currentchristian Posted January 17, 2007 Share Posted January 17, 2007 Well, mwc, I am suspicious of preachers of all kinds. As well as movie stars and sports heroes and CEO's and psychics and....etc. But I do have faith in my friend Paul. He could be arrogant and bossy and sexist. But he wasn't a thief -- at least there is absolutely no evidence to support such a view. Why be suspicious of your contemporaries but cut Paul, someone you don't even know or could possibly know, slack? Is it because the folks today have shown themselves to be dishonest? Paul admittedly behaved less than honorably in all situations. Paul's "end" is suspicious (there are more than one version). So why all the trust? Because it his letters got bound up in a single tome hundreds of years after they were written? That's precious little to base trust on. So, at the end of I Cor. he wants money for "saints." In the middle of II Cor. he starts the ass kissing machine so that by chapter 11 he's in full apology mode. If you've never known a con-man then go find one and have a chat because Paul's in fine form. He butters them up telling them how he's told others about them. He tells them how he took money from other churches just so he wouldn't have to take money from them. He tells them how other traveling preaches did take their money and he didn't so he's different (but at the same time he's asking for their money). This is a traveling con game. But he's just a poor tent maker cum preacher man. Yeah right. The bible itself, including Paul in these letters, tells of lying Apostles that scam money. Pot, I'd like you to meet Kettle. He's just upset that someone's cutting in on his action...just like the mafia. I wouldn't be surprised if he was put to death for scamming everyone. Many of the cities he supposedly visited were fairly wealthy after all. Is this a judgment on whether or not he actually believes the story he's selling at the same time? Nope. He could believe every last word but that doesn't change the fact that he wants money for his good news. mwc There's a lot of accusations there to have absolutly no evidence to support them. I'm abiding by "innocent until proven guilty." You are the first person I know of who's ever accused Paul of being a thief (lots of others accuse him of lots of other things, of course), and there's no evidence, so in terms of thievery he's innocent in my book. Oh, trust me, I have some hard questions for Paul when I meet him, which I hope to do, but one won't be, "So, how much money did you scam?" -CC in MA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mwc Posted January 17, 2007 Share Posted January 17, 2007 There's a lot of accusations there to have absolutly no evidence to support them. I'm abiding by "innocent until proven guilty." You are the first person I know of who's ever accused Paul of being a thief (lots of others accuse him of lots of other things, of course), and there's no evidence, so in terms of thievery he's innocent in my book. Oh, trust me, I have some hard questions for Paul when I meet him, which I hope to do, but one won't be, "So, how much money did you scam?" But I'm not the first to bring it up. The Corinthians are the first. He's defending against the accusation in his letter. He's trying to say he's not like those other guys. Just because this isn't a common thing to say doesn't mean that it wasn't said. Just because the church survived doesn't mean that the problem was resolved either. I believe I Clement speaks of a fracture in this church where people chose among Cephas, Paul and Apollos but he wanted them to re-unite because it was making them look bad. Perhaps this was a contributing factor to this division? Paul fell from favor among some because of a financial scandal? Again, why is Paul above suspicion? Many of the leaders of major religious groups, in recent months alone, who appeared beyond reproach (ie. no evidence - not even an accusation as I have put forth from the Corinthians against Paul) have fallen from grace. People usually don't want to accept the people they look up to might be guilty of the things they're being accused. Paul is on the defense so an accusation must have been made. Unfortunately we don't have that letter and I doubt we ever will. mwc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
currentchristian Posted January 17, 2007 Share Posted January 17, 2007 There's a lot of accusations there to have absolutly no evidence to support them. I'm abiding by "innocent until proven guilty." You are the first person I know of who's ever accused Paul of being a thief (lots of others accuse him of lots of other things, of course), and there's no evidence, so in terms of thievery he's innocent in my book. Oh, trust me, I have some hard questions for Paul when I meet him, which I hope to do, but one won't be, "So, how much money did you scam?" But I'm not the first to bring it up. The Corinthians are the first. He's defending against the accusation in his letter. He's trying to say he's not like those other guys. Just because this isn't a common thing to say doesn't mean that it wasn't said. Just because the church survived doesn't mean that the problem was resolved either. I believe I Clement speaks of a fracture in this church where people chose among Cephas, Paul and Apollos but he wanted them to re-unite because it was making them look bad. Perhaps this was a contributing factor to this division? Paul fell from favor among some because of a financial scandal? Again, why is Paul above suspicion? Many of the leaders of major religious groups, in recent months alone, who appeared beyond reproach (ie. no evidence - not even an accusation as I have put forth from the Corinthians against Paul) have fallen from grace. People usually don't want to accept the people they look up to might be guilty of the things they're being accused. Paul is on the defense so an accusation must have been made. Unfortunately we don't have that letter and I doubt we ever will. mwc It may be that Clement wrote of this division. So did Paul (I Cor 1.12). Of course there were divisions. There are divisions. I've said it before and I'll say it again: Religion is like food. Some like Italian and some like Chinese. I see no problem with this. The division Paul speaks of had nothing to do with Paul scamming anyone of money. I'm suspicious of Paul on many counts, but not thievery. MWC, we need that time machine again to settle this! -CC in MA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts