said I'm not going to argue with you but if you want to discuss I am all for it. You dish stuff out but at the slightest sign of anyone giving you push back you get defensive. Check yourself.
|
|
|
|
Post by DamieQue™ on Mar 6, 2008 11:26:04 GMT -5
You know...
... it might not be the worst thing in the world if we can find some grounds on which we can all agree first and then proceed to discuss where there is disagreement.
For the record I asked Denounced about Search's explanation to see if he agreed with it. Ironically I was expecting them to agree on this point, at which point, I was going to ask for sources that supported this position so that I could read them too...
...but the conversation has gone a slightly different direction hasn't it. 
In any event, I expect that this discussion (and related discussions) will go on for a while because it's going to require a real indepth look at many passages and books of the Bible. It might be useful to us all, to avoid contention and attacks whenever possible (note the use of the word: us, not you all, but us).
|
|
|
|
Post by Search1906 on Mar 6, 2008 11:35:04 GMT -5
I can dig the us factor Damie. I was cool until he broke bad which was funny to me because I've never come at dude like that. Like i said before I am all for discussion and have no problem telling why I believe as I do and citing sources.
|
|
