Are you implying that Paul did not do this? Did Paul teach his churches to hate one another? I read in Paul much of the same moral advice Jesus gave as expected since he is regulated by Jesus’ and jerualem’s authority. If Paul did go beyond Jesus and he did he also did keep Jesus as a regulatory force that would shape his own vision as he feels it was Jesus himself addressing him.
I’m not just implying it, I’m stating it. Paul’s emphasis is far different, and emphasis is everything - especially in conservative contexts - and religion is nearly always conservative. Jesus couldn’t just come along and say whatever he wanted - he was part of a tradition. Paul couldn’t either, for the same reason. The tradition changes, and Jesus may have changed the tradition somewhat radically, but he couldn’t act as if he were inventing history. There is a narrative that is malleable, but can’t be erased from memory. They were both part of a religious tradition, and each expressed a very different relationship to that tradition.
Saying Paul and Jesus said the same thing is like saying the present (Benedict XVI) and previous (John Paul II) Popes say the same thing. But they don’t.
Further, I don’t see how Christians can be proud of the universality of the Christian message, while at the same time emphasizing barbarism. I suppose barbarism is fairly universal, but as Tolstory famously stated, “All happy families are alike; each unhappy family is unhappy in its own way.” I do think there is a universal and valuable Christian message. But I don’t think that message is very often expressed by modern Christians, tied as so many of them are to the bizarre idea that there is a little book that was written by some guys in the mideast a long time ago that to the exclusion of all other sources contains the literal words of God.
Christ’s message is radical.
I don’t do that, but there it is. A universally powerful, compelling, inspiring, challenging, exhortation.
Enough already about people deserving to die because they coveted something of their neighbor’s. That’s just fear - an inability to face reality. The reality is this - I know it’s healthier to not fear death and to not think about some kind of reward system for being a good or bad boy, but I’m not capable so I deflect and project. That’s what people tend to do.
Look anon I am not against inclusivism but Jesus message was not inclusivism. The world for this apocalyptic thinker was heading to a final conflagration where all of humanity would be judged, some deemed righteous worthy of heaven and others would not receiving hell instead.
Whatever you think of the gospels it is fairly safe to say that Jesus was an apocalyptic prophet witha message of division, exclusion, according to the merits of a person. To this extent he is similar to Paul who also believes in a final day of judgment when each will receive according to his merits.
Jesus sent apostles to various cities to preached one message of salvation, not several, not the message that anything you believe is honky dory because in fact there were repercussions to which path you chose, his way or yours.
So, like I said, I appreciate the modern sentiment of tolerance but don’t read that onto a first century prophet from galillee who preached hell as fervently s Paul. I say this not to cut some slack to Paul but because the trend is always to demonize Paul by se strict standard but then avoid using that standard for Jesus because the moderns can then project what they approve of onto Jesus without being hobbled by Paul. In this way people try to escape their own authority and rest in Jesus. People today need to understand that it is a package deal, a bundle, that the two breathed fire for a great majority deemed wicked. This is not Paul’s invention, nor for that matter Jesus but it was accepted by both men and the men who followed in the hope that god would move to destroy their enemies that god would avenge them and the ones they loved and lost.
anon–Let’s put this in historical context. Not to minimize the judgmental tenor of the passage, but from what I read, Paul’s viewpoint expressed here was consonant with the common Jewish opinion toward the gentiles at the time. You will recall that the book of Maccobees recounts the war that the Jews fought against the Greeks who they believed were polluting their land with idolatry and sexual perversion. This passage from Paul is so similar to passages in the Book of Wisdom and Apocaplypse of Baruch that Paul may have based it on them. Other Jewish commentators opined that the sinful condition of the the Gentiles was beyond hope. To Paul, all God’s judgments have one intention–to awaken people to the Truth and conversion so that God “may have mercy upon all.”
“What we cannot speak about we must pass over in silence.”
Opinions don’t float in the wind. Someone must express them. I’m asking whom. It seems like a fair question.
Newton wasn’t wasn’t a deist. Newton saw a monotheistic God as the masterful creator whose existence could not be denied in the face of the grandeur of all creation. Einstein said he could accept Spinoza’s God. My point is you are arguing that they are projecting. It would be a highly select form of projection which did affect their incisive perception in other areas. Why shall we not suppose that, rather then projecting, they were remarkably perceptive in the area of religion as well?
I don’t know his specific beliefs. jayson is arguing that that logic is irrelevant to religious belief. My point is he was capable of logic as are most Christians.
What does this have to do with the topic?
I noticed that Paul’s line of argument depended on the self evidence of God, an assertion that has come up repeated here. I didn’t suppose that that I would have more success than Dawkins at using logic to change Christian opinion.
