Christianity vs Paulianity

[RankStranger]

14 hours ago, Weezer said:

And whoever compiled it seemed to like the writings attributed to Paul.  Assuming he actually existed. 

 

And as a side note while I am wound up, if they had limited the NT to the teachings attributed to Jesus, There may have not been the number of divisions that later occured.  

  

Maybe.  But without Paul's pragmatism, would the Church have held together long-term?

[RankStranger]

6 hours ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

Well, there's two things to say about this, Weezer.

 

First, this isn't a specified debate area of the forum.  So RS might well be just asking for a discussion.

 

Second, and to answer your question, I'm of the opinion that the aim of this forum (helping people to exit Christianity) is best served by the directness of debate, where direct questions can be put to Christians and where the flaws and misunderstandings in their beliefs are most easily exposed.  A discussion might throw up the odd moment where a Christian's beliefs comes under scrutiny but for the most part discussions don't advance the aim of this forum very much.  

 

So no, everything doesn't have to be a debate that someone can win, Weezer.

 

But, for the sake of the people who come here for safety, comfort and healing I believe our time would be better spent debating with Christians rather than with just discussing something with them.

 

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

 

 

 

I think ya'll need to decide whether this place is a safe-space, or a place where open and honest discussion can be had.

 

A place can't be both.

[RankStranger]

16 hours ago, moxieflux66 said:

"Oh Brother, Where Art Thou"? 

 

Everybody's looking for answers.

 

 

[RankStranger]

25 minutes ago, DarkBishop said:

 

 

 

Jesus does make exceptions to the law when it comes to doing Gods work. Like the times they come against him for healing on the sabbath. But that is God's work. 

 

 

 

I'm not sure that exceptions to the Law are limited only to cases where one is doing God's work.

 

Quote

23 And it came to pass, that he went through the corn fields on the sabbath day; and his disciples began, as they went, to pluck the ears of corn.

24 And the Pharisees said unto him, Behold, why do they on the sabbath day that which is not lawful?

25 And he said unto them, Have ye never read what David did, when he had need, and was an hungred, he, and they that were with him?

26 How he went into the house of God in the days of Abiathar the high priest, and did eat the shewbread, which is not lawful to eat but for the priests, and gave also to them which were with him?

27 And he said unto them, The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath:

28 Therefore the Son of man is Lord also of the sabbath.
 

 

I take this to be a parable warning against legalism.

[RankStranger]

21 minutes ago, DarkBishop said:

I've never heard the term paleo conservative evangelical. But this is a lot like the churches I grew up in. In my area even the Baptist churches were pretty adamant that the Bible was the inerrant word of God. 

 

 No cherry picking, king James only, what it says is what it says. And then the holiness church was even worse. 

 

DB

 

'Paleo' was my own addition- maybe not the best word choice.  Really what I mean is that my folks aren't just conservative... their world view is in many ways a relic of the 19th Century.  As odd as it may sound to call Baptists modern... in a lot of ways they're more modern than the Wesleyans I grew up among.

 

They were less dogmatic about KJV-only than a lot of Baptists, but it was still the overwhelming favorite when I was a kid.  I don't think that's changed.

 

Just out of curiosity, have you ever met a Christian that didn't cherry-pick?  I don't think I have.  In spite of all the preaching against it and claiming otherwise... I sometimes wonder if cherry-picking is part and parcel to being a Christian.

[◊ Weezer ◊]

8 minutes ago, RankStranger said:

Just out of curiosity, have you ever met a Christian that didn't cherry-pick?  I don't think I have.  In spite of all the preaching against it and claiming otherwise... I sometimes wonder if cherry-picking is part and parcel to being a Christian.

 

Also my observation.  And some have never gone beyond the cherry picking, proof texting that preachers do. Many have never studied the whole bible, or even the New Teatament, for themselves

[◊ Weezer ◊]

1 hour ago, RankStranger said:

  

Maybe.  But without Paul's pragmatism, would the Church have held together long-term?

And maybe the reason the church held together long term was because the Catholics killed off all the competition they could, destroyed any writings they did not approve of, and "force fed" the masses of uneducated people their version of "gods holy word" for centuries.  For centuries people were conditioned (programmed) like training dogs with reward and punishment.  Believe this, or die!  Keep people ignorant, add some pomp and ceremony, and eventually you have the western world in your hands!  That is my view of the big picture of christianity.  Probably the largest hoax ever played on the world.  And the simple but profound message of loving neighbor as self was almost completely lost.  But although I believe it is profound, I don't believe it is god's holy word.  It is rational thinking.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

1 hour ago, RankStranger said:

 

I think ya'll need to decide whether this place is a safe-space, or a place where open and honest discussion can be had.

