Paulianity

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.



Nellinator
Anyone else want to join?
I am also accepting members to my other religions of Johnianity, Petertology, Matthewism, and Lukism.

Gregory
No Markianity?

I don't understand the point of this thread; when I saw the title, I assumed it was debbijo, and I would have known what she was talking about, but you...?

Nellinator
Well, Mark was Peter's scribe so really Markianity is just a sect of Petertology.

P.S. This thread might be taking a shot at the stupid antics of debbiejo, but I'm not going to say for sure.

debbiejo
Oh you won't will you?

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Nellinator
Well, Mark was Peter's scribe so really Markianity is just a sect of Petertology.

P.S. This thread might be taking a shot at the stupid antics of debbiejo, but I'm not going to say for sure.


Witch ones? laughing out loud

debbiejo
Buddha boy..... roll eyes (sarcastic)

Nellinator
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Witch ones? laughing out loud
I'm not at liberty to say.

debbiejo
Oh??

Speak your words now

office jesus
Yes, ladies and gentlemen, another pointless thread on the religion forum.

Gregory
Eh. It's no use denying that a lot of Christians seem more concerned with the Epistles then the Gospels. Jesus never mentioned homosexuality, Jesus never talked about gender barriers in the clergy, or implied anything about "a women's place"--in other words, a lot of the things that Fundamentalists get up in arms about are so un-Fundamental to Christianity that Jesus never even bothers mentioning them. I can readilly understand how debbijo could find that irritating. I myself agree that we could do with a little more "love thy neighbor as thyself" and a little less "women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefastness and sobriety."

Still, that's no reason to obsess over it.

BobbyD
Originally posted by Nellinator
Anyone else want to join?
I am also accepting members to my other religions of Johnianity, Petertology, Matthewism, and Lukism.

Funny thread. However, no one single person did more for the spread of Christianity than Paul. According to history, he and Peter fought about their ideals.

Nellinator
Originally posted by Gregory
Eh. It's no use denying that a lot of Christians seem more concerned with the Epistles then the Gospels. Jesus never mentioned homosexuality, Jesus never talked about gender barriers in the clergy, or implied anything about "a women's place"--in other words, a lot of the things that Fundamentalists get up in arms about are so un-Fundamental to Christianity that Jesus never even bothers mentioning them. I can readilly understand how debbijo could find that irritating. I myself agree that we could do with a little more "love thy neighbor as thyself" and a little less "women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefastness and sobriety."

Still, that's no reason to obsess over it.
This makes me happy. Someone finally got the point of the thread. Paul was not out of line with Jesus, but he was addressing different issues and was preaching to a different audience. Paul wrote his letters to churches (ie. people that are already Christians) addressing issues amongst them. Therefore, the things that Paul wrote about frequently are not really the most important points of Jesus's message or for Christians, they are simply the most common problems and misconceptions that arose. Gregory here is right because what Jesus preached is what is most important with the epistles and the other non-Gospel books of the Bible simply help us to understand the message better and to bring clarity to misconceptions. Christians often get caught up in the details and miss the message that Jesus preached and this is sad.
Originally posted by BobbyD
Funny thread. However, no one single person did more for the spread of Christianity than Paul. According to history, he and Peter fought about their ideals.
I can see this as a valid argument although it was probably Constantine that did the most to spread it, but perhaps damaged it the most. This reminds me that I forgot Constantinism.

debbiejo
Originally posted by BobbyD
Funny thread. However, no one single person did more for the spread of Christianity than Paul. According to history, he and Peter fought about their ideals. Bite your tongue Mr........He is not the true figure of what is thee faith!

peejayd
Originally posted by BobbyD
Funny thread. However, no one single person did more for the spread of Christianity than Paul.

* true...

Originally posted by BobbyD
According to history, he and Peter fought about their ideals.

* untrue... Saint Paul only opposed Saint Peter one time when they met in Antioch (Galatians 2:11-onwards)... Saint Peter used to eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he began to withdraw and hold himself aloof, fearing the party of the circumcision... the rest of the Jews joined Saint Peter in hypocrisy, with the result that even Saint Barnabas was carried away by their hypocrisy... then Saint Paul interfered and withstood against the wrongdoing of Saint Peter... but other than that, both of them are in good terms, Saint Peter even spoke highly of Saint Paul...

"And count the forbearance of our Lord as salvation. So also our beloved brother Paul wrote to you according to the wisdom given him,
Speaking of this as he does in all his letters. There are some things in them hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures."
II Peter 3:15-16

Originally posted by Gregory
Eh. It's no use denying that a lot of Christians seem more concerned with the Epistles then the Gospels. Jesus never mentioned homosexuality, Jesus never talked about gender barriers in the clergy, or implied anything about "a women's place"--in other words, a lot of the things that Fundamentalists get up in arms about are so un-Fundamental to Christianity that Jesus never even bothers mentioning them. I can readilly understand how debbijo could find that irritating. I myself agree that we could do with a little more "love thy neighbor as thyself" and a little less "women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefastness and sobriety."

Still, that's no reason to obsess over it.

* a big misinterpretation... the Gospel of Christ is mainly for the unbelievers/non-believers... and the epistles/letters of Saint Paul are for the brethren inside the Church... there's no conflict... wink

Gregory
I have misinterpreted nothing; you are being oversimplistic. There is no indication that the Gospels are aimed at nonbelievers; they don't even sound like they're written for that purpose, to my ear. Luke, in fact, is specifically being written to someone who has already been instructed in Christianity, according to the first verse.

So ... no.

(On the other hand, the Epistles are certainly aimed at Christians, and specific groups of Christians at that, as you say. That's undeniable)

peejayd
* the 4 Gospels are basically the lifestory of Jesus Christ here on earth... both for believers and unbelievers... but just look at the words of Jesus... majority of them was for the Jews who don't believe in Him... the Jews who always stick to the Mosaic law... people who are not yet converted and not yet a follower of Christ... and there's still no conflict... wink

Gregory
The majority of them were intended, when they were written down, for the followers of Jesus. All of them, as a matter of fact. Will we discount the Great Commandment because Jesus was talking to a scribe at the time, and quoted OT scriptures? Nonsense. I'm not even sure what you're talking about at this point.

You're the one who started talking about conflicts between Jesus and Paul. Not me. I don't know if Paul and Jesus conflic. I don't care if Paul and Jesus conflict. But I know that a lot of fundamentalists who are very quick to bring up Paul's teachings when it comes to making their wives stay in the kitchen and shut up are just as slow to remember Jesus' teachings when it comes to loving their enemies and being brothers to people with different religious beliefs (e.g. the Good Samaritan). A lot of fundamentalists get into screaming rages about homosexuality, even though Paul is the only NT character to even mention it, but when televangelists get rich, they don't bat an eye. Jesus said it's hard for rich men to get into heaven? Who's this Jesus character? Too much Paul, not enough Jesus. That's what I said.

