Should Paul curse people?

[marco]

Here is Paul speaking with menace:

Galatians 1: 8 But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let them be under God's curse! 9 As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let them be under God's curse! 10 Am I now trying to win the approval of human beings, or of God.


It seems to me he's obviously trying to win over people, not God, though that might be a secondary motive.

Does Paul have the right to call down curses on people who don't go along with his version of things?

Paul later informs his listeners that he got his message from Jesus. Is his word sufficient? And why?

[Tart]

Here is Paul speaking with menace:

Galatians 1: 8 But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let them be under God's curse! 9 As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let them be under God's curse! 10 Am I now trying to win the approval of human beings, or of God.


It seems to me he's obviously trying to win over people, not God, though that might be a secondary motive.

Does Paul have the right to call down curses on people who don't go along with his version of things?

Paul later informs his listeners that he got his message from Jesus. Is his word sufficient? And why?

Paul is talking about the curse of the law. In Christianity, it is established that we can either live in Faith of Jesus, a free gift of salvation, or we can live for ourselves under the law. Both of these Paul mention are curses.

Christ 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 pole." (Galatians 3)

Paul noted how the Galatians were teaching that people need to adhere to the law for salvation, in place of Faith in Jesus. But Paul notes that is impossible, and surely it is.

10 For all who rely on the works of the law are under a curse, as it is written: “Cursed is everyone who does not continue to do everything written in the Book of the Law.� 11 Clearly no one who relies on the law is justified before God, because “the righteous will live by faith.� 12 The law is not based on faith

[marco]

Paul is talking about the curse of the law. In Christianity, it is established that we can either live in Faith of Jesus, a free gift of salvation, or we can live for ourselves under the law. Both of these Paul mention are curses.

The passage from Paul was clear.Your explanation isn't. Yes, criminals who were crucified were considered cursed by God, but we are in a different mythology here. Paul is simply condemning folk who preach a message different from his own. There's noting complicated in that.

Clearly no one who relies on the law is justified before God, because “the righteous will live by faith.� 12 The law is not based on faith[/i]

I have absolutely no idea how this relates to Paul cursing people. Your use of "clearly" doesn't elucidate.

[Tart]

[Replying to marco]

The curse that Paul is talking about, in the Book of Galatians, is the curse of the law. He elaborates on it in Chapter 2, when he addresses Cephas, and makes it clear in Chapter 3 that he is talking about the Curse of the Law... People in Galatia were apparently putting the law in place of Faith in Christ...

[Elijah John]

[Replying to marco]

The curse that Paul is talking about, in the Book of Galatians, is the curse of the law. He elaborates on it in Chapter 2, when he addresses Cephas, and makes it clear in Chapter 3 that he is talking about the Curse of the Law... People in Galatia were apparently putting the law in place of Faith in Christ...

Paul's reference in Galations 3.10 is to Deuteronomy 27.26. The oringinal curse refers to disobedence, not a curse for attempting to keep the law . In fact, the passage can be interpreted just the opposite from what Paul would have us believe. There is a curse for not embracing the law and attempting to abide by it. There is nothing about the need to keep the law perfectly without ever having stumbled, or be cursed.

And when a person sumbles, there is always the remedy of repentance. There is no dichotomy in the Tanakh about abiding by the law vs. faith in the Messiah. Justification by faith in the Messiah is not an option presented in the Hebrew Bible. There is nothing there about faith in the Messiah to atone for sin. That was never intended as the Messiah's role or function. It is Paul who pitted "Christ" against the law, not Moses, not the Prophets, not King David. That is Paul's theological invention, nothing more.

In fact, David presents a more benign and optimistic vision of God and the human condition when he speaks of God's mercy and compassion in the Psalms. He tells us that God is compassionate and merciful with us because he knows that we are "but dust".

[Clownboat]

Christ is the Word of God.

So the Bible is not the word of a god, but a person is the word of a god. How do we get to know this person that is also a word, if not through the Bible? If there were no Bible, humanity would not know the name Jesus it would seem.

This seems very nonsensical no?

How can we know what people are the word of god? There must be a mechanism. For example, is Mohammed the word of a god? Are you the word of a god?

Most importantly, why do you insist on calling a person 'word'? Whether a person is just words or actually a word of a god does not convey any meaning that I can tell.

This phrase seems to be nothing more than religious retoric. Allah Akbar and all that! Never made sense to me even while I was a believer. Why, because people are biologicaly creatures, not words!

[tam]

Peace to you Clownboat, and to you all,

Christ is the Word of God.

So the Bible is not the word of a god, but a person is the word of a god.

Not just any person. Not just any god.

The living Word (Christ) of the living God (the Most Holy One of Israel, and the Father of Christ).