 

A place can't be both.

I'm not sure honest discussion of religion is possible without it devolving into a debate.  Even amongst fellow believers, it is difficult (if not impossible) to find consensus.  Hence your question about jesus versus Paul.

[walterpthefirst]

If we're going to discuss Christianity vs Paulianity then I'd like to make the comment that the latter is much more informative about god's true motives and gives a much better insight into his true character.  The four gospels are primarily eye witness accounts of what Jesus said and did, with some commentary on why he did and said those things.

 

But Paul's gospel is radically different.

 

Galatians 1 : 11 & 12

 

11 I want you to know, brothers and sisters, that the gospel I preached is not of human origin. 

12 I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ.

 

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

 

 

 

 

[walterpthefirst]

2 hours ago, RankStranger said:

 

Everybody's looking for answers.

 

 

 

Not all answers are valid.

 

Ask any of Jim Jones' (surviving) followers.

[☆ DarkBishop ☆]

1 hour ago, RankStranger said:

I'm not sure that exceptions to the Law are limited only to cases where one is doing God's work.

It wasn't, but they were accusing Jesus of something they would have done themselves. 

 

Matthew 12:

10 And, behold, there was a man which had his hand withered. And they asked him, saying, Is it lawful to heal on the sabbath days? that they might accuse him.

11 And he said unto them, What man shall there be among you, that shall have one sheep, and if it fall into a pit on the sabbath day, will he not lay hold on it, and lift it out?

12 How much then is a man better than a sheep? Wherefore it is lawful to do well on the sabbath days.

13 Then saith he to the man, Stretch forth thine hand. And he stretched it forth; and it was restored whole, like as the other.

 

He felt his work was more important in that he was healing a man. Oddly enough this chapter starts off with him being questioned about his disciples gathering corn to eat. As well as in the scripture in luke I posted. This is odd because there was no Corn on that side of the world during the time of Jesus. That didn't come along until the America's were discovered. 

 

This makes me think this was a gross misinterpretation by a scribe who assumed corn had always been around when translating this over to English in the 15 or 1600's. 

 

Or it could have been slipped in after the America's were discovered. That'd be a good question to ask Bart Ehrman. I've thought about subscribing to his personal blog. He says he answers every question. 

 

1 hour ago, RankStranger said:

take this to be a parable warning against legalism.

 

This isn't a parable at all. You do know the difference between when Jesus is speaking in parables and when it is just part of the story right? 

 

This is supposedly something that actually happened that he used to give a lesson about. I don't think Jeuss had an issue with legalism. He agreed with living by the Law. 

 

A parable are those teaching that start off. "The kingdom of God is likened unto (x) blah blah blah". That's a parable. 

 

1 hour ago, RankStranger said:

Just out of curiosity, have you ever met a Christian that didn't cherry-pick?  I don't think I have.  In spite of all the preaching against it and claiming otherwise... I sometimes wonder if cherry-picking is part and parcel to being a Christian.

 

I don't feel like the last church I belonged to "Cherry Picked" maybe from the outside it would look that way. But they truly thought they had all the scripture reconciled with their various apologetic teaching and reinterpretations. The were very good about fitting everything together in a sermon with scripture. Sure, they had to go all over the bible to make it all fit. But they stressed that all scripture was to be used in any teaching. The sermons in that church were very different. Ya had to be well studied as a preacher. Because starting off with two verses from John and preaching a 45 minute sermon without opening the bible again was a no go. The whole sermon was filled with scripture after scripture to justify every point they made. It was actually very impressive and convincing honestly. They really worked hard the past 100 years to make it all fit together. 

 

However their teachings are so far from the norm that you probably wouldn't recognize it. For instance. In our church we didn't teach that the Devil was a fallen angel. Because sin can not be in heaven. So how could their be angels sinning in heaven? We taught the devil, serpent, Satan, etc. Were all men through history that welded the power of the antichrist. We also taught that Adam and Eve were not the only people in the Garden of Eden, and that some of the beasts on the Ark were actually people to keep the human race going. 

 

So yeah. No cherry picking but a LOT of twists, turns, and back flips to make it all fit. 

 

The Baptist church however. Yeah, they cherry picked the hell outta shit. 

 

There are scriptures I have never heard a preacher teach on tho. And that's the ones like God laughing at infants being dashed against stones. Or a rapist paying 50 shekels of silver to her father to make her his wife. 

 

Those are avoided like the plague. I would love to bring that shit up in someone's Sunday school if I ever attended one again. Lmao doubt I will tho

 

DB

[☆ DarkBishop ☆]

15 minutes ago, walterpthefirst said:

11 I want you to know, brothers and sisters, that the gospel I preached is not of human origin. 

12 I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ.

Yes!! Absolutely radically different. And your right. This is how Paul justifies his authority. By revelation from Jesus Christ himself. Just as the cultists do. 

 

I don't understand why Peter or anyone who actually knew Jesus didn't rebuke him. I suppose they liked his teachings better. 

 

DB

[◊ Weezer ◊]

5 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

I'm not sure honest discussion of religion is possible without it devolving into a debate.  Even amongst fellow believers, it is difficult (if not impossible) to find consensus.  Hence your question about jesus versus Paul.

 

That does seem to be the way it goes, but it is possible to have discussion with people stating their views, and then agreeing to disagree when getting deadlocked.  Would we perhaps have a better image in the eyes of guests if we operated in that manner??  And perhaps draw in some who are searching for truth, rather than just coming here to lambast the heritics??  And getting lambasted in return.

[RankStranger]

11 minutes ago, DarkBishop said:

It wasn't, but they were accusing Jesus of something they would have done themselves. 

 

Matthew 12:

10 And, behold, there was a man which had his hand withered. And they asked him, saying, Is it lawful to heal on the sabbath days? that they might accuse him.

11 And he said unto them, What man shall there be among you, that shall have one sheep, and if it fall into a pit on the sabbath day, will he not lay hold on it, and lift it out?

12 How much then is a man better than a sheep? Wherefore it is lawful to do well on the sabbath days.

13 Then saith he to the man, Stretch forth thine hand. And he stretched it forth; and it was restored whole, like as the other.

 

He felt his work was more important in that he was healing a man. Oddly enough this chapter starts off with him being questioned about his disciples gathering corn to eat. As well as in the scripture in luke I posted. This is odd because there was no Corn on that side of the world during the time of Jesus. That didn't come along until the America's were discovered. 

 

This makes me think this was a gross misinterpretation by a scribe who assumed corn had always been around when translating this over to English in the 15 or 1600's. 

 

Or it could have been slipped in after the America's were discovered. That'd be a good question to ask Bart Ehrman. I've thought about subscribing to his personal blog. He says he answers every question. 

 

 

This isn't a parable at all. You do know the difference between when Jesus is speaking in parables and when it is just part of the story right? 

 

This is supposedly something that actually happened that he used to give a lesson about. I don't think Jeuss had an issue with legalism. He agreed with living by the Law. 

 

A parable are those teaching that start off. "The kingdom of God is likened unto (x) blah blah blah". That's a parable. 

 

 

I don't feel like the last church I belonged to "Cherry Picked" maybe from the outside it would look that way. But they truly thought they had all the scripture reconciled with their various apologetic teaching and reinterpretations. The were very good about fitting everything together in a sermon with scripture. Sure, they had to go all over the bible to make it all fit. But they stressed that all scripture was to be used in any teaching. The sermons in that church were very different. Ya had to be well studied as a preacher. Because starting off with two verses from John and preaching a 45 minute sermon without opening the bible again was a no go. The whole sermon was filled with scripture after scripture to justify every point they made. It was actually very impressive and convincing honestly. They really worked hard the past 100 years to make it all fit together. 

 

However their teachings are so far from the norm that you probably wouldn't recognize it. For instance. In our church we didn't teach that the Devil was a fallen angel. Because sin can not be in heaven. So how could their be angels sinning in heaven? We taught the devil, serpent, Satan, etc. Were all men through history that welded the power of the antichrist. We also taught that Adam and Eve were not the only people in the Garden of Eden, and that some of the beasts on the Ark were actually people to keep the human race going. 

 

So yeah. No cherry picking but a LOT of twists, turns, and back flips to make it all fit. 

 

The Baptist church however. Yeah, they cherry picked the hell outta shit. 

 

There are scriptures I have never heard a preacher teach on tho. And that's the ones like God laughing at infants being dashed against stones. Or a rapist paying 50 shekels of silver to her father to make her his wife. 

 

Those are avoided like the plague. I would love to bring that shit up in someone's Sunday school if I ever attended one again. Lmao doubt I will tho

 

DB

 

 

Hey man don't worry about the corn.  That word was used as a general term for grain long before the Columbian Exchange.

 

I believe you that the last church you belonged to tried not to cherry-pick.  I believe that they said they didn't cherry-pick, and that they preached against cherry-picking.  And I believe that many of them made their best efforts to not cherry-pick.

 

But as far as I can tell, any Christian who has two eyes is engaging in cherry-picking.

 

Quote

29 And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell. 29 If your right eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away.

 

 

[◊ Weezer ◊]

9 minutes ago, DarkBishop said:

 

I don't understand why Peter or anyone who actually knew Jesus didn't rebuke him. I suppose they liked his teachings better. 

 

Maybe they did rebuke him, and it didn't make it into the biblical canon.  And how do we know for sure if any of that stuff happened??

[◊ Weezer ◊]

2 hours ago, RankStranger said:

 

Everybody's looking for answers.

 

 

 

A truely fine movie!

[RankStranger]

1 hour ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

I'm not sure honest discussion of religion is possible without it devolving into a debate.  Even amongst fellow believers, it is difficult (if not impossible) to find consensus.  Hence your question about jesus versus Paul.

 

This isn't what I was getting at.  I don't have a problem with debates under two conditions: 

 

1.  I feel like debating.

2.  I can debate on equal footing.

 

Neither is the case right now.  And it's telling that some here insist on debate... in a venue where Christians are subject to numerous and arbitrary safe-space restrictions.

[TABA]

20 minutes ago, DarkBishop said:

This is odd because there was no Corn on that side of the world during the time of Jesus. That didn't come along until the America's were discovered. 

 

This makes me think this was a gross misinterpretation by a scribe who assumed corn had always been around when translating this over to English in the 15 or 1600's. 

 

Or it could have been slipped in after the America's were discovered. That'd be a good question to ask Bart Ehrman.

No need to ask Bart when you’ve got a guy from across the pond to answer this one!  In British English, corn means wheat, or sometimes barley.   The yellow American stuff is called maize over there.  Just like chips in the US are crisps over there.  Or the way a car has a hood and a trunk in the US but the same model has a bonnet and a boot in the UK.  Etc.  Two nations, divided by a common language.  

[RankStranger]

1 minute ago, Weezer said:

 

A truely fine movie!

 

A classic the moment it came out 

[☆ DarkBishop ☆]

5 minutes ago, RankStranger said:

Hey man don't worry about the corn.  That word was used as a general term for grain long before the Columbian Exchange.

 

I don't believe so. I know that is the official apologetic excuse. I just don't believe that. It is more logical to admit that it was at least a flaw in translation.

 

You would have to show me historically where that was in their vocabulary before the America's were discovered. From a non-christian source. 

 

Also it even says ears of corn. No, I'm convinced that whoever wrote that out was thinking about Corn as we know it today. 

 

DB

[RankStranger]

1 minute ago, DarkBishop said:

 

I don't believe so. I know that is the official apologetic excuse. I just don't believe that. It is more logical to admit that it was at least a flaw in translation.

 

You would have to show me historically where that was in their vocabulary before the America's were discovered. From a non-christian source. 

 

Also it even says ears of corn. No, I'm convinced that whoever wrote that out was thinking about Corn as we know it today. 

 

DB

 

I'm not interested in debating corn, but I would advise that you google it.

[☆ DarkBishop ☆]

2 minutes ago, TABA said:

No need to ask Bart when you’ve got a guy from across the pond to answer this one!  In British English, corn means wheat, or sometimes barley.   The yellow American stuff is called maize over there.  Just like chips in the US are crisps over there.  Or the way a car has a hood and a trunk in the US but the same model has a bonnet and a boot in the UK.  Etc.  Two nations, divided by a common language.  

Ok, Rank I stand corrected. Did they also refer to them as ears of corn? That is very confusing to me having always used the American terminology. 

 

DB

[RankStranger]

1 minute ago, DarkBishop said:

Ok, Rank I stand corrected. Did they also refer to them as ears of corn? That is very confusing to me having always used the American terminology. 

 

DB

 

I have no idea.

 

And this isn't me defending every jot and title of the Bible.  Just saying the word has been around for a very long time.

[☆ DarkBishop ☆]

1 minute ago, RankStranger said:

 

I'm not interested in debating corn, but I would advise that you google it.

I was wrong. I love this site. Dispelling my ignorance one issue at a time.   

 

DB

 

[RankStranger]

Pray for wisdom