Also, winking smilies are vulger and offensive, and I wish you'd stop doing that.

Nellinator
Originally posted by Gregory
Jesus said it's hard for rich men to get into heaven? Who's this Jesus character? Too much Paul, not enough Jesus. That's what I said. This is the point of the thread really. However, the gospels seem to be for both believers and non-believers. They are the most important thing in the Bible.

peejayd
Originally posted by Gregory
The majority of them were intended, when they were written down, for the followers of Jesus. All of them, as a matter of fact. Will we discount the Great Commandment because Jesus was talking to a scribe at the time, and quoted OT scriptures? Nonsense. I'm not even sure what you're talking about at this point.

* yeah... i think i was kinda lost now... laughing

Originally posted by Gregory
You're the one who started talking about conflicts between Jesus and Paul. Not me. I don't know if Paul and Jesus conflic. I don't care if Paul and Jesus conflict. But I know that a lot of fundamentalists who are very quick to bring up Paul's teachings when it comes to making their wives stay in the kitchen and shut up are just as slow to remember Jesus' teachings when it comes to loving their enemies and being brothers to people with different religious beliefs (e.g. the Good Samaritan). A lot of fundamentalists get into screaming rages about homosexuality, even though Paul is the only NT character to even mention it, but when televangelists get rich, they don't bat an eye. Jesus said it's hard for rich men to get into heaven? Who's this Jesus character? Too much Paul, not enough Jesus. That's what I said.

* back in the game... too much Paul, not enough Jesus... the reason is, Saint Paul's epistles are mainly for the brethren inside the Church... and many religious denominations use these epistles because they thought they are inside the the true Church in the Bible...

* however, using or abiding the epistles of Saint Paul does not mean discounting or overlooking Jesus... because Jesus said Himself:

"He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me, and he who rejects me rejects him who sent me."
Luke 10:16

"He who receives you receives me, and he who receives me receives him who sent me."
Matthew 10:40

* and Jesus even commanded His apostles this:

"Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,
Teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age."
Matthew 28:19-20

* and i believe Saint Paul was one of Jesus' followers who obeyed this commandment...

"If any man thinketh himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him take knowledge of the things which I write unto you, that they are the commandment of the Lord."
I Corinthians 14:37

Originally posted by Gregory
Also, winking smilies are vulger and offensive, and I wish you'd stop doing that.

* you are offended by winking smilies? i hope you're joking... sad

Gregory
But Paul was telling people how to run their churches and communities. As I recall, he really didn't give much moral advise, and when people slavishly follow Paul's advise about how to run a church while ignoring Jesus' message--and I think we can all agree that people shouldn't do this, but we can probably also agree that a lot of people do (Phelps, to pick an extreme example)--then you're essentially back to OT legalism; and lord knows that isn't what Jesus was supposed to stand for.

(And you can use whatever smilies make you happy.)

debbiejo
Exactly. IF people followed more after what Jesus taught instead of the heretic we'd have more peace.

peejayd
Originally posted by Gregory
But Paul was telling people how to run their churches and communities.

* as it's should be... for example: Jesus said...

"You have heard that it was said, You shall not commit adultery.
But I say to you that every one who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart."
Matthew 5:27-28

* Saint Paul's advise is very good...

"Also that women should adorn themselves modestly and sensibly in seemly apparel, not with braided hair or gold or pearls or costly attire"
I Timothy 2:9

* Jesus said we should strive unto perfectness, and that's what Saint Paul was preaching to the brethren in the Church...

Originally posted by Gregory
As I recall, he really didn't give much moral advise, and when people slavishly follow Paul's advise about how to run a church while ignoring Jesus' message--and I think we can all agree that people shouldn't do this, but we can probably also agree that a lot of people do (Phelps, to pick an extreme example)--then you're essentially back to OT legalism; and lord knows that isn't what Jesus was supposed to stand for.

* there are many people who don't understand Saint Paul's epistles, even Saint Peter admitted that...

"And count the forbearance of our Lord as salvation. So also our beloved brother Paul wrote to you according to the wisdom given him,
Speaking of this as he does in all his letters. There are some things in them hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures."
II Peter 3:15-16

* some things are hard to understand in Saint Paul's epistles that's why many religious denominations today misinterpret it... but if the TRUE Church will emerge, they will understand... because Jesus Christ's and Saint Paul's preaching go hand in hand...

Originally posted by Gregory
(And you can use whatever smilies make you happy.)

* whew! now that's nice to hear... smile

debbiejo
Jesus never taught that one would go the the imaginary hell....

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by peejayd
"women should adorn themselves modestly and sensibly in seemly apparel, not with braided hair or gold or pearls or costly attire"
I Timothy 2:9

* Jesus said we should strive unto perfectness, and that's what Saint Paul was preaching to the brethren in the Church...


thats one really odd definition of perfection

Gregory
Originally posted by debbiejo
Jesus never taught that one would go the the imaginary hell....

Jesus talks about people being cast "into the Outer Darkness, where there is a wailing and gnashing of teeth" (or something like that; going of memory). And I'm pretty sure he talks about people being cast into eternal fire in his sermon about how feeding, clothing, and visiting in prison even the least of people is the same as doing the same to Jesus.

peejayd, I'm not really criticizing Paul, so you don't need to defend him to me. Although some of his ideas seem distinctly backwards from a modern point of view ("Slaves, obey your masters."wink, and sometimes even appear self-contradictory (in one of his letters, as I recall, he explains how women should dress when they prophesize in church. He then says that women shouldn't speak in church. But people prophesized out loud, so...?) it's not like I get upset at the thought of people using the Epistles for guidance. I'm just suggesting that Christians should guide their life by the Gospels first. Presumably, after all, the disciples and other people who followed Jesus before Paul's conversion managed to be good Christians based soley on Jesus' teachings, without Paul to fall back on.

debbiejo
Originally posted by Gregory
Jesus talks about people being cast "into the Outer Darkness, where there is a wailing and gnashing of teeth" (or something like that; going of memory). And I'm pretty sure he talks about people being cast into eternal fire in his sermon about how feeding, clothing, and visiting in prison even the least of people is the same as doing the same to Jesus.

. This does not mean a literal place as Jesus was using metaphors of Gehenna a garbage dump at that time in that area. He always used word pictures. What if Jesus was speaking about the state of your mind if committing certain acts? And I believe this is what was meant by his words.

Nellinator
Originally posted by debbiejo
This does not mean a literal place as Jesus was using metaphors of Gehenna a garbage dump at that time in that area. He always used word pictures. What if Jesus was speaking about the state of your mind if committing certain acts? And I believe this is what was meant by his words.
Does eternal punishment of Matthew 25:46 ring a bell. How about the fire of hell in Matthew 5:22. Hell is such a bad place that Jesus said it is better to gouge out your eye so as to avoid it in Matthew 5:29. I'm not a fire and brimstone kind of guy and neither was Jesus, but to deny its existence is unscriptural. You cling to what unaccredited websites tell you way too much.

