The Queer Contradiction Of Paul's Epistles

[antonio]

All through Paul's writing, the same message drums, over and over, Salvation is by faith alone. The law is useless and in fact, he says if you rely on your effort it offends God because your effort is based on pride.

THEN

In a few places, like 1 Cor 6:9 all of a sudden you have to be rightious to get to heaven and there is a list of sins that suck us all in that keep most of us out of heaven.
This has to be a contradiction. Either Paul was unstable or as some scholars say, others inserted these sections that seem to contradict Paul. Motive, Paul was not liked by Peter who believed in the jewish law, the christian-jews, the roman church.

What must be remembered is there are no originals of the writing that make up the New Testament Bible including the Epistles.. If they ever existed, they are gone. Further, there are no original of copies of what is found in these codices. No one knows what happened to any of these originals or copies or why. In addition, besides there being no originals, there are no copies of the Original nor copies of copies, there are only copies of copies of copies. Dating establishes this. For example, The earliest copies of the Gospel of Luke are four papyrus fragments the size of a credit card, dating from the first half of the 3rd century.

All total there are some 54,000 hand made copies of the New Testament. Some are mere fragments; others are massive tomes of all the books. No two copies agree with another in every detail. Scholars estimate there are some 200,000 to 300,000 undisputed differences.. Most differences are simply clerical errors and mistakes and easily understood but many involve missing or additional verses, words missing, words changed.

There are many sources, if your interested look in Wikipedia or the books of , Marcus Borg, Ehrman

This is what scholars say about the Pauline Epistles

Pauline Epistles allegedly written by Paul:
• Epistle to the Romans
• First Epistle to the Corinthians
• Epistle to the Galatians
• Epistle to the Ephesians
• Epistle to the Philippians
• Epistle to the Colossians
• First Epistle to the Thessalonians
• Second Epistle to the Thessalonians
• First Epistle to Timothy
• Second Epistle to Timothy
• Epistle to Titus
• Epistle to Philemon
The authorship of many of these epistles is contested by the majority of modern scholars and historians. In particular, with respect to the authorship of the Pauline epistles, the pastoral epistles are rejected by two thirds of modern academics and only seven of the Pauline epistles are regarded as uncontested. However , some scholars are of the opinion that passages even of these seven reflect interpolation (forgeries)
Please someone help me understand this.
antonio

[Cathar1950]

Independent Author of the book of Acts: Luke identifies Saul of Tarsus who becomes the Apostle Paul. More than half of the book of Acts is devoted to Paul's conversion and mission trips. In addition, Dr. Colin Hemer's scholarly work shows a correlation between what is written in the book of Acts to the archaeological records. The calculated probability of the book of Acts being an absolute myth is less than 4 chances in 10 billion, billion, billion, billion (4.13 x 10-37).

No one said it was an "absolute myth". Where does he pull such number from?
Yet Acts doesn't even manage to correlate with Paul's supposed accounts.

You should understand your posts you copy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Shelby_Spong

Criticisms
Some of Spong's critics, such as Brent Hardaway, would argue that Spong's beliefs are not even Christian: "The God of the Christian Bible is a theistic God, and if one does not believe in a theistic God, then he cannot be called a Christian."[1]
Gerald O'Collins, Professor of Fundamental Theology, Gregorian University, Rome, argued that Spong’s "work simply does not belong to the world of international scholarship. No genuine scholar will be taken in by this book. ... What is said about a key verb St. Paul uses in Gal. 1:15f. shows that the bishop [Spong] has forgotten any Greek that he knew. [Spong argued his case based on a Greek word that is not in the passage] ... [my] advice for his next book is to let some real experts check it before publication." [Review of Resurrection: Myth or Reality, London Tablet, 30 April 1994]

It looks like your critic didn't understand Spong.
Here is some reading for you.

http://www.bibleinterp.com/articles/Pau ... ituary.htm

In scripture, Paul also discovered a special role for himself in the heavenly drama. He swiftly remembered those passages in which the prophets Isaiah and Jeremiah said that God himself had set them aside from their mothers’ wombs. Paul applied this directly to himself (cf. Gal. 1:15f.) and fantasized that, like the two great prophets of the past, he had been called from his mother’s womb to be a preacher -- of course by God himself. So a tremendous self-confidence developed in Paul that exceeded even that of his pre-Christian period. This becomes even more remarkable the more one considers that this man from Tarsus never knew Jesus of Nazareth personally.

http://users.ox.ac.uk/~sben0056/essays/ ... ection.htm

The earliest testimony to the resurrection is, therefore, exclusively to the appearances of the risen Lord. These are bodily appearances, as is indicated by the verb ophthe, which can only mean 'was seen', not merely 'experienced'. What this 'seeing' was remains unclear, particularly because the same verb is used of the appearance to Paul himself. The description given of this appearance on the road to Damascus is, of course, Luke's rather than Paul's, and it is notorious that Luke himself composes many of his little dramatic scenes as a vehicle for his theology; we may not simply from reading between the lines of Luke's account conclude that Paul's experience of the risen Christ was merely a spiritual experience, rather than a bodily sight of a risen body. Paul himself puts it on a level (ophthe) with those visual experiences of Peter and the Twelve and the 500 others. Again, if we take Luke seriously, we must argue that the bodily appearances of the risen Lord came to an end at the Ascension; but this may be to take the Ascension (occurring only in the Lukan writings) too seriously: did Luke intend the implication that there must be a qualitative difference between the appearances to Peter and the Twelve and the appearance to Paul?

http://www.geocities.com/biblicalstudie ... ctrine.doc

THE RESSURECTION OF THE DEAD: SPIRITUAL OR PHYSICAL?
Paul’s doctrine of exchanging an earthy body for a spirit body
By Bill Kempton © 2006
According to Bible scholars Paul never claimed that Jesus bodily rose from the dead, in other words a resuscitated corpse did not leave an empty tomb and walk around eating food. We can see the legendary development of the resurrection. First, in Paul’s writings Christ is a disembodied spirit-person and later Jesus becomes resuscitated corpse in the Gospels. Dan Barker explains that
Here is what Paul said in I Corinthians 15:3-8, around the year 55, the earliest written account of the resurrection:
"For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that
Christ died for our sins
in accordance with the Scriptures,
and was buried. [etaphe]
And he was raised [egeiro] on the third day
in accordance with the Scriptures
and he appeared [ophthe] to Cephas [Peter]
and then to the twelve.
Afterward, he appeared to more than 500 brethren,
most of whom are still alive,
though some have fallen asleep.
Afterward he appeared to James,
and then to all the missionaries [apostles].
Last of all, as to one untimely born,
he appeared also to me."
This is a formula, or hymn, in poetic style that Paul claims he "received" from a believer reciting an earlier oral tradition. He edited the end of it, obviously. Viewing this passage charitably, it is possible that it came from just a few years after Jesus lived, although notice that Paul does not call him "Jesus" here. It is interesting that one of the arguments some apologists give for the authenticity of the New Testament is that it is written in a simple narrative style, unlike the poetic style of other myths and legends--yet the very first account of the resurrection is written in a poetic "legendary" style.
This letter to the Corinthians was written at least a quarter of a century after the events to people far removed from the scene--Corinth is about 1,500 miles away by land. None of the readers, many or most not even born when Jesus supposedly died, would have been able to confirm the story. They had to take Paul's word alone that there were "500 brethren" who saw Jesus alive. Who were these 500 nameless people, and why didn't they or any of the thousands who heard their stories write about it? And isn't 500 a suspiciously round number? And why didn't Jesus appear to anyone who was not part of the in-crowd of believers? In any event, what Paul actually wrote here does not support a bodily resurrection. It supports legend.
First, notice how simple it is, this earliest resurrection story. No angelic messages, no mourning women, no earthquakes, no miracles, no spectacular bodily ascension into the clouds.
Nor is there an "empty tomb." The word "buried" is the ambiguous etaphe, which simply means "put in a grave (taphos)." Although a taphos could be a common dirt grave (the most likely destination of executed criminals) or a stone sepulchre (such as the one owned by Joseph of Arimathea), it is important to note that this passage does not use the word "sepulchre" (mnemeion) that first appears in Mark's later account.
Since Paul does not mention a tomb, we can hardly conclude with confidence he was thinking of an "empty tomb." Those who think he was talking of a tomb are shoehorning Mark's Gospel back into this plain hymn.
