Take an extra second to reflect on 2005

[Chico]

ALM now I am absolutely convinced that you are no Biblical scholar. Context is key in all scripture that is quoted and to surmise that Paul uses his claimed visions to completely nullify everything Jesus ever taught and practiced! is astounding. Unbelievable. What do you understand to be atonement and original sin and are you claiming that they not found anywhere else in the Bible bar Paul's letters?

[Chico]

Did Paul distort the message of Jesus?

Paul's Unconventional Wisdom
The Apostle Paul gets mixed press, but his most important messages parallel the teachings of Jesus.


Paul has a very mixed press. Though the majority of Christians revere Paul because of his prominence in the New Testament, opinions about him in the academy and in segments of mainline Protestantism are very mixed. Many who admire or adore Jesus don't care for Paul.

The most common charges against him are twofold. First, he seriously distorted the message of Jesus. Because his letters seldom refer to Jesus' teaching, he is accused of replacing the message of Jesus with a message about Jesus, transforming it into a set of theological doctrines that Christians must believe in order to be saved. These "doctrines" are frequently the substance of fundamentalist and conservative Christian preaching.

The second charge: He was a social and sexual conservative. His letters urge slaves to obey their masters, teach the subordination of women, condemn homosexuality, and see sexual behavior as a concession to human weakness ("It is better to marry than to burn," "I wish you would remain single as I am"). As a spelling-challenged undergraduate wrote in an essay exam a few years ago, "Paul preached to the Genitals."

But these charges shortchange Paul. To some extent, they flow from uncritically accepting that all 13 letters attributed to him were actually written by him. But modern scholars are quite certain that at least three were not: First and Second Timothy, and Titus. Three more are disputed: Ephesians, Colossians, and Second Thessalonians. The remaining seven are generally accepted as Paul's writing.

Many passages that form the negative image are in the six letters that may not have been written by Paul. When they are set aside, Paul emerges as a much more radical and subversive thinker than the negative stereotype suggests.

He was a remarkable man:


He is second in importance only to Jesus in forming and developing Christianity. Almost half of the 27 books of the New Testament are attributed to him.
He spent the last 25 years of his life as an itinerant apostle and community organizer in major cities of the Mediterranean world.
His life was arduous, and his brief description of his labors and trials leaves one breathless (II Cor. 11.23-12.13).
He is the first Jewish mystic from whom we have a firsthand account of his mystical experience (II Cor. 12.1-4).
He was brilliant: his arguments are intricate, and his Greek eloquent.
There must have been something appealing about him, or he would not have been so successful as an apostle.
He was a martyr. Rome executed him.

But did he distort the message of Jesus? Granted, his letters do not often refer to Jesus' teachings. But telling the story of Jesus when he wrote to his communities was not his purpose; presumably, he had talked about Jesus when he first created those communities. Moreover, we can see continuity between the messages of Jesus and of Paul. Jesus’ two focal points were “the way” as a path of radical personal transformation and “the Kingdom of God” as a radical political vision.

In the Gospels, Jesus speaks about "the narrow way" that leads to life, of "taking up one's cross," as the path of personal transformation. Paul speaks about "dying and rising with Christ." Jesus speaks about "the Kingdom of God"; Paul proclaims "Jesus is Lord." Despite the differences in language, I see these two sets of phrases as parallel in meaning.



"The way" that Jesus taught was a subversive and alternative wisdom that undermined the conventional wisdom of his, and every, culture. Conventional wisdom, whether religious or secular, is the consensus of a culture about how to live: Conform to these standards and your life will go well. It sees life as based on rewards and requirements: "You reap what you sow," "Work hard and you'll succeed."

Jesus' message was very different. At its heart is the image of "a way" or "path" of personal transformation. Expressed with many metaphors in the gospels, it is the path of dying to an old identity and way of being and being born into a new identity and way of being, one centered in God or the Spirit.

Paul speaks of the same path with the imagery of "dying and rising with Christ" (Rom. 6). Indeed, he speaks of himself as having undergone this process: "I have been crucified with Christ; it is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me" (Gal. 2.20). The old Paul is dead, and a new Paul lives. And he invited his communities to the same path: "Let the same mind be in you that was in Christ Jesus...who emptied himself and humbled himself and became obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross" (Phil. 2.5-8).

Two of Paul's most important metaphors express this way of being. Life "in Christ" is the life of radical centering in the living Christ, who is the Spirit. "Justification by grace" names an idea that counters conventional wisdom. It sees life as a gift, not as an achievement, and refuses to judge oneself or others on the basis of “measuring up." Living by grace means a radical centering in God, the original meaning of "faith."

Thus "the way" at the center of Paul's teaching is not about believing doctrines, despite later Christian tendencies to read him that way. It is a path of psychological and spiritual transformation. And it counters today's Christian conventional wisdom, which most often sees the Christian life in terms of requirements and rewards, as much as it countered the conventional wisdom of Paul's world.