Lord Urizen
Exactly thumb up


Jesus did speak of Hell. Jesus was a great philosopher, and a revolutionary man. Nothing more, nothing less. He is no better or worse than any of us, just more mature than most people were at that time.

Same deal with people like Buddha, Ghandi, Alexander the Great, Mother Teresa, etc.

Very amazing people, who have done wondorful things in a time where circumstances would not kindly allow thier works.

However, they were all just human beings, therefore subject to flaws.

I personally beleive that Jesus Christ learned a lot from the Far East in his travels, learned a lot about the philosophies of Love and Unity from Buddhism, adopted it into his own beleifs, and shared them.

I beleive his claim that he was the son of God is one out of few possibilities:


1) He could have meant he is the Son of God, the way we are ALL the children of God, and perhaps his followers misinterpretted his teachings.


2) He could have just been saying this, knowing how powerful monotheistic religion was, and how the only way to truly gain as much influence as he did was to claim his divinity under a diety that society already beleived in


3) Or maybe he truly beleived he WAS the son of some diety, due to being way ahead of his time, due to having a powerful charisma (that many other historical figures have also had), and due to being able to do great things.

Many people throughout history have done extraordinary things.

debbiejo
Originally posted by Nellinator
Does eternal punishment of Matthew 25:46 ring a bell. Sodom and Gomorrah is still burning? That was eternal also in scripture.

These are word pictures of mental anguish.

BobbyD
Originally posted by Nellinator
I can see this as a valid argument although it was probably Constantine that did the most to spread it, but perhaps damaged it the most. This reminds me that I forgot Constantinism.

Valid point, Nellie. Damage though too? confused

BobbyD
Originally posted by debbiejo
Bite your tongue Mr........He is not the true figure of what is thee faith!

Silence! For I will smite thee! mad

bash



stick out tongue

debbiejo
Originally posted by BobbyD
Valid point, Nellie. Damage though too? confused Well of course, through his councils Jesus was made divine, there was instituted the trinity, the holidays were changed. If Constantine never was, Jesus would only be a man not a god.

Originally posted by BobbyD
Silence! For I will smite thee! mad

bash



stick out tongue Ohh Go to a bachelors party or something....... roll eyes (sarcastic)

BobbyD
Originally posted by peejayd
* untrue... Saint Paul only opposed Saint Peter one time when they met in Antioch (Galatians 2:11-onwards)... Saint Peter used to eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he began to withdraw and hold himself aloof, fearing the party of the circumcision... the rest of the Jews joined Saint Peter in hypocrisy, with the result that even Saint Barnabas was carried away by their hypocrisy... then Saint Paul interfered and withstood against the wrongdoing of Saint Peter... but other than that, both of them are in good terms, Saint Peter even spoke highly of Saint Paul...

"And count the forbearance of our Lord as salvation. So also our beloved brother Paul wrote to you according to the wisdom given him,
Speaking of this as he does in all his letters. There are some things in them hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures."
II Peter 3:15-16


* a big misinterpretation... the Gospel of Christ is mainly for the unbelievers/non-believers... and the epistles/letters of Saint Paul are for the brethren inside the Church... there's no conflict... wink

Hmp...interesting. Thanks for the history lesson. smile

BobbyD
Originally posted by debbiejo
Well of course, through his councils Jesus was made divine, there was instituted the trinity, the holidays were changed. If Constantine never was Jesus would only be a man not a god.

Ohh Go to a bachlaers party or something.......

evil face

But not before I smiteth thee. mad

box


big grin

Nellinator
Originally posted by debbiejo
Well of course, through his councils Jesus was made divine, there was instituted the trinity, the holidays were changed. If Constantine never was, Jesus would only be a man not a god.
Now this is only partially true. Jesus was widely worshipped as God well before the Council of Nicea. Pliny in the early second century rings a bell as does Irenaeus of the late second century. Not to mention the epistles of Paul that make the divinity of Jesus quite clear. Even the Gnostic texts vote for the divinity of Christ. That might be why the vote was over 300 to 2, but that's just my two cents. Jesus was quite obviously widely accepted as divine well before the Nicean Council of 325AD because the epistles of Paul were used by the early churches and were written by 70AD at the lastest though probably much earlier.
Not to mention the claims that Jesus apostles make with the Word being God and the Word becoming flesh, not to mention that Jesus claimed to be the way the truth and the life and to have control over salvation. Sorry, but the confirmation of Jesus's divinity does make the Council of Nicea heretical.

And on your earlier comment:
Yes the people of Sodom and Gomorrha burn eternally according to scripture, however, the cities do not.

debbiejo
The Gnostics don't view Christ the way you do. It was believed that everybody could have Christ. That is the Christ within.

No, the scripture Sodom and Gomorrha will eternally burn........Is it now still burning? In Jude it says the CITY and the cities around it will burn for ever and ever......Cities...are they still burning?

Jude 1:7 Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.

Even in Revelation with the smoke or their torment going on for ever and ever...How can all things be made new and the old system done away with if something from the old system is still in play?

Originally posted by BobbyD
evil face

But not before I smiteth thee. mad

box


big grin I think you just like to say the word smiteth....

Nellinator
Yes that is the heresy of the Gnostics, however, they still viewed Christ as divine, but unable to be in the flesh.

Read Jude 1:7 again... Consider the use of language. The cities themselves were not given over to fornification it was the people. Therefore the vengeance of eternal fire is not on the cities themselves, but upon the people Why would God have vengeance on buildings? It the people who are being punished.

debbiejo
And the verse in Revelations and my question to it?

And why say the Gnostics are heretics? Only because you were told that they were? To have Christ inside is way better then to have Christ outside, don't you think?

Nellinator
Give me the verse because I don't feel like searching for it and I will respond.

No one ever told me that Gnostics were heretics, they are a subject that I have studied entirely on my own. Believe it or not I used to be Gnostic. Their beliefs are in contradiction to the message that Christ taught.

Christ is inside of Christians, however, a part of Gnostism is to attempt to become gods through ritual experience, something that is directly against the commands of God and the teachings of Jesus. Their beliefs also led to them attempting to justify their immorality, which is something that is also against Jesus. Jesus inside of us helps us to live in the fruits of the Spirit and works against temptation. However, the Gnostics attempt to utilize spiritual experiences to attempt to attain godhood and salvation, but when Jesus told us how to please God it was by loving our neighbours. Jesus also said that he is the way, the truth and the life and that no one comes to the Father except through him. The Gnostics try different paths which is another reason they are heretical.

debbiejo
The Gnostics don't try different paths....only one, to be one with Christ on the inside.......

The verse in Rev. is. and the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image, and whosoever receiveth the mark of his name. Revelation 14:11

How can the all things be made new and all former things pass away if this is going on..........for ever and ever?