Neither is there a "resurrection" in this passage. The word "raised" is egeiro, which means to "wake up" or "come to." Paul did not use the word "resurrection" (anastasis, anistemi) here, though he certainly knew it. Egeiro is used throughout the New Testament to mean something simpler. "Now it is high time to awaken [egeiro] out of sleep"[Romans 13:11] was not written to corpses. "Awake [egeiro] thou that sleepest, and arise [anistemi] from the dead, and Christ shall give thee light"[Ephesians 5:14] was also written to breathing people, so Paul obviously means something non-physical here, even with his use of "resurrect," contrasted with egeiro (before you get up, you have to wake up). Matthew uses egeiro like this: "There arose a great tempest in the sea, insomuch that the ship was covered with waves: but he was asleep. And his disciples came to him and awoke [egeiro] him, saying, Lord, save us: we perish." [Matthew 8:24-25] No one thinks Jesus "resurrected" from a boat.
Whatever Paul may have believed happened to Jesus, he did not say that his revived body came out of a tomb. It is perfectly consistent with Christian theology to think that the spirit of Jesus, not his body, was awakened from the grave, as Christians today believe that the spirit of Grandpa has gone to heaven while his body rots in the ground.
In fact, just a few verses later, Paul confirms this: "Flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God."[ I Corinthians 15:50] The physical body is not important to Christian theology.
But what about the post-mortem appearances Paul relates? Don't they suggest a risen body? Actually, the word "appeared" in this passage is also ambiguous and does not require a physical presence. The word ophthe, from the verb horao, is used for both physical sight as well as spiritual visions.
For example: "And a vision appeared [ophthe] to Paul in the night; There stood a man of Macedonia, . . . And after he had seen the vision [horama], immediately we endeavored to go into Macedonia . . ."[ Acts 16:9-10. Horama is from the same verb as ophthe.] No one thinks the Macedonian was standing bodily in front of Paul when he "appeared" to him.
Paul includes Peter in his list of "appearances" by Christ, yet at the Transfiguration described in Matthew we find the same word used for an "appearance" to Peter that was not physical: "And after six days Jesus takes Peter, James, and John his brother, and brings them up into a high mountain apart, and was transfigured before them: and his face did shine as the sun, and his raiment was white as the light. And behold there appeared [ophthe] Moses and Elijah talking with him."[ Matthew 17:1-3] Did Moses and Elijah appear physically to Peter? Shall we start looking for their empty tombs? This is obviously some kind of spiritual appearance.
Besides, if we believe Mark and Matthew, Paul's first witness to the resurrection appearances was an admitted liar. In a court of law, Peter's reliability would be seriously compromised since he had repeatedly denied knowing Jesus just a couple of days earlier, after he had promised Jesus he would be loyal.[ Matthew 26:69-75, Mark 14:66-72] Paul himself was not above using a lie if it furthered his message: "Let God be true, but every man a liar . . . For if the truth of God hath more abounded through my lie unto his glory; why yet am I also judged a sinner?"[ Romans 3:4,7]
Paul, needing to establish credentials with his readers, tacks onto the list that Christ "appeared also to me," so if we look at the description of that event, we can see what he means. Paul claimed that he had met Jesus on the road to Damascus, but notice that Jesus did not physically appear to Paul there. He was knocked off his horse and blinded. (I know there is no horse in the story, but for some reason I picture a horse--an example of legend-making!) How could Jesus appear physically to a blind man? Paul's men admit they did not see anyone, hearing just a voice (Acts 9:7) or not hearing a voice (Acts 22:9), take your pick [See "Did Paul's Men Hear a Voice?" by Dan Barker. www.infidels.org/library/magazines/tsr/ ... ice94.html]. This "appearance" to Paul was supposedly years after Jesus ascended into heaven, which raises a good question: where was Jesus all those years? Was his physical body hanging around in the clouds, hovering over the road to Damascus? How did he eat or bathe or cut his hair during that time?
Clearly, Paul did not shake hands with Jesus, yet he includes his "appearance" in the list with the others. Elsewhere Paul elaborates on his roadside encounter: "For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but . . . when it pleased God . . . to reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen, immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood."[ Galatians 1:12-16]. Notice he does not say "I met Jesus physically" or "I saw Jesus"--he says God "revealed his son in me." This was an inner experience, not a face-to-face meeting. This is exactly how many modern Christians talk about their own "personal relationship" with Jesus.