The second focal point of Jesus' message was "the Kingdom of God." The language is not only religious but also political. There were other kingdoms in Jesus' world, including especially the kingdom of Herod and the kingdom of Rome. The Kingdom of God, to echo Bible scholar John Dominic Crossan, is what life would be like on earth if God were king and the Herods and Caesars of this world were not. The Kingdom of God is about God's justice standing against the injustice of domination systems.

Jesus' passion was the Kingdom of God--and it led to his execution by the kingdom that ruled his world. Paul does not often use the phrase "Kingdom of God." Instead, he proclaimed, "Jesus is Lord," a phrase so central to Paul and the early Christian movement that it can be seen as the earliest Christian creed. But it is parallel to "Kingdom of God" and makes essentially the same religious and political contrast to the kingdoms of this world.

The key is the recognition that "Lord" was one of the titles of the Roman emperor. If Jesus is Lord, then Caesar isn't. So also "Son of God" and "savior" were among the terms used for the emperor. Much of early Christian language (including Paul's) was a direct challenge to the empire and imperial theology. And the issue wasn't simply freedom of worship, as if Rome would have been fine if she had allowed Christians to worship Christ without persecution. The issue was the lordship of Jesus versus the lordship of empire, the lordship of Christ versus the lordship of Caesar.

In the conflict between Paul's theology and imperial theology, at issue are two very different visions of God, or the sacred. Is the sacred revealed in the power and order and glory and riches of empire? Or is God revealed in one who proclaimed the Kingdom of God, who challenged the imperial vision with an alternative vision, and who was executed by the empire that ruled his world?

Like Jesus, Paul was executed by the Roman Empire. Is this coincidental? I don't believe so. I believe it is because both subverted the conventional wisdom of their day. Both affirmed a political vision grounded in God's justice that said "no" to the domination system of their day.

Thus Paul was like his master even in his death. His own words, "Be imitators of me as I am of Christ," became literally true. And for those who take Jesus and Paul seriously today, they invite us to challenge unjust systems of convention and domination in our time.

[ALM]

ALM now I am absolutely convinced that you are no Biblical scholar. Context is key in all scripture that is quoted and to surmise that Paul uses his claimed visions to completely nullify everything Jesus ever taught and practiced! is astounding. Unbelievable. What do you understand to be atonement and original sin and are you claiming that they not found anywhere else in the Bible bar Paul's letters?

I'm not claming to be a biblical scholar and the debate we're having is not whther I am or not. I said I attended a Catholic School and part of my education included the study of the 3 monotheist faiths. Rather than being astounded, why not respond by providing evidence where Jesus states that he will die on the cross to atone our sins? What right did Paul, a Roman who shared no time with jesus, have to intorduce concepts such as atonement? Jesus again and again in the bible stressed that he had simply come to reaffrim the law of Moses and commanded everyone to observe this law "till heaven and earth pass". Paul, however, decided that the laws of Moses (e.g. thou shalt not steal, thou shalt not kill) which Jesus had taught during his lifetime were now a 'curse' upon them and no longer necessary,

"Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law." (Galatians 3:13)

The above are the words of Paul. See how he views the teachings of Jesus. The man was a lunatic.

[Chico]

ALM

You are quite right when you say you are no Biblical scholar.

First things first - Paul was not a Roman he was a Jew from Israel who had Roman Citizenship. He also was a Pharisee and when it came to Jewish law (The Torah)he was an expert. Not only was he a Pharisee who had spent all his years studying the law so was his father!!

I suggest you read Romans 1 rather than he being a lunatic who detracted the message of Jesus he reaffirmed it.

Management Summary for you and this is just from Romans 1

1. Jesus Is The Promised One - v2.
2. V. 3-4 Jesus Is The Powerful One
and so forth and so forth

Anyway back to my previous question what do describe as atonement and original sin and are you saying they do not appear anywhere else in the Bible bar Paul's letters?

[Fungus]

I find it curious that you are all spending so much time debating the original dodgy dossier.

The original document narrates events that supposedly happened decades before they were written down. There is little supporting evidence. And of course over the years numerous so-called scholars have created their own interpretations of the contents, so that today we see numerous sects with competing interpretations. I suppose it's a case of "My God's more right than your God, naah naah na haah naah.".

Anyway, it's clear from the quotes given that Paul saw a vision. But, this all rests on the historical accuracy of the bible, which I for one dispute. I'm sure there must be a good book (sic) that discusses the bible from a dispassionate historical and social viewpoint.

Fungus

[ALM]

Management Summary for you and this is just from Romans 1

1. Jesus Is The Promised One - v2.
2. V. 3-4 Jesus Is The Powerful One
and so forth and so forth.

What on earth are you babbling on about? get a grip on yourself man!