Nellinator
I used to follow Gnostism. A principle part of it is to use ritualistic spiritual experiences. I know. An example would be the so-called 99th generation descendants of Jesus that came calling here a while back. They invited the people of the forum to attempt one of their 'spiritual' experiences. The truth of the matter was that they were Gnostics.

On Revelation 14:11, I don't understand what you are getting at because for the new system to come the evil of the old must be removed. That is a part of what hell is for.

debbiejo
But the burning of their torment is forever and ever.........the smoke from it is forever and ever. Now how can the Old system be removed as the bible states if this forever and ever is going on?

Nellinator
Because the new system has nothing to do with hell just the saved.

debbiejo
Hell is part of the Old system though, burning and torment is part of the Old system. What's it doing talked about in the New system.

There is a new heavens and a new earth, all former things have passed away. ALL

Nellinator
Then you apparently ascribe to the theory of utter destruction of people in hell. Something usually supported by certain scriptures in Ezekiel and something I plan on looking into more in the future.

debbiejo
Yes there are many denominations that subscribe to the inhalation theory, but what I am saying first that hell isn't real......The Sheol, tartarsus,..etc. just mean grave and sleeping.....As for the ETERNITY of things mentioned in the bible, it is not so, but word pictures to make a statement, I believe. Just as in Rev. and also in Jude..An also I think in Samuel. That same word is used, but does not really mean eternal. It the usage of words for that time period just like we have our usage of this period.

peejayd
Originally posted by debbiejo
Jesus never taught that one would go the the imaginary hell....

* true... because Jesus never really taught hell as "imaginary"...

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
thats one really odd definition of perfection

* one way of keeping away from sin is to kill its root... there would be lesser percentage of men looking at women with lust if women wear modest apparel...

Originally posted by Gregory
peejayd, I'm not really criticizing Paul, so you don't need to defend him to me.

* very glad to hear that...

Originally posted by Gregory
Although some of his ideas seem distinctly backwards from a modern point of view ("Slaves, obey your masters."wink, and sometimes even appear self-contradictory (in one of his letters, as I recall, he explains how women should dress when they prophesize in church. He then says that women shouldn't speak in church. But people prophesized out loud, so...?) it's not like I get upset at the thought of people using the Epistles for guidance. I'm just suggesting that Christians should guide their life by the Gospels first. Presumably, after all, the disciples and other people who followed Jesus before Paul's conversion managed to be good Christians based soley on Jesus' teachings, without Paul to fall back on.

"If any man thinketh himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him take knowledge of the things which I write unto you, that they are the commandment of the Lord."
I Corinthians 14:37

* i believe that hearing out Saint Paul or any other apostle/disciple of Christ in the Bible, is tantamount of hearing Jesus as well...

Originally posted by debbiejo
Sodom and Gomorrah is still burning? That was eternal also in scripture.

These are word pictures of mental anguish.

* in the Bible, there are things mentioned literal and metaphorical... we should not conclude that the Scriptures are 100% literal or 100% metaphorical... for example:

"And if thy hand or thy foot causeth thee to stumble, cut it off, and cast it from thee: it is good for thee to enter into life maimed or halt, rather than having two hands or two feet to be cast into the eternal fire.
And if thine eye causeth thee to stumble, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: it is good for thee to enter into life with one eye, rather than having two eyes to be cast into the hell of fire."
Matthew 18:8-9

* it would be stupid to interpret this verse as literal... for the whole congregation would be thoroughly disabled...

"And when ye pray, ye shall not be as the hypocrites: for they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have received their reward.
But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thine inner chamber, and having shut thy door, pray to thy Father who is in secret, and thy Father who seeth in secret shall recompense thee."
Matthew 6:5-6

* there are also verses that should be interpreted literal like the manner of praying... wink

Gregory
Originally posted by peejayd
"If any man thinketh himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him take knowledge of the things which I write unto you, that they are the commandment of the Lord."
I Corinthians 14:37

* i believe that hearing out Saint Paul or any other apostle/disciple of Christ in the Bible, is tantamount of hearing Jesus as well...

You don't mean that. "Slaves, obey your masters" is a divine decree now? You can't excise it from the Bible, but surly you don't want to elivate it to the same level of "love thy neighbor as thyself"? Much better for Christianity to allow Paul to be mistaken now and then.

Nellinator
Originally posted by Gregory
You don't mean that. "Slaves, obey your masters" is a divine decree now? You can't excise it from the Bible, but surly you don't want to elivate it to the same level of "love thy neighbor as thyself"? Much better for Christianity to allow Paul to be mistaken now and then.
I believe that it still applies to slaves that read nowadays yes. A basic part of Jesus's message was to take what lot you have in life and live in humility and subservience to God no matter your station. Love your neighbour is obviously greater though because Jesus made that clear when he said that it is the second greatest commandment. It also applies to all people whereas your aforementioned verse only applies to a small part of the people in the world. I don't think that Paul ever intended for that to be greater than Jesus's words, just a reminder to those that sometimes forget.

peejayd
Originally posted by Gregory
You don't mean that. "Slaves, obey your masters" is a divine decree now? You can't excise it from the Bible, but surly you don't want to elivate it to the same level of "love thy neighbor as thyself"? Much better for Christianity to allow Paul to be mistaken now and then.

* i never said anything like that... i meant to prove Jesus and Saint Paul's teachings do not conflict and go hand in hand... wink

debbiejo
How do you know he taught it the way you thought it to be? Mr, Paul worshipper?

Who gets to pick which is metaphorical and what is not.

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by peejayd

one way of keeping away from sin is to kill its root... there would be lesser percentage of men looking at women with lust if women wear modest apparel...


you have a very good point from a St Augustine view

but answer me this
without lust how am I to judge the worth of a woman? evil face

peejayd
Originally posted by debbiejo
How do you know he taught it the way you thought it to be?

* the 4 Gospels... all 4 never tells that hell is imaginary...

Originally posted by debbiejo
Mr, Paul worshipper?

* i do not worship Saint Paul... i obey Jesus' words, he who hears Jesus' apostles also hears Jesus (Luke 10:16) and he who receives Jesus' apostles also receives Jesus (Matthew 10:40)...

* and even if, by mental disorder, i worship Saint Paul, he does not accept worship and blatantly rejects worship (Acts 14:11-15)...

Originally posted by debbiejo
Who gets to pick which is metaphorical and what is not.

* the true preacher sent by God in the endtimes (Daniel 12:9-10, Revelation 1:3)...

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
you have a very good point from a St Augustine view

* we have similar views? Augustine was a Catholic... i'm sorry but majority of Catholic women do not follow I Timothy 2:9...