Omar & Felix,
If Christ was an “apocalyptic prophet with a message of division, exclusion” and the spirit of his message must always be “put into context”, then the claim that his message is a universal one is patently false. He was just a middle eastern Jewish guy who lived a long time ago. Advertisers use things people think are nice and good as powerful associative tools. Associate sex and youth with some product - sell that product. Associate Jesus with some religion - sell that religion (let alone associating some religion with some modern nation state). But Jesus and Christianity don’t mix so easily. The whole spirit and direction of his message is completely against the grain of the tradition he was a part of. Of course he utilized many aspects of the cultural narrative of the time. That’s how you gain a voice. Was Jesus’s death the blood sacrifice that would put an end to the need for any other blood sacrifices? Did Jesus himself actually believe, in any way, shape or form, that blood sacrifice has anything at all to do with spirituality? Could we trust his words if he said he did?
It’s a clever narrative invention, and it was apparently a powerful one. But a narrative invention isn’t enough - the spiritual practitioner must free himself or herself from the bonds of external tradition, and not resist the Holy Spirit. The point is to not cling to the past, to not cling to “context”. “Heaven”, of course could refer to the realm of purity; of open universality, as opposed to “division”, “exclusion”, “context”. Christ presented an open, universal message. That message can be dragged through the mud, but it remains pure and inviolable. Yes, Christ presented a nearly impossible challenge to the world. We can live pure and fearless lives, or we can narrow our world according to our fears. Failure to read between the lines and grasp the essence of Christ’s message is a reflection of our fears. We don’t think we can do what he said we should do, so we pretend he didn’t really say what, deep down, we know he said.
We know the spirit of Christ’s message, but we’re afraid of that message so we bog it down in “context” and academic interpretation.
Christ didn’t come to bring peace, as Omar points out. But what is the nature of this “sword” he wields? Did he claim that people “deserve to die”? No, he claimed that family and friends would reject his followers for their beliefs.
Was Christ’s message truly universal? The entire world can be converted to Christianity, but that doesn’t mean the message is universal. I do think Christ’s message is universal, but to make such a claim I think you have to discern what his message “really is”, as opposed to finding historically and politically situated quotes and working like hell to coordinate it with all other statements and have it all magically mesh in the end into a single cohesive story. But it never does - religious narrative always relies on constant invention and reinvention. Is the essence of Christ’s message about blood sacrifice? Is it about heterosexuality? Is it about “fulfilling the old testament”? Is it about fig trees and doves? Or is it about love and fearlessness?
Alright, but to what was you interest in pointing it out?
That this god is not self evident?
Hello Felix,
— “What we cannot speak about we must pass over in silence.”
O- It is a fine line that theologians must walk and they do well to pass in silence on quite a lot. Some of them did. Augustine often invited the hearer to share his feeling, but alas one cannot be tolk what honey actually taste like- they have to taste it. Same with Paul, another that placed argumentations as impotent.
— Opinions don’t float in the wind. Someone must express them. I’m asking whom. It seems like a fair question.
O- Cicero and Hume explored this aspect in their dialogues.
— Newton wasn’t wasn’t a deist. Newton saw a monotheistic God as the masterful creator whose existence could not be denied in the face of the grandeur of all creation.
O- Others would deny It’s existence solely on the POE. But in any case that is quite compatible with the God of the philosophers, with Deism (See karen Armstrong for this in her “History…”).
— My point is you are arguing that they are projecting. It would be a highly select form of projection which did affect their incisive perception in other areas. Why shall we not suppose that, rather then projecting, they were remarkably perceptive in the area of religion as well?
O- Because the subject of religion, God, is not a direct object of perception. Indirectly all claimed that It is perceived, but we have to accept on faith what that feel like for each.
— I don’t know his specific beliefs. jayson is arguing that that logic is irrelevant to religious belief. My point is he was capable of logic as are most Christians.
O- Capacity also to compartmentalize. Most use logic selectively in their lives. Is love or beauty logical?
— What does this have to do with the topic?
O- Who you are as a person will affect how you see reality, how you characterize reality. Isn’t that Paul’s point?
The experts disagree on this, not to mention the rest of us.
There is pretty good evidence for that’
Even that is uncertain. There is no evidence that he broke with Judaism. Much of what he taught, if not all is consistent with the teachings of the leading Pharisees of his time.
How would we know that? It would require metaphysics or revelation. That is the meme we were born into in western society. It is a way of explaining Jesus’ death and making it meaningful to his followers. But it is fraught with problems when you analyze it. Who required it? How does one death substitute for another? Why would God want a blood sacrifice in the first place? Why must something die so that others can live in nature anyway? Is the crucifixion part of some deeper reality? Or was it just a Roman execution of a guy we really know very little about with any certainty?
How can we know for sure that the words attributed to him on the subject really his or were his followers telling stories and creating myths to justify their belief that he was the messiah–the fulfillment of all the prophesies?
I guess this is a slam on my use of the word context. I was suggesting that we use de-demonize Paul by taking a fresh look at his teaching in as a product of his times and culture. That seems compatible with following the spirit of Christ’s message to me.