You are quite right when you say you are no Biblical scholar.

Thank you but I have already stated this. Quite why you feel the need the reiterate I'm not sure. I suspect you're using this as a smokescreen to avoid addressing the issues at hand.

First things first - Paul was not a Roman he was a Jew from Israel who had Roman Citizenship. He also was a Pharisee and when it came to Jewish law (The Torah)he was an expert. Not only was he a Pharisee who had spent all his years studying the law so was his father!!

Whether he was a roman or a roman citizen or a pharasee is not the point. Unlike the disciples, he spent no time with jesus and had no right to declare that "Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law." (Galatians 3:13). In reality christ did no such thing - he in fact stictly bound his followers to the law. You can see clearly from this quote from Paul that he is not reaffirming the advice of Jesus to follow the law of Moses but is in fact declaring the law a curse! given that you claim to worship Jesus why are you not heeding the words of jesus himself?

Anyway back to my previous question what do describe as atonement and original sin and are you saying they do not appear anywhere else in the Bible bar Paul's letters?!!

They appear only in the New Testament and in the works of Paul, all of which were produced years after the death of jesus. Do you disagree? If so please elaborate. Instead of asking me questions why don't you explain where Jesus said the law of Moses is a curse and don't worry about it becuase I'll die on the cross to atone your sins!

[Chico]

ALM

The totality of the verse is this Galatians 3:13

13Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us, for it is written: "Cursed is everyone who is hung on a tree."

Look in Deut 21:23 for origin of the curse.

See what Paul thought of the Law below.

Romans 7

7What shall we say, then? Is the law sin? Certainly not! Indeed I would not have known what sin was except through the law. For I would not have known what coveting really was if the law had not said, "Do not covet."[b] 8But sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, produced in me every kind of covetous desire. For apart from law, sin is dead. 9Once I was alive apart from law; but when the commandment came, sin sprang to life and I died. 10I found that the very commandment that was intended to bring life actually brought death.
11For sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, deceived me, and through the commandment put me to death. 12So then, the law is holy, and the commandment is holy, righteous and good. 13Did that which is good, then, become death to me? By no means! But in order that sin might be recognized as sin, it produced death in me through what was good, so that through the commandment sin might become utterly sinful.

14We know that the law is spiritual; but I am unspiritual, sold as a slave to sin. 15I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do. 16And if I do what I do not want to do, I agree that the law is good. 17As it is, it is no longer I myself who do it, but it is sin living in me. 18I know that nothing good lives in me, that is, in my sinful nature.[c] For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out. 19For what I do is not the good I want to do; no, the evil I do not want to do—this I keep on doing. 20Now if I do what I do not want to do, it is no longer I who do it, but it is sin living in me that does it.

21So I find this law at work: When I want to do good, evil is right there with me. 22For in my inner being I delight in God's law; 23but I see another law at work in the members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin at work within my members. 24What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body of death? 25Thanks be to God—through Jesus Christ our Lord!
So then, I myself in my mind am a slave to God's law, but in the sinful nature a slave to the law of sin.

So can you deduce what Paul is saying here? Also what did Jesus mean when he said he came to fulfil the law? Matt 5:17

[Dundeegeorge]

So what does it mean in the passage

`You!' said the Caterpillar contemptuously. `Who are YOU?'

Or are you only an expert on one particular fairy-story?

[ALM]

13Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us, for it is written: "Cursed is everyone who is hung on a tree."

Chico: the point is that Jesus never said that he intended to redeem anyone by dying on the cross. This concept was introduced by Paul himself and is at loggerheads with what jesus taught himself. Jesus instructed his followers to simply adhere to the law of Moses and never claimed to free anyone from the law. So why then is Paul declaring the law a curse? The answer is that he wanted people to embrace his idea that you can be a sinner and still go to heaven if you emabrace some namby pampby notion of christ.

As for the remainder of the passage you quoted from Romans, I can only describe it as total and utter claptrap coming from the pen of a deranged lunatic. How you can describe the ramblings of Paul as the word of God is beyond me!

[Chico]

ALM I see now we come to the crucial point - you claim salvation comes by observance of the Law. So why the need for a Messiah? We should just follow the Law and fine and dandy we will all go to heaven. Slight problem with that - no man or woman could ever be in total observance of the Law. We are sinners, through and through. No matter how hard we try we will fail and we fail in a big way. Read Genesis and be acquaint yourself with the concept of the original sin human inherited at the Fall of Adam and Eve. Paul articulates beautifully the struggle we all face in trying to lead a Godly life. You see the without the Lamb of God being slain for our sins there would always be a disconnect between God and Man. Read Isaiah. And I shall conclude with the words of my Lord Jesus Christ

"just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many."

Matthew 20:28