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
but answer me this
without lust how am I to judge the worth of a woman? evil face

* i appreciate your frankness... stick out tongue

"As a face is reflected in water, so the heart reflects the person."
Proverbs 27:19

Symmetric Chaos
Augustine was really into sin and the defintion thereof he also had a lot of interest in the struggle against lust

Nellinator
Augustine wrote a lot of things I respect. One mistake I think many Protestants make is that they disregard Catholic, Mormons, JWs etc. simply by their affiliation. If we what they say is in line with scriptures we must accept it. Only when it is not must we draw a line.

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by Nellinator
Augustine wrote a lot of things I respect. One mistake I think many Protestants make is that they disregard Catholic, Mormons, JWs etc. simply by their affiliation. If we what they say is in line with scriptures we must accept it. Only when it is not must we draw a line.

I don't disregard Catholics, Jew, Mormons etc. teachings

In fact I don't disregard the teachings of any religion (Philisophically speaking I do not believe in the concept of 1)

Gregory
You hold a fringe belief that very few people--including religious scholars*--hold. You're entitled to, but must you be rude about it?

Regarding more recent posts, I believe that even Martin Luther recommended the apocrypha as enlightening. Although since even Catholics rarely seem to read it, it's probably hopelessly optimistic to assume Protestants will.

*Don't even think of throwing up a link and claiming it refutes this. If you know anything about religious scholarship, you'll know better then to do that, but I'll preempt it just in case.

lord xyz
Originally posted by Gregory
No Markianity?

I don't understand the point of this thread; when I saw the title, I assumed it was debbijo, and I would have known what she was talking about, but you...? I was thinking the same, but I thought "Markism" would be better.

Nellinator
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I don't disregard Catholics, Jew, Mormons etc. teachings

In fact I don't disregard the teachings of any religion (Philisophically speaking I do not believe in the concept of 1)
I understand that. Actually, I was referring mostly to Christians themselves disregarding the teachings of other Abrahamic religions outright even if they contain truth. I totally forgot about Jews. I think that Jewish teachings are amongst my favourites as I was Jewish (religiously) for a short period before I became Christian.

lord xyz
Originally posted by Nellinator
Well, Mark was Peter's scribe so really Markianity is just a sect of Petertology.

P.S. This thread might be taking a shot at the stupid antics of debbiejo, but I'm not going to say for sure. That makes no sense. Its easier trying to figure out why the panda had sex with the chicken.

Actually, I worked that out, the answer is: He lost at grab ass.

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by lord xyz
That makes no sense. Its easier trying to figure out why the panda had sex with the chicken.

Actually, I worked that out, the answer is: He lost at grab ass.

confused

the panda or Mark?

Lord Urizen
Originally posted by Nellinator
I understand that. Actually, I was referring mostly to Christians themselves disregarding the teachings of other Abrahamic religions outright even if they contain truth. I totally forgot about Jews. I think that Jewish teachings are amongst my favourites as I was Jewish (religiously) for a short period before I became Christian.



You mean like Marcello and JIA ?

They will disregard anyone, even other Christians, who do not agree with thier personal intepretations.

lord xyz
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
confused

the panda or Mark? The Panda.

peejayd
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Augustine was really into sin and the defintion thereof he also had a lot of interest in the struggle against lust

Originally posted by Nellinator
Augustine wrote a lot of things I respect. One mistake I think many Protestants make is that they disregard Catholic, Mormons, JWs etc. simply by their affiliation. If we what they say is in line with scriptures we must accept it. Only when it is not must we draw a line.

* yes, i was just surprised... i'm not disregarding anyone... but i was saying a specific statement: majority of Catholic women do not follow I Timothy 2:9 eventhough their "saint" put up a struggle against lust... eek!

debbiejo
Paul said women should be silent......Isn't that an oxymoron ???

Gregory
Originally posted by peejayd
* yes, i was just surprised... i'm not disregarding anyone... but i was saying a specific statement: majority of Catholic women do not follow I Timothy 2:9 eventhough their "saint" put up a struggle against lust... eek!

I haven't mentioned this even when it seemed relevent, because I don't want to turn this into a debate on the subject, but the general consensus is that Paul didn't actually write 2 Timothy.

On the other hand, I wonder how many Christians know that Paul disaproved of marriage? He viewed it as a last resort for people who weren't mature enough to control their lust.

Nellinator
A majority consensus, but I wouldn't say a general consenus.

I'm not sure that is exactly what he meant. But, despite this he makes it quite clear that it was his own opinion and not the Lord's. Paul makes it clear what is divinely inspired and what is simply his advice.

Gregory
You may be right. Religious scholars don't seem able to form a general consensus about anything; why start here?

I know that Paul was giving his opinions, but I think it's funny. The religious right spends so much time preaching about how we can't let gay folks marry because it would "destroy the sanctity of marriage," and marriage is a sacred institution (maybe this is an American phenomonon; what's the religious tempature up in Canada?), and all the while you have probably the single most important figure in Christianity other then Jesus himself giving his opinion on the sacred institution of marriage, and it's the stunningly unenthusiastic, "Yet I would that all men were even as I myself ... But I say to the unmarried and to widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I. But if they have not continency, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn."

Nellinator
The marriage debate does exist in Canada. It actually went to free vote in parliament recently in the attempt of the new Conservative government to overthrow the previous Liberal government's legalization of gay marriage, and failed. However, where in Alberta, where I live, gay marriage is still illegal as the provincial Conservative Party of Alberta has 75% of the seats (the lowest in ten years) and has used the notwithstanding clause to avoid the federal law taking affect in Alberta. It is an ongoing issue, however, I tend to think that Canadians on average are slightly more subdued and less politically active than Americans, especially because we have much less free speech rights than Americans. Most of the opposition still comes from the religious right, but there are far less real Christians in Canada percentage wise than in America and churches have less political power so a lot of the opposition is actually coming from the Muslim population.

My opinion on that verse is that Paul wishes that more people would better able to focus on the things of God. When reading this verse one has to take into consideration the fact that he was writing to a young church, where Christianity was just beginning to spread and most of the men in the church were married to non-Christian women. An 'unbalanced yoke' as it is called can have an adverse affect on a Christian's life and I think this is what Paul was really lamenting about. That is of course, assuming Paul actually wrote it.

peejayd
Originally posted by debbiejo
Paul said women should be silent......Isn't that an oxymoron ???

"If any speak in a tongue, let there be only two or at most three, and each in turn; and let one interpret.
But if there is no one to interpret, let each of them keep silence in church and speak to himself and to God."
I Corinthians 14:27-28

* not only women, but any person... if there is no one to interpret, all of them should be silent...

Originally posted by Gregory
I haven't mentioned this even when it seemed relevent, because I don't want to turn this into a debate on the subject, but the general consensus is that Paul didn't actually write 2 Timothy.

* Saint Paul did write the two letters for Saint Timothy... if it's not Saint Paul, then who?

Originally posted by Gregory
On the other hand, I wonder how many Christians know that Paul disaproved of marriage? He viewed it as a last resort for people who weren't mature enough to control their lust.

* Saint Paul did not disapproved marriage...