The living God has a living Word. Just as He has a living image (Christ, again). And this is one reason images (idols) were not permitted to be made of God. Images made of wood, or gold, or silver, or bronze, etc, these are all dead things. They cannot speak, they cannot breathe, they cannot move, they have no life in them. Dead images represent dead 'gods'. Dead things cannot represent the living God.

Christ is the living image (the perfect representation, reflection) of the living God.


God also dwells within a living temple (the Body of Christ of course - but that Body is also made of people who are in Christ - within whom God dwells.) So that we have a living Temple for the living God. A living image for the living God. And a living Word for the living God.



Back to the bible then... the bible is a book made of dead trees (paper) and dead animals (if it has any sort of leather covering). The bible is not alive (it is also subject to the 'lying pen of the scribes'). Christ - the Word of God - is alive. He speaks. A living word speaks, just as Christ did and continues to do.

How do we get to know this person that is also a word, if not through the Bible?

Do you usually require a book to know someone?

If that person were dead, then sure, it makes sense that the only way you could get to know (about) them is through a book or by word of mouth.

But if that person is alive, then you would come to them to get to know them, would you not?

Most importantly, why do you insist on calling a person 'word'? Whether a person is just words or actually a word of a god does not convey any meaning that I can tell.

This phrase seems to be nothing more than religious retoric. Allah Akbar and all that! Never made sense to me even while I was a believer. Why, because people are biologicaly creatures, not words!

(Christ was flesh (biological) for a little while, but other than that little while He is a spiritual being, not a biological being. I don't think that matters to your objection, mind you...)


Christ speaks the words that God gives Him to speak, He speaks as His Father has taught Him, just as His Father has told Him to speak. Listening to Christ is the same as listening to His Father. Christ speaks for God, as the Word of God.


Do you understand what it means for Christ to be the Truth? That He is the Truth of His Father (the perfect representation - so that to know Christ is to know God) and that He speaks only the truth (truth is the language that He speaks)?

If you can get a sense of what it means for Christ to be the truth, can you not get a sense of what it means for Him to be the Word of God? To be the Light? The Way? The Resurrection? The Life?





Peace again to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

[Clownboat]

Peace to you Clownboat, and to you all,

Christ is the Word of God.

So the Bible is not the word of a god, but a person is the word of a god.

Not just any person. Not just any god.

The living Word (Christ) of the living God (the Most Holy One of Israel, and the Father of Christ).


The living God has a living Word. Just as He has a living image (Christ, again). And this is one reason images (idols) were not permitted to be made of God. Images made of wood, or gold, or silver, or bronze, etc, these are all dead things. They cannot speak, they cannot breathe, they cannot move, they have no life in them. Dead images represent dead 'gods'. Dead things cannot represent the living God.

Christ is the living image (the perfect representation, reflection) of the living God.


God also dwells within a living temple (the Body of Christ of course - but that Body is also made of people who are in Christ - within whom God dwells.) So that we have a living Temple for the living God. A living image for the living God. And a living Word for the living God.



Back to the bible then... the bible is a book made of dead trees (paper) and dead animals (if it has any sort of leather covering). The bible is not alive (it is also subject to the 'lying pen of the scribes'). Christ - the Word of God - is alive. He speaks. A living word speaks, just as Christ did and continues to do.

How do we get to know this person that is also a word, if not through the Bible?

Do you usually require a book to know someone?

If that person were dead, then sure, it makes sense that the only way you could get to know (about) them is through a book or by word of mouth.

But if that person is alive, then you would come to them to get to know them, would you not?

Most importantly, why do you insist on calling a person 'word'? Whether a person is just words or actually a word of a god does not convey any meaning that I can tell.

This phrase seems to be nothing more than religious retoric. Allah Akbar and all that! Never made sense to me even while I was a believer. Why, because people are biologicaly creatures, not words!

(Christ was flesh (biological) for a little while, but other than that little while He is a spiritual being, not a biological being. I don't think that matters to your objection, mind you...)


Christ speaks the words that God gives Him to speak, He speaks as His Father has taught Him, just as His Father has told Him to speak. Listening to Christ is the same as listening to His Father. Christ speaks for God, as the Word of God.


Do you understand what it means for Christ to be the Truth? That He is the Truth of His Father (the perfect representation - so that to know Christ is to know God) and that He speaks only the truth (truth is the language that He speaks)?

If you can get a sense of what it means for Christ to be the truth, can you not get a sense of what it means for Him to be the Word of God? To be the Light? The Way? The Resurrection? The Life?





Peace again to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

You dodged my specific questions I posed to you and you preach at me instead. I will know them by their fruits. I will now do the same in turn, less the preaching of course.