He may have thought that he was the messiah who was going to bring back God to free Israel from Roman oppression. That would explain the reference to the sword.
Inquiring minds would like to know. There’s no consensus. Jesus refuses to be put in a box. He is too big to be contained even in the Church.
Which quote suggests Jesus was some kind of humanist.
My point was that Paul was saying the same thing and that his argument for it is invalid. I thought the same thing. God appeared self-evident to me. But then you talk with reasonable people who say they don’t see it that way. So then you can condemn them for rejecting God like Paul did. Or you might conclude that God is only self evident to spiritual people. Maybe there are different types of people. Or maybe people define god differently. Or maybe who think God is evident are deluding themselves.
I don’t know. I was just pointing out that condemning people for idolatry etc. presupposes self evidence but doesn’t constitute an argument for it. Then Paul goes on to make the conscience an argument for it. Everyone can’t be condemned if they are ignorant of god’s law. Their consciences show they are not etc.
I don’t know the answers to these questions so I still find them interesting and perplexing.
You don’t know the answers to which kinds of questions?
To the rest, so this was more prompted as an expression from self awareness?
It was prompted by the observation that Paul claiming that god is self evident like I said.
So really…no solid point. Just more random passing thought.
Okie dokie.
Jayson–
You don’t see the significance of my observation. “Okie dokie.” I feel the same way about some the threads you post. I don’t post on them to tell you how worthless or futile your thoughts are. Instead I attribute it to differing interests between you and me. I read them without comment. I don’t query you about why you are discussing something so pointless. But that’s just me. You are making an issue out of it. I wonder why you are doing that. I don’t think it has anything to do with Paul, or God or the Bible or Christian rationality or anything like that. I think it’s more about process than content. Maybe its payback. Have I offended you somehow? Feel free to PM me if you would like to discuss some issue privately.
It doesn’t really seem like you’re disagreeing with me here. Seems like you’re merely exploring, which I like. I’d characterize my own contributions in this thread as experimental in nature.
I’d only point out that I don’t mean to demonize Paul. I actually like Paul better than Jesus. He’s more real to me.
I think my main point is you have to make some personal decisions when relating to a religious text, a religious tradition, etc. You have to value some things more than others, you have to make your own interpretations, you have to rely on your own wisdom. Detracters call that approach “cherry picking”, and of course the danger is that you dispense with any challenge to your ego when you take that approach. But “cherry picking” isn’t what I’m suggesting. The approach I’m suggesting people take, and “cherry picking” couldn’t be more different. That’s why “not resisting the Holy Spirit” may be a useful conception.
Sounds a bit like flopping anon. But that is you statement.
Rather than cherry picking I call it wrestling. Anyone who accuses you of this charge, take them up on their offer and see how committed they are to that premise of taking ALL of the Bible as a constant whole. Most of the time they ridiculize themselves or their version of their religion. I can tell you that theologians have long practiced alegorization that is positing the existence of a higher meaning behind the literal meaning and by this they were able to accept the OT as a respected gentle religion. Aside from this fundamentalists that insist on a total vision of literal interpretation then have to abandon any hope that they can teach any morality. What you see on Sunday is uplifting preaching that selects very specific passages and avoids the ones that would challenge their vision of a loving and tender god. So, in practice, unless a sadist, even the ones advising against cherry picking will inevitably veer away from challenging passages, which becomes a form of cherry picking, if not in letter then in it’s spirit.
Right. Well we can’t approach the historical Jesus with anything like certainty. So if we are going to put faith in him we are going to have to take a leap. To take the Bible as the Word of God takes a leap in the face of evidence to the contrary.
The typical fundamentalist approach is to try to harmonize everything he said with other books of the Bible. That is an unwarranted assumption. Then his teachings are harmonized with Church dogma and practices. Also unwarranted. Plus there are a bunch of books in the NT attributed to him that he probably did not write.So Paul deserves a fresh reading to sort out what he was saying from the service to which the church employed it IMO.
That’s why I have the Solaris quote-“There are no answers, only choices.”- in my signature line. We have to make decisions based on limited information. May as well do it with our eyes open understanding that we may be wrong and ready to adapt if new info comes in. At this point when someone asks “What would Jesus do” the next question is “Which Jesus?”
I inquired because I was getting railed heavily for bringing up that validity really doesn’t bear much relevance to belief in religion.
I figured perhaps I could have a different type of response if the ambition of the thread was known to me.
On one hand you say you just point it out, as if just passing random thought.
I asked twice and received no further explanation aside from that it was just merely being brought up.
But then you tell me I don’t see the relevance when I respond to you saying that you were just pointing it out.
If it’s just being pointed out because of your own self awareness of the matter, alright, then I probably wouldn’t have responded at all to the thread.
If, on the other hand, there is any relevance to the weight of this subject, and the subject was posted because of that relevance, then I stand by what I have said previously.