"I wish that all were as I myself am. But each has his own special gift from God, one of one kind and one of another."
I Corinthians 7:7

* Saint Paul knows that each person has his own special gift from God, so eventhough he personally wished that all were like himself (with no spouse), he did not disapproved marriage...

"Are you bound to a wife? Do not seek to be free. Are you free from a wife? Do not seek marriage."
I Corinthians 7:27

* this was only a personal advice from Saint Paul... the first line even bonds marriage -> bound to a wife, do not seek to be free...

Originally posted by Gregory
You may be right. Religious scholars don't seem able to form a general consensus about anything; why start here?

I know that Paul was giving his opinions, but I think it's funny. The religious right spends so much time preaching about how we can't let gay folks marry because it would "destroy the sanctity of marriage," and marriage is a sacred institution (maybe this is an American phenomonon; what's the religious tempature up in Canada?), and all the while you have probably the single most important figure in Christianity other then Jesus himself giving his opinion on the sacred institution of marriage, and it's the stunningly unenthusiastic, "Yet I would that all men were even as I myself ... But I say to the unmarried and to widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I. But if they have not continency, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn."

"Now concerning the unmarried, I have no command of the Lord, but I give my opinion as one who by the Lord's mercy is trustworthy.
I think that in view of the present distress it is well for a person to remain as he is."
I Corinthians 7:25-26

* i view this as a friendly advice from a preaher of God... and here's his explanation...

"I want you to be free from anxieties. The unmarried man is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to please the Lord;
But the married man is anxious about worldly affairs, how to please his wife,
And his interests are divided. And the unmarried woman or girl is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to be holy in body and spirit; but the married woman is anxious about worldly affairs, how to please her husband.
I say this for your own benefit, not to lay any restraint upon you, but to promote good order and to secure your undivided devotion to the Lord."
I Corinthians 7:32-35

* which is very true... a married person is sometimes more pre-occupied with his spouse, children, parents, etc... whilst an unmarried person can thoroughly devote himself/herself to God... moreso to obey Jesus' commandments...

"And he answered, You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your strength, and with all your mind; and your neighbor as yourself."
Luke 10:27

"He who loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; and he who loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me;"
Matthew 10:37

Gregory
We don't know who wrote 1 and 2 Timothy, but he doesn't write like Paul, doesn't use Paul's vocabulary, and doesn't have Paul's theology. So, uh ... since I explicitly said I wasn't interested in that debate, that's as much as you'll get out of me. Look it up, if you're really interested; try Bart Ehrman.

You are not convincing re: Paul's views on marriage. He explicitly said that he wished everybody could be unmarried, said that those who are "free of a wife" should not look for a wife, and that married people should "act like they are unmarried." You can twist and turn, but this is clearly not an endorsement, and explaining why he holds these views--which I already knew, thank you; I have read the texts I'm talking about--doesn't change them.

Nellinator
I am aware of the discrepancies, I think this discussion, being in the Paulinanity thread, was based on the assumption that Paul wrote it. If he did not then the discussion is over really and I agree with you on that.

Who is you? Peejayd or I?

I agree that the writer (lets call him Paul) obviously does not have an enthusiastic view of marriage, and I think it is one instance where personal bias has entered the NT, however, without giving bad advice. He does clearly wish all men were unmarried, however, he maintains credibility in that he realizes God has not chosen everyone for celibacy. God deals the cards and we play them.

peejayd
* i believe the writer is Saint Paul... it may be different from the other epistles because the letter is very hard to understand and it is for a person who knows him more than another else, his son in faith -> Saint Timothy...

* Saint Paul's advice that married people should act like unmarried only implies that eventhough people are married, that should not be an excuse NOT to serve God whole-heartedly... wink

debbiejo
Originally posted by peejayd
"If any speak in a tongue, let there be only two or at most three, and each in turn; and let one interpret.
But if there is no one to interpret, let each of them keep silence in church and speak to himself and to God."
I Corinthians 14:27-28

* not only women, but any person... if there is no one to interpret, all of them should be silent...
*"If they desire to learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is improper for a woman to speak in church" (1 Corinthians 14:35).

In the OT women WERE the speakers as in Judges and Prophetesses.

Gregory
Originally posted by Nellinator

I agree that the writer (lets call him Paul) obviously does not have an enthusiastic view of marriage, and I think it is one instance where personal bias has entered the NT, however, without giving bad advice. He does clearly wish all men were unmarried, however, he maintains credibility in that he realizes God has not chosen everyone for celibacy. God deals the cards and we play them.

The entire post was aimed at peejad.

There's no question that we're talking about Paul's views; I've never heard anyone question 1 Corinthian's authenticity. The 1 and 2 Timothy stuff was an aside to debbijo.

I wouldn't argue that Paul loses credibility. Whether or not his advise is good or not, it's never a bad thing when a religious leader admits that sometimes, he's giving his own opinions instead of channeling God. It's one of the things, in my opinion, that seperate legitime religious figures from wannabe cult leaders.

FeceMan
Oddly enough, I was considering posting a thread specifically about the chapter Paul writes about marriage. It can be a tad disconcerting unless one reads the whole thing through-and-through.

You'll notice that Paul states that anyone who does marry has not sinned. Marriage is stressful. Marriage causes anxiety. Paul is saying that we should be patient and do things in God's timeframe, being content as we are until then.

We must also remember that Paul's words are not commandments from God. They are not wrong, but, in the case of women and church, it is culture-specific. (This is a dangerous line to walk, I must say, lest we destroy biblical teaching for the sake of culture.) Would it be morally wrong for women to be silent during church? No. Would people squall about sexism in the US? Yes.

Furthermore...

http://www.christiancourier.com/articles/read/1_corinthians_1434_silence_in_the_church

Nellinator
Originally posted by FeceMan
Oddly enough, I was considering posting a thread specifically about the chapter Paul writes about marriage. It can be a tad disconcerting unless one reads the whole thing through-and-through.

You'll notice that Paul states that anyone who does marry has not sinned. Marriage is stressful. Marriage causes anxiety. Paul is saying that we should be patient and do things in God's timeframe, being content as we are until then.

We must also remember that Paul's words are not commandments from God. They are not wrong, but, in the case of women and church, it is culture-specific. (This is a dangerous line to walk, I must say, lest we destroy biblical teaching for the sake of culture.) Would it be morally wrong for women to be silent during church? No. Would people squall about sexism in the US? Yes.

Furthermore...

http://www.christiancourier.com/articles/read/1_corinthians_1434_silence_in_the_church
I was wondering how long it would take Feceman to come into this thread. Welcome to Paulianity. I must give you founding credit considering to coined the term, but I made the thread so I am the cult master.

Lord Urizen
But what if I don't beleive in any of it ?


Does that make me a bad person ?

FeceMan
Originally posted by Lord Urizen
But what if I don't beleive in any of it ?


Does that make me a bad person ?
You're a bad person anyway.