I reject this for being idiocy.
Not you Tam, just the explanation.

To debate that people/person are words of a god would be to give it credit it doesn't deserve.
People are biological creatures. People are not words, whether you desire to preach such a concept or not.

Be well, and have a great meat ball.
Now I'm wondering if I should make meat balls for dinner for my little words. After that, maybe we'll have some family time and watch a snow suite. Rated PG or G of course since my kids are still young. Then, when we start to tire, we will head to soup, but not before putting on our hammocks.

Words have meaning I remind you. You playing loose and fast with words may sound like you are offering some sort of justification for your claims, but to me, the explanation is nonsensical. It appears that you do not have a Christ available to you to offer some meaningful words. That is a shame.

Have a great melanochromis auratus!

[tam]

Peace again to you,

[Replying to post 27 by Clownboat]

You dodged my specific questions I posed to you and you preach at me instead.

I did not dodge your questions. If I overlooked something you wanted answered, I certainly did not mean to dodge it.

I thought the few questions that I did not specifically quote and answer, had been answered (or rendered moot) by my responses to your other questions and points.

But by all means, point out which questions you think I dodged and I will try to clarify.

I will know them by their fruits. I will now do the same in turn, less the preaching of course.

I cannot help how you 'take' my post. I responded honestly and sincerely to your post.

Is that what you have done?

I reject this for being idiocy.
Not you Tam, just the explanation.

To debate that people/person are words of a god would be to give it credit it doesn't deserve.

And yet you chose to do just that.

People are biological creatures. People are not words, whether you desire to preach such a concept or not.

I responded to this in my previous post.

Regardless, we can examine that from another point of view. You say that people are not words... well, a book is also not a word. A book tends to have words IN it (with some exceptions), but the book itself is not a word. Yet you don't seem to have a problem with the concept of a book being called the word. People also have words in them (hence, words come out of them). If you don't have a problem with a book being called the word, why should you have a problem with a person being called the Word?



From your previous post (perhaps the question you think I dodged?):

How can we know what people are the word of god?

(Not people. Person. God speaks to us through His Son.)

In answer to your question about how a person can know who the Word of God is (or if there even is a person who is the Word of God)... that God could tell us who is His Word. God could even tell us who we are to listen to (His Son), and then that Son could tell (and/or demonstrate) to us that He is indeed the Word of God.




Peace again to you!

[StuartJ]

[Replying to post 28 by tam]

I did not dodge your questions. If I overlooked something you wanted answered, I certainly did not mean to dodge it.

OMG ...!!!

Have OTHER people been using the unutterable "D" word ...?

Apparently, it's more civil to cloak one's meaning in euphemisms.

Thesuarus.com is most helpful:

avert
bypass
dodge
escape
evade
fend off
shun
sidestep
ward off
abstain
circumvent
deflect
desist
ditch
divert
duck
elude
eschew
flee
hide
jump
obviate
recoil
shake
shirk
shy
skip
skirt
weave
withdraw
circumlocute
fake out
give the slip
hold off
keep clear
lay low
run for cover
shake and bake
shake off
shrink from
shuffle off
skip out on
skip town
stay away
stay out
steer clear of
step aside
turn aside

abandon
abjure
abstain
avoid
double
duck
elude
evade
forgo
forswear
give up
have no truck with
let well enough alone
not touch
refrain
renounce
sacrifice
shun
shy
shy away from
steer clear of
swear off

One knows what one is saying ...

[showme]

Here is Paul speaking with menace:

Galatians 1: 8 But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let them be under God's curse! 9 As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let them be under God's curse! 10 Am I now trying to win the approval of human beings, or of God.


It seems to me he's obviously trying to win over people, not God, though that might be a secondary motive.

Does Paul have the right to call down curses on people who don't go along with his version of things?

Paul later informs his listeners that he got his message from Jesus. Is his word sufficient? And why?

Paul is talking about the curse of the law. In Christianity, it is established that we can either live in Faith of Jesus, a free gift of salvation, or we can live for ourselves under the law. Both of these Paul mention are curses.

Christ 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 pole." (Galatians 3)

Paul noted how the Galatians were teaching that people need to adhere to the law for salvation, in place of Faith in Jesus. But Paul notes that is impossible, and surely it is.

10 For all who rely on the works of the law are under a curse, as it is written: “Cursed is everyone who does not continue to do everything written in the Book of the Law.� 11 Clearly no one who relies on the law is justified before God, because “the righteous will live by faith.� 12 The law is not based on faith

If you use a better translation, it will be evident, that it is Paul doing the cursing, for Paul's false gospel is that "we are released from the Law" (Romans 7:6).

King James Bible Galatians 1:8
But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.