All of the "appearances" in I Corinthians 15:3-8 must be viewed as psychological "spiritual experiences," not physiological encounters with a revived corpse. In Paul, we have no empty tomb, no resurrection, and no bodily appearances.1
Paul was a Jewish-mystic: one who feels intimately connected with God as a divine energy within you where there is often no separation of identity. In this way the mystic often forms a metaphysical union with the ineffable divine mystery. For Paul Christ was an immaterial spiritual presence that permeates all things; he believed that “in him [this Spiritual Presence] we live and move and have our being” (Acts 17: 28). This concept of Christ played a major role in Paul’s conception of the resurrection.
Paul’s theology of atonement did not declare humanity depraved sin-cursed worms worthy of eternal torment; that was a later development in Christianity created by Augustine. Paul only taught that because of Adam our human body has been magically cursed to die and decay in Sheol (meaning the grave); and while our soul lingers in Sheol and/or Hades (the “underground” realm of the dead)2 Jesus broke the spell of death brought upon humanity. If we are in Christ – that is, mystically united with the Spiritual Essence, the divine mystery of Christ that lives within you – then, even though our human body decomposes in the soil, our soul shall “rise up” from the depths of Sheol and be reclothed with a new spirit body made from heaven.3
Paul explains this in one of his letters to the Corinthians through the analogy of plantation. He argues that when you plant a seed (take for example a peanut) the peanut shell (it’s body) is discarded and left behind to decay, while the inner “soul” of the nut changes into the shaft sprouting into something else. Paul answers a question about how resurrection works by appealing to a seed:
How are the dead raised? And with what kind of body do they come?” You fool! That which you sow [plant a seed for growth] does not come to life unless it dies; and that which you sow, you do not sow the body which is to be, but a bare grain, perhaps of wheat or of something else. But God gives it a body just as He wished, and to each of the seeds a body of its own. All flesh is not the same flesh, but there is one flesh of men, and another flesh of beasts, and another flesh of birds, and another of fish. There are also heavenly bodies and earthly bodies, but the glory of the heavenly is one, and the glory of the earthly is another. There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars; for star differs from star in glory. So also is the resurrection [rising] of the dead. It [our soul] is sown [planted] a perishable [human] body, it is raised an imperishable [spirit] body; it is sown in dishonor [because of Adam’s transgression], it is raised in glory [through the second Adam, Christ]; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power; it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body. So also it is written, “The first MAN, Adam, BECAME A LIVING SOUL [by having God breathe his soul into his human body.]” The last Adam [Jesus] became a life- giving spirit [e.g. Jesus breathes life into his disciples in John 20:22]. However, the spiritual is not first, but the natural; then the spiritual. The first man is from the earth, earthy; the second man is from heaven. As is the earthy, so also are those who are earthy; and as [is the one in heaven], so also are those [in heaven]. Just as we have [wore] the image of the earthy [one of dirt, Adam], we will also [wear] the image of the [one in heaven, Christ].
Now I say this, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable. Behold, I tell you a mystery; we will not all sleep, but [all of us will undergo an exchange], in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet; for the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised [immortal], and we will [undergo an exchange]. For this perishable must put on the imperishable, and this mortal must put on [go into] immortality. But when this perishable will have put on [traded into] the imperishable, and this mortal will have put on immortality, then will come about the saying that is written, "DEATH IS SWALLOWED UP in victory (1 Cor. 15: 35-54; words in italics are my own, words in brackets are from Richard Carrier’s essay, see footnote above).