Lord Urizen
Originally posted by FeceMan
You're a bad person anyway.


On what basis ?

FeceMan
Originally posted by Lord Urizen
On what basis ?
Your posting habits.

Lord Urizen
Originally posted by FeceMan
Your posting habits.



How do they make me a bad person ?

FeceMan
Originally posted by Lord Urizen
How do they make me a bad person ?
They're associated with you.

peejayd
Originally posted by debbiejo
"If they desire to learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is improper for a woman to speak in church" (1 Corinthians 14:35).

In the OT women WERE the speakers as in Judges and Prophetesses.

* you cling on OT too much... maybe if Jesus was here, you'd be throwing stones at Him like the Jews... read the context of the chapter and not only the verse... looky here, my friend...

"But I commend to you Phoebe, our sister, who is minister of the assembly which is in Cenchrea;
That ye may receive her in the Lord worthily of saints, and that ye may assist her in whatever matter she has need of you; for she also has been a helper of many, and of myself."
Romans 16:1-2

* Phoebe, obviously a female, was a minister at Cenchrea...

Originally posted by Gregory
The entire post was aimed at peejad.

There's no question that we're talking about Paul's views; I've never heard anyone question 1 Corinthian's authenticity. The 1 and 2 Timothy stuff was an aside to debbijo.

I wouldn't argue that Paul loses credibility. Whether or not his advise is good or not, it's never a bad thing when a religious leader admits that sometimes, he's giving his own opinions instead of channeling God. It's one of the things, in my opinion, that seperate legitime religious figures from wannabe cult leaders.

* just like what mr.feceman said, marriage causes anxiety, as i have also posted earlier... that is the intention of Saint Paul... but in general, Saint Paul did not disapproved marriage... and the fact that he gave his own opinion is no big deal because his intention was for the unmarried brethren can serve God whole-heartedly because married people are sometimes more pre-occupied with their spouses, children, parents, etc... wink

Gregory
Telling people he wishes they wouldn't get married as an expressal of disaproval of marriage. The reason for this dissaproval is well known; certainly I knew it before any of you saw fit to assume I'd never read the epistle and explained it out to me. You're wrong about this, and I'm sure you'd feel better if you just admit it and get on with your life.

peejayd
* stop being an a-hole, we've started a nice discussion... read I Corinthians 7:7, it's very simple enough for anyone to understand... wink

Lord Urizen
Originally posted by FeceMan
They're associated with you.


How are they bad posts ?

FeceMan
Originally posted by Lord Urizen
How are they bad posts ?
God, help me.

Gregory
Originally posted by peejayd
* stop being an a-hole, we've started a nice discussion... read I Corinthians 7:7, it's very simple enough for anyone to understand... wink

Not simple enough for you, apparently wink

(Since this started with something I thought was funny, here's something else I think is funny to finish it off: I have never once, in this entire thread, criticized Paul's views on marriage. And yet everyone seems to feel compelled to defend him, as if he were under attack. Weird.)

FeceMan
Originally posted by FeceMan
Oddly enough, I was considering posting a thread specifically about the chapter Paul writes about marriage. It can be a tad disconcerting unless one reads the whole thing through-and-through.

You'll notice that Paul states that anyone who does marry has not sinned. Marriage is stressful. Marriage causes anxiety. Paul is saying that we should be patient and do things in God's timeframe, being content as we are until then.

We must also remember that Paul's words are not commandments from God. They are not wrong, but, in the case of women and church, it is culture-specific. (This is a dangerous line to walk, I must say, lest we destroy biblical teaching for the sake of culture.) Would it be morally wrong for women to be silent during church? No. Would people squall about sexism in the US? Yes.

Furthermore...

http://www.christiancourier.com/articles/read/1_corinthians_1434_silence_in_the_church
Thanks for ignoring this ****ing pearl of wisdom.

Lord Urizen
Originally posted by FeceMan
God, help me.


You have not convinced me that I am a bad person

Gregory
Originally posted by FeceMan
Thanks for ignoring this ****ing pearl of wisdom.

Huh? I didn't ignore it. What did you want me to say about it? I never claimed that Paul thought marriage was sinful, and I don't think I've mentioned talking in church recently. That was ... debbijo, maybe?

Lord Urizen
Originally posted by Gregory
But Paul was telling people how to run their churches and communities. As I recall, he really didn't give much moral advise, and when people slavishly follow Paul's advise about how to run a church while ignoring Jesus' message--and I think we can all agree that people shouldn't do this, but we can probably also agree that a lot of people do (Phelps, to pick an extreme example)--then you're essentially back to OT legalism; and lord knows that isn't what Jesus was supposed to stand for.

(And you can use whatever smilies make you happy.)



I assume Peejayd feels he must remain loyal to the entire Bible....is that true Peejayd ?

Nellinator
Originally posted by Gregory
Not simple enough for you, apparently wink

(Since this started with something I thought was funny, here's something else I think is funny to finish it off: I have never once, in this entire thread, criticized Paul's views on marriage. And yet everyone seems to feel compelled to defend him, as if he were under attack. Weird.) I would like to point out that I agree with you and that I have defended Paul on this matter.

Now a question for you Gregory. Why do think Paul wrote what he did?

Gregory
What he did? You mean regarding marriage? Well...

Paul is responding to a particular problem in the Corinthian community. There's apparently a lot of fornication going on, with someone even sleeping with his father's wife, and Paul does not approve. Paul would prefer that men didn't touch women at all (7:1), but, "because of fornication" people should keep with their wives and husbands, although Paul would personally prefer it if they were as he is (unmarried), and advises unmarried people to stay unmarried, unless "they have not continency," in which case they should marry so that they do not sin (when they have sex with their spouces).

(He then argues, apparently tangentally, that husbands and wives who are already married should stay together, unless one of them is an unbeliever, in which case ... well, they should still stay together, for the sake of the unbeliever's soul, but if the unbeliever wants to leave, let him/her.)

There are also apocalyptic undertones to the text. Paul claims that "appointed time has grown short," and that is why people who already have spouses should live as if they didn't (abstain from sexual intercourse? I'm not quite sure what he means by that, since that interpretation would conflict with the reason for marriage that he gives above.)

Lord Urizen
It's amazing to me how many people will truly devote thier lives to the words of a saggy old man who existed thousands of years ago

Nellinator
Originally posted by Gregory
What he did? You mean regarding marriage? Well...

Paul is responding to a particular problem in the Corinthian community. There's apparently a lot of fornication going on, with someone even sleeping with his father's wife, and Paul does not approve. Paul would prefer that men didn't touch women at all (7:1), but, "because of fornication" people should keep with their wives and husbands, although Paul would personally prefer it if they were as he is (unmarried), and advises unmarried people to stay unmarried, unless "they have not continency," in which case they should marry so that they do not sin (when they have sex with their spouces).

