|
|
Post by Josh on Aug 27, 2009 22:17:44 GMT -8
Elsewhere, krhagan19 wrote:
Kevin, I'd like to respond at length to this when I get some time, so I'm just putting this here for a start. Maybe others want to chime in or you want to say more about it in the meantime.
|
|
|
|
Post by krhagan19 on Aug 27, 2009 22:27:43 GMT -8
yay my very own forum for rebuke!!!
|
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Aug 27, 2009 22:31:26 GMT -8
It's not going to be a rebuke  Just a smackdown. Just kidding. No, you're not the first I've heard this sentiment from. I'd just like to explain why I think it's problematic. |
|
|
|
Post by krhagan19 on Aug 27, 2009 22:41:33 GMT -8
If a man with forced carnal knowledge of his slaves who is a libertine like Thomas Jefferson's got my back, I know that I shall come out victorious!!!
|
|
|
|
Post by yeshuafreak on Aug 28, 2009 9:40:56 GMT -8
i agree with K's statement. we have turned into Pauline Christians. we need to realize that Paul did not die for our sins. Paul did not baptise us, and Paul did not found our church. These facts alone make some of Pauls advice not binding, but just advice. (ie, he tells the gentiles in his church to stay in what ever state they were called- circumcision or uncircumcision, but this is a rule he lays down in HIS synagogues/ ekklesia. we should only take it as advice, not as a binding rule).
but then again, Yeshua's ministry was to the Jews. we have to realize that a good portion of his statements only apply to the Jews (ie, most of the sermon on the mount/ plain). still, his teachings are more relevant than pauls, for paul was a great man, but still a sinful man. he could have given the wrong advice. It seems that 1 cor and portions of 2 cor (that were written with 1 cor and meshed with another letter) which were written before the Yerushalayim council at the Bet Din Gadol, often contradicted some of his latter teachings. it seems that Acts. 15 was where he decided on a set theology.
also paul said a few over the top things like: i wish these people would emascualte themselves! (gal) I am this... I am that... I am great...(boasting; 1 cor) I giev you this advice (i not the lord) (to married couples) i say to you abstain from sex periodically and temporarily, based on mutual agree ment. but dont do it if you have intense sexual passions, lest you commit fornication (1 cor)...etc
Yeshua was the Messiah. We are CHRISTIANS (actually, his is probably the wrong term to use; i am a christian- follower of the messiah- but i am not a proponent of many of the mainstream christian beliefs), not pauline christians. nor are we of apollos, nor of R. Kefa, nor of R. Ya'akov. We are of the Messiah. We were baptised in the name of Messiah Yeshua, not in the name of R. Sha'ul.
shalom- john
|
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Aug 28, 2009 12:49:41 GMT -8
1 Cor. 1:11-13
My brothers, some from Chloe's household have informed me that there are quarrels among you. 12What I mean is this: One of you says, "I follow Paul"; another, "I follow Apollos"; another, "I follow Cephas"; still another, "I follow Christ."
Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Were you baptized into the name of Paul?
Though we can distinguish unique themes and stresses in the different authors of the New Testament, as Paul says here, there should be no such thing as "Pauline Christianity" . There should only be Christ- ianity.
Now I want to explain why I think it doesn't make sense to take the Gospels as more authoritative than Paul's epistles*:
1) The Gospels (at least most of them) were written significantly later than most of Paul's epistles, therefore Paul's writings have historical primacy and are the best reflection of the earliest Christian beliefs we have.
2) The Gospels in most instances do not contain the verbatim words of Jesus. The letters we often see in red are paraphrases of his words written down by various authors. They are therefor secondary documents akin to Paul's letters. If Jesus had written books himself, I think you might be able to make the claim that they are more authoritative than others, but that's not the case.
3) The Gospel writers, no less than Paul, brought their own theological emphases and limited knowledge to the table in writing their documents.
4) 2 Peter 3:16 states that Paul's letters are considered "scripture"
5) The gospel of Luke was written by a man under Paul's supervision and well acquainted and in agreement with Paul's perspectives.
There ought to be no pitting Scripture against Scripture.