Paul is saying that those of us who haven’t died before the coming of the Lord – those that are “in Christ” – will be infused with the power of immortality and so their mortal body will be traded instantly for a new spirit body. Our soul, according to Paul, will be reclothed (in the “twinkling of an eye”) into our new imperishable garment (our new spirit body) as our perishable garment (our earthy body) decays. The mortal body shall enter the realm of the imperishable and be enveloped by divinity so that it passes away (disintegrates) leaving the soul reclothed in a new spirit body. This corresponds with the belief of the early Christians that the earth will be destroyed (annihilated) and replaced with a new spiritualized heaven and earth.4 The new spirit body shall envelop the mortal body until it perishes, so that the soul is never left naked but reclothed in an immortal body. Paul explains this in another letter:
For we know that if the earthly tent which is our house is torn down, we have a building from God, a house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens. For indeed in this house we groan [like a seed in its shell wishes to sprout], longing to be clothed with our dwelling from heaven [think of the shell that rots as the seed sprouts into a new body], inasmuch as we, having put it [our new spirit body] on, [our soul] will not be found naked. For indeed while we are in this tent, we groan, being burdened, because we do not want to be unclothed [i.e. be a naked soul without any body] but to be clothed, so that what is mortal will be swallowed up by life [i.e. our mortal body is enveloped by our spirit body until it perishes leaving behind nothing but our new spirit body]. Now He who prepared us for this very purpose is God, who gave to us the Spirit as a pledge. Therefore, being always of good courage, and knowing that while we are at home in the body we are absent from the Lord--for we walk by faith, not by sight-- we are of good courage, I say, and prefer rather to be absent from the body and to be at home with the Lord (2 Corinthians 5: 1-8; words in brackets are my own)
Paul emphatically states in 1 Corinthians 15 that nobody in heaven has or will have a body of flesh and bone. Paul says that Christ our Lord “is the Spirit” that permeates all things (2 Cor. 3: 17; not flesh and bone, contrary to Luke 24: 39) and will infuse our soul granting immortality, and will provide a new spirit body. Paul teaches that while we as humans have a biological body made of dirt in the image of Adam, if we are in Christ then we share a part of Christ’s immortal spiritual essence like drops of water are part of the same ocean. When our human body of dirt decays our soul will be infused with immortality and being united in Christ we will put on a new spirit body sharing in Christ’s eternal energy like the flame of a candle lighting new candles on a birthday cake.
On earth we are in the image of Adam who gave us biological life leading to death. When we put on Christ we are infused with Christ’s life-giving omnipresent Spirit here on earth (Rom. 8: 11); enabling us to rise up to heaven leaving our body of dirt behind to decompose as we receive a new immortal body made from heavenly elements.
This is why early Christian baptism was performed while the initiate was naked. Afterward he or she put on new clothes, which represented putting on Christ guaranteeing immortality after you die. When the initiate into the “Jesus Mysteries” was baptized it symbolized their burial beneath the earth (as they were dipped in water) leaving their old life behind to decay as their naked body, representing their soul, rose out of the water (the grave) to be reclothed in a new spirit body.5
Paul taught that our inner soul discards our outer human body exchanging it for a new spirit body from heaven just like a peanut leaves its shell behind in the soil as the stock rises up (sprouts) growing into a new plant.
Paul taught that the guarantee of immortality is found in true discipleship, that is being in Christ, infused by the Spirit (the omnipresent Lord) that dwells in you (and all Christians collectively), granting you the promise of the ability to rise out of the grave as an immortal soul reclothed in a spirit body. What this means is that Paul didn’t teach that after Jesus died that his soul reentered his dead corpse and then walked around showing his resuscitated corpse, with wounds and all, to his disciples. This is a later legend recorded in the later Gospels according to critical Christian scholars, including the members of The Jesus Seminar. Paul’s idea that our soul groans to be out of our human body in order to dwell in a new heavenly body is far different from the belief that Jesus’ corpse reunited with his soul in the resurrection. The concept of a resurrection of the dead person’s corpse is a later doctrinal development found in the later gospels but not in the earlier letters of Paul.