(He then argues, apparently tangentally, that husbands and wives who are already married should stay together, unless one of them is an unbeliever, in which case ... well, they should still stay together, for the sake of the unbeliever's soul, but if the unbeliever wants to leave, let him/her.)

There are also apocalyptic undertones to the text. Paul claims that "appointed time has grown short," and that is why people who already have spouses should live as if they didn't (abstain from sexual intercourse? I'm not quite sure what he means by that, since that interpretation would conflict with the reason for marriage that he gives above.)
So do you believe that Paul truly felt that others should not marry, or that he was simply lamenting over a certain situation in a certain area considering that he did not send that same message to the other churches?

I do not think he included sexual intercourse in his 'act as if not married' thing because it would indeed be a slight contradiction if he did. I believe he was referring to the anxiety and worries of marriage that he directly addressed.

debbiejo
Originally posted by FeceMan
Thanks for ignoring this ****ing pearl of wisdom. You shouldn't swear in the Religious Forum, it's not becoming. wink

I know, I know...I know this one...Cause he's a follower of Mithra?

Gregory
Originally posted by Nellinator
So do you believe that Paul truly felt that others should not marry, or that he was simply lamenting over a certain situation in a certain area considering that he did not send that same message to the other churches?

I do not think he included sexual intercourse in his 'act as if not married' thing because it would indeed be a slight contradiction if he did. I believe he was referring to the anxiety and worries of marriage that he directly addressed.


I don't think his statement that he wished everybody was like him (I wouldn't say catagorically that "he truly felt that others should not marry"; he thought people should marry if they could otherewise not control themselves) is community-specific; he doesn't limit it in such a manor. On the other hand, since he didn't feel he had a divine mandate against marriage, would you expect him to bring it up in letters to other communites?

So, what does that boil down to ...

Paul truly wished that others would not marry, but since he didn't view it as a divine command, he was only movied to mention it because of a certain situation in a certain area.

Nellinator
Originally posted by debbiejo
You shouldn't swear in the Religious Forum, it's not becoming. wink

I know, I know...I know this one...Cause he's a follower of Mithra?
Paul was a Jew. Get over your Christian conspiracy theories and move on to something that is credible and debatable. Thank you very much.
Also, I wasn't asking you so you are being rude and obnoxious. Shame on you.
Originally posted by Gregory
I don't think his statement that he wished everybody was like him (I wouldn't say catagorically that "he truly felt that others should not marry"; he thought people should marry if they could otherewise not control themselves) is community-specific; he doesn't limit it in such a manor. On the other hand, since he didn't feel he had a divine mandate against marriage, would you expect him to bring it up in letters to other communites?

So, what does that boil down to ...

Paul truly wished that others would not marry, but since he didn't view it as a divine command, he was only movied to mention it because of a certain situation in a certain area.
Then this is our disagreeances. I truly feel that this is really a lament about a certain situation he thinks would easily be solved if they were not married. Ultimately, I don't think it matters who is right though.

Gregory
Originally posted by Nellinator
Then this is our disagreeances. I truly feel that this is really a lament about a certain situation he thinks would easily be solved if they were not married. Ultimately, I don't think it matters who is right though.

Well, no. Empires will hardly rise and fall over this one.

supdude
A bit off topic..but ive always wondered what paul prayed about to god 3 times for. could it be the whole marriage issue? could it be that perhaps paul himself wanted to get married, but god wouldnt allow him to do so?

anyone have any thoughts on this?

FeceMan
Originally posted by Gregory
Huh? I didn't ignore it. What did you want me to say about it? I never claimed that Paul thought marriage was sinful, and I don't think I've mentioned talking in church recently. That was ... debbijo, maybe?
I don't know.

I just know that I post stuff here that's like, "There. Now, be quiet and stop saying things."

And everyone else is like, "What?"

And, trust me, it's not for a lack of clarity in my writing.

peejayd
Originally posted by Gregory
Not simple enough for you, apparently wink

(Since this started with something I thought was funny, here's something else I think is funny to finish it off: I have never once, in this entire thread, criticized Paul's views on marriage. And yet everyone seems to feel compelled to defend him, as if he were under attack. Weird.)

* yeah right, you are not criticizing Saint Paul... tell it to the marines... you know what's weird? you're criticizing someone and you don't have the balls to admit it...

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
I assume Peejayd feels he must remain loyal to the entire Bible....is that true Peejayd ?

* well... yeah... but more importantly, to defend someone from a critic who claims he's not criticizing...

Originally posted by Gregory
There are also apocalyptic undertones to the text. Paul claims that "appointed time has grown short," and that is why people who already have spouses should live as if they didn't (abstain from sexual intercourse? I'm not quite sure what he means by that, since that interpretation would conflict with the reason for marriage that he gives above.)

* you don't know what he means? then stop interpreting it the wrong way... you have posted what you think the reason why Saint Paul wrote those things to the Corinthians, so hey! would you do something different if you are in his shoes? roll eyes (sarcastic)

Gregory
The marines? Have you decided to stop even pretending to make sense? And stop the mind-reading act; pretending that you understand my thoughts and motivations beter then I do myself is ludacrous at the best of times, and, in this case, wherein you come straight out and accuse me of lying about them, down-right offensive. I have told Nellinator--who some of the Christians on this board might do well to emulate--my views of the subject, and I doubt it's worth my while to continue this conversation with you.

peejayd
* now, i'm the offender... you just said Saint Paul disapproved marriage... and i disagreed... then you said i should admit that i was wrong and get on with my life... and i'm now the offender? please, mr.gregory, compose yourself... we WERE having a nice discussion before you started acting like an a-hole...

* let me put it this way - if you're not really criticizing Saint Paul, then why the heck are you acting like you were? plus, the fact that i disagreed on your view means that i should/must admit i'm wrong? what kind of notion is that? confused

debbiejo
Paul was also a Roman citizen and was influenced by them much. Tarsus was a hub for the Mithra religion.

And shame on you for calling me rude and obnoxious, and I can respond to any post I want, this is a public board........eat
I didn't talk about marriage yet... I just talked about "Women being silent", oh, and it is true that Paul taught things not commanded by god. He instituted his own views. Then one must look at where he derived them from.

peejayd
Originally posted by debbiejo
Paul was also a Roman citizen and was influenced by them much. Tarsus was a hub for the Mithra religion.

I didn't talk about marriage yet... I just talked about "Women being silent", oh, and it is true that Paul taught things not commanded by god. He instituted his own views. Then one must look at where he derived them from.

* Saint Paul taught things commanded by God (I Corinthians 14:37)... the things he instituted his own views on, are not doctrines but spiritual advices for brethren... wink

debbiejo
you're proof of this is that is from god?

peejayd
* his epistles... wink

Lord Urizen
Originally posted by peejayd
* his epistles... wink


His what ?

FeceMan
Nipples. He said, "His nipples."

droolio

debbiejo
laughing out loud laughing out loud

Stop it........

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.