*excepting, of course, instances where Paul himself tells us he is giving his own subjective advice.
|
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Aug 28, 2009 12:55:54 GMT -8
we have to realize that a good portion of his statements only apply to the Jews (ie, most of the sermon on the mount/ plain). Why do you say this? I think they are very relevant to all followers of Jesus. You're forgetting that the Gospels were also written by "sinful men". I don't think Paul ever gave bad advice, but when he does give advice, it's just that- advice, not commandment. I don't see any of these things as "over the top". I think you're misunderstanding the "boasting" passages. |
|
|
|
Post by krhagan19 on Aug 28, 2009 19:11:28 GMT -8
The whole Pauline concept even being redemptive seems so wrong!! It would be like Adolf Eichmann defining modern Jewish faith on the road to Munich!
|
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Aug 29, 2009 19:58:29 GMT -8
The whole Pauline concept even being redemptive seems so wrong!! It would be like Adolf Eichmann defining modern Jewish faith on the road to Munich! I don't get it. Please unpack this statement. |
|
|
|
Post by krhagan19 on Aug 29, 2009 23:06:21 GMT -8
Adolf Eichmann was the engineer behind the persecution of the Jews in Nazi Germany. He rant the trained, he even diverted needed cargo trains for the war to pack the jews into Berkanue and Triblinka. He was the consummate Anti-semite. I feel like Paul somehow leading the Church is similiar in matter and type to this man suddenly repenting and then his commentary on Jewish belief somehow becoming part of the Torrah.
|
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Aug 30, 2009 7:45:10 GMT -8
This assessment completely leaves God out of the picture- God's purposes for Paul.
|
|
|
|
Post by krhagan19 on Aug 30, 2009 16:11:47 GMT -8
God has a purpose for all of our lives. If he is omnipotent and all good, and all seeing he knows before we are created what that purpose is and how it will be fulfilled. Eichmann purpose must have been as it was, as was Paul. Yet the image of the persecutor having equal authority to the savior based on commentary is still somewhat repugnant.
|
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Aug 30, 2009 16:29:52 GMT -8
But first of all, it's not Paul's authority we find in Paul's writings. It's Jesus authority.
And secondly, you didn't really acknowledge what I said about the gospels not being written by Jesus but also by mere disciples.
|
|
|
|
Post by krhagan19 on Aug 30, 2009 16:40:51 GMT -8
I am sure that if you read Acts and Romans you will agree that Paul adds a lot of commentary and meaning to the words of Christ whom he only new via first and second hand accounts. His achoring may be in the words of Christ, but when he comments or adds ideas, which he must do, otherwise, why bother even publishing the letters, I am not sure what where his authority comes from?  Other than the church. |
|
|
|
Post by yeshuafreak on Aug 30, 2009 17:04:41 GMT -8
i am not saying that the gospels are more reliable than the pauline letters. i am saying that Jesus matters more to me than Paul. and God matters more to me than Jesus.
shalom
|
|
|
|
Post by krhagan19 on Aug 30, 2009 17:08:50 GMT -8
I agree with the first part, your second part though reveals you as anti trinitarian? Is that an accurate assessment?
|
|
|
|
Post by yeshuafreak on Aug 30, 2009 17:10:36 GMT -8
now is not the time to discuss this, but i and many scholars have resaons to believe that not all of the commandments of the bible apply to everyone, OT and NT. just as there are differnt commandments for Men and Women, Priests and Israelites, so there are dif commandments for Jews and Gentiles.
also, i think you misunderstood what i am saying. i am not saying that i believe the gospels anymore than i believe the pauline epistles. i am just saying, just as paul is saying, we should not be "pauline christians." we should just be christians (or Messianics).
i put more stock in the words of Jesus than the words of Paul. by this i am not denying that Jesus did not speak through Paul, as he spoke through the gospels writers, but i am saying that the words of Jesus are more relevant.
i dont know if i am making my point clear, but this is not a matter of "paul versus the gospels." that is not what i believe.
but you and i disagree on what counts as scripture and what in scripture (all or none or in between) is infallible.
shalom- john
|
|
Other than the church.