The gospels were written years after Paul wrote his letters. The original ending of Mark ends at Mark 16: 8, with only an empty tomb. There is no mention of Jesus neither reuniting with his corpse nor rising into heaven, but ends with only an empty tomb. A mysterious ending just as death is mysterious. Mark is pleased with leaving his ending of an empty tomb mysterious, which didn’t conflict with Paul’s teaching of a non-physical “spiritual” resurrection. The later gospel writers, Mathew, Luke, and John on the other hand, elaborated on Mark’s ending and embellished Mark’s empty tomb claiming that Jesus’ soul reunited with his physical corpse; and they make their point by saying that he did things like eat fish etc. At the same time he is described in these gospels as a ghost walking through doors. It is clear that we are dealing with a legendary development in the later gospels that contradict Paul’s teaching on the resurrection.6
The Resurrection as a symbol of spiritual transformation
There are those who would argue that being a Christian means believing in the physical resuscitation/resurrection of Jesus’ corpse. But as I have shown, Paul himself didn’t believe in such a thing but instead believed in a spiritual resurrection. Many people today call themselves a Christian but don’t believe in the traditional concept of a physical resurrection. The progressive Christian interpretation of the resurrection is to view as largely a metaphor representing our dieing to our old self and the rising out of despair into a new self, full of faith, hope, and love.
In his book: "Resurrection, Myth or Reality? A Bishops Search for the Origins of Christianity," Episcopalian Bishop John Shelby Spong suggests that the resurrection story should not be interpreted literally. Rather, it becomes meaningful when interpreted using midrash – a Jewish literary device in which supernatural events are explained symbolically and gain meaning by being tied to ancient Jewish historical happenings. For example, many liberal Christians believe that the mass killing of Bethlehem infants by Herod circa 4 BCE is unrelated to a real event. If it were, it would have been recorded in the secular literature of the time. Interpreted with midrash, it reflects the earlier story in the Hebrew Scriptures in which the Pharaoh attempted to murder Moses and all of the male Hebrew newborns. Similarly, Mary and Joseph's flight to Egypt never actually happened; the story is an attempt to link an event in Jesus' life with Moses' Exodus from Egypt. According to Bishop Spong, the story of the resurrection was not a supernatural incident in which Yeshua of Nazareth was bodily restored to life in 1st century CE Palestine. Derek Miller, in reviewing Bishop Spong's book explained that Jesus' disciples "...understood that the spirit of Jesus transcended death because the way Jesus died was exactly like they way he lived. He gave his life to others and for others. He loved wastefully and selflessly. In that living and dying, the disciples concluded that Jesus revealed the meaning of God....God is the meaning that is present in the face of fate, tragedy, and undeserved pain. God cannot be seen in Jesus' escape from death at Easter until God is first seen in the crucified one who gives life as he dies, who offers forgiveness as he is victimized, who shows love as he is hated." It was this understanding that converted Jesus' followers from a hopelessly demoralized group into a committed, dedicated religious movement who proclaimed "He is risen!" and "Death cannot contain him!" In a very real sense, interpreted with midrash, the stories explain that even physical death could not confine Jesus' message.7
Progressive Christians argue that the resurrection is meaningful beyond its literal interpretation. For them it’s a metaphor representing Jesus’ effect on his disciples and their inner transformation as a result of his life. The first gospel written, the gospel of Mark, was more than likely meant to be a midrashic parable. Bible historian Richard Carrier demonstrates that the gospel of Mark is a midrashic creation based on Psalms 22 through 24, and the empty tomb is probably a poetic symbol representing Christ’s shell (his corpse) being left behind as the seed (Jesus’ soul) ascended to heaven – like a plant growing upward from the soil – to receive a new spirit body. The author of Mathew picked up where Mark left off elaborating on Mark’s parable of an empty tomb using midrash to portray Jesus’ rising from his tomb as a reworking of Daniel rising unharmed from the lion’s den. In this way the author of Mathew meant to convey that Jesus was a new and greater Daniel.8
I believe that the hope of resurrection found in the gospels seen as parables are a natural byproduct of our own psychological fears and wishes projected into mythical allegory. This is not to say that human consciousness does not continue on after death, for it may very well be the case that it does; and Paul’s idea that we shall dwell in a new spirit body may even point to a truth that is beyond our current comprehension. After all, who can deny the miracle of a seed growing into a living plant?

[micatala]

Moderator Note

The two topics have been merged.

In addition, there is no real topic for debate as Easyrider has pointed out. However, that has not stopped the debaters from proceeding.

I will ask antonio if he would either edit his OP, or add what he thinks should be the questions for debate for this thread. I might also suggest some as well.

[Cathar1950]

Moderator Note

The two topics have been merged.

In addition, there is no real topic for debate as Easyrider has pointed out. However, that has not stopped the debaters from proceeding.

I will ask antonio if he would either edit his OP, or add what he thinks should be the questions for debate for this thread. I might also suggest some as well.

That sounds like a great plan Micatala.
It might help if we had some clear questions for debate and any input would be welcomed. Paul has been a controversial figure for almost 2000 years and it is not only do to liberals as the battle has raged on even within the early Church history. Paul has his supports as well as his critics.
Dismissing critics because some have a diminished church attendance is not aa reasonable critic. I know of many young preachers that after seminary were not able to present scholarship to the communities for fear of being fired.
Many members want to hear what they heard in Sunday schools as a child and nothing much beyond. Many conservative scholars cater to these desires.

[micatala]

I guess the first question would be:

Does Paul consistently advocate for salvation through faith alone, or are there passages which are clearly inconsistent with this doctrine?


I might suggest another thread on the 'authenticity questions.' Did Paul actually write all the books ascribed to him? If not, what is the evidence? What is the evidence for interpolations into Paul's acknowledged works? These questions really deserve a thread all there own.

[antonio]

antonio wrote:
Virtually every scholar agrees that at least one of Paul's letters wasn't written by him. Lets start there...

I seriously doubt "every scholar" agrees with that. Whatever Epistle you find there's undoubtedly

scholars on both sides of the issue.

Rather than throwing your "serious doubts" around, why don't you name a scholar!
antonio

[antonio]

Easy Rider--REGARDING YOUR IDEA OF PERFECTION---My such a long post ...and it says absolutely nothing except your "interpretation." It is so lacking in source, there is nothing for me to quote.

Paul said repeatedly, We are as perfect as we are ever going to be-- not because of our effort but because of Jesus' blood. It's pretty plain meaning, ER. TRy actually reading it some time clearheadedly instead of having your mind fogged by what you have erroneiously been taught. There is no religion that can tolerate Paul's words because if they did, there would be little point to their religion. All those words and cites can't destory the plain meaning of Paul. Perhaps instead of trying to find the message, you have decided what the message is and now your trying to use scripture to prove your foregone conclusion. There's an interesting remark--Philosophy asks a question which you can't answer, Religion, has an answer that you can't question.[/b] or at least your kind of religion.
antonio

[antonio]

Dear Micatala--you have a good mind. Thank you. I am new here so I apologise if I have improperly posted. I agree that the questions are as you phrase them and I will acede to your greater experience.
thank youo
antonio

[melikio]

After many many years of faith, struggling and Christian education, I understand that there should be questions from individuals (about that which they are basing their faith upon).

Personally, I draw a distinction between having faith in God and having faith in the Bible. To me, relating to Jesus (the kind of person He was, and His practical message), is what inspires me to BELIEF.

I'm NOT attracted to what many say the "Bible" is; and I've learned to question many people's interpretations of what's in that book. Consensus (in the Bible) alone, doesn't for me generate "faith". I connect LOVE to that which is worthwhile, more than anything else. Religion (over time) just turned out to be COLD, unrealistic and distant in my mind. And even if some were to call my exercising of faith "religion", I would acknowledge the description, but not necessarily honor it in my heart/mind. In truth, there is no religious SET OF RULES (from the Bible or any other book) that compares to my trust in the Creator or Jesus Christ. My faith in God may not align theologically-based definitions of scholars, but it is real to me (as a human being). I will try to share a glimpse of that (faith) with others, but I don't intend to FORCE it upon them.

Where faith comes in (as opposed to pretending I REALLY know) has to do with the FACT that I can no more prove Jesus than my actual "faith" in Him. So, my main point is that while I can set the examples I believe are true to my beliefs, I cannot and should not be forceful about that which I believe. I don't try to prove myself as being "right", I don't have and cannot produce such absolute PROOF of anything; and I accept that I do not ALWAYS have to be "right". I'm willing to admit and emphasize that I'm on a journey toward faith, hope and love (things which mean something deeply to me). I search for knowledge (certainly), but that isn't secondary to the influence of those 3 things (faith, hope and love) upon my overall intuitive ability to live this life.

What I'm saying, is that while we may all think/believe we know something to be true or untrue, there is the HUMAN part of us all that can be questioned or incite us to question. And I don't have a problem with faith that adjusts a person's focus in this world; it is just that I encourage people to become and remain aware, that the PATH they themselves have chosen (or have been set upon) is not necessarily the same one that others must/will follow.

There are contradictions in the Bible; and the answers for those contradictions which satisfy some, aren't necessarily sufficient for all human beings. I don't think it's some amazing thing, to realize or discover that the Bible isn't "perfect" (as a written document). But it is disturbing to run into so many people who (by mere virtue of them having "faith" in the "Bible") have been indoctrinated in such a way as to think everyone must/should revere that book in the same way(s).

It's funny, I spent my childhood as a young Catholic putting faith in things I had knowledge of, but as I got older I saw less and less hope in that which I was cognitively aware of. That is, fewer things I saw as "real", were actually communicating things that mattered to me (meaninglessness). Then interestingly enough (to me), I looked openly into the relational message behind the actions of Jesus Christ, and it was as real as anything I had known before. It stood out, like a clear signal in the midst of STATIC.

Subsequently, I began to notice the cotrolling religionists and "Christians" who had seemingly hijacked the "Bible", freedoms and liberties of other human beings. They claimed to have THE truth and proved they had no purpose but to bring others into submission to their own moral and religious values. It was very noticeable, and I've been aware of it every since.

Love (1 Corinthians 13) as described in the Bible, is missing from the religion of many who claim to be "Christians"; and it is doing nothing for communicating the overall message of The Savior (just as the Bible says). And while I understand that it is unsettling (depending upon how one is indoctrinated) to question "The Bible", it is natural and reasonable for people to examine various alleged/actual discrepancies within their own hearts and minds. IT'S GOING TO HAPPEN... whether it's socially acceptable to admit it openly or not. It would be ludicrous, to expect everyone to believe in the same things, for all the same reasons; that's unrealistic and ignores the very nature we all possess as human beings.

For better AND for worse, we are "human".

-Mel-

[antonio]

Melikio--I have been gone a while but I see there has been no response to my original question : is there an inherent contradiction in Paul about
1. salvation is by grace alone
2. only the righteous will get into heaven.

If that has been answered somwhere else, I would like to read it.

By the way I fully agree with your post. I am currently settled with Love of God, and all his children, not judging and forgiving as the narrow path Jesus talked about. That's what I am trying to live. Because it requires me to ask positively what good I have done rather than what i have done wrong, I believe I can do it. Strangely, I find the effort pleasureable and how we should live in any case. Truly, His yoke is easy and his burden light. The path is narrow but it's easy--if your willing to give up your favorite hates and judgements.
see you
a

[melikio]

is there an inherent contradiction in Paul about
1. salvation is by grace alone
2. only the righteous will get into heaven.

Antonio, I'm sure I don't have a perfect answer, but I'll share some insight.

Salvation IS by grace; someone (Jesus) offered to rescue us.

The righteous, are those who by God's grace are designated as such. And I don't see how anyone but God could decide who comes in (to Heaven) and who doesn't.

Without faith though, I think the whole idea would make most people NUTS (as they thought about it). I just don't see how (using the Bible) we can be sure of anything, if it were not for faith.

And it's there, where I end up allowing individuals the "wiggle" room which many would deny others via their doctrine and biblical interpretations which tend to reject, exclude or oppress other human beings.

The most direct answer I have, is for people to consider the character of Jesus, to gain an understanding of what's important for them to enter Heaven. As for me, I simply put all my hope and trust in how much Jesus CARES for each individual person. Yes, it is "faith", but an essential component in the whole package that gives me power for living.

Antonio, I sense you are on a positive track to the truths which contribute to making this world a better place (and yourself a better person); always let love (1Cor13) guide you and I doubt that you will ever regret it.

-Mel-