- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
Originally posted by robbie carrobieTo whom must faith be demonstrated?
yes i agree my friend, but would go a step further, in that its not only to those who
share the Christian faith, but others as well. the parable of the Good Samaritan comes
to mind, but i agree wholeheartedly with your sentiments, faith must be demonstrated.
=====================================
I think from my reading that Paul had an intense religious experience and passionately communicated to others what he felt and believed to be the case.
====================================
So as you read though the details of Paul's life in the NT, you did so with a filter -
"This I can believe. That I will not. This happened. That other thing did not."
I believe the plain words of the NT because I also encountered Jesus Christ. Not as dramatically as Paul says, was my experience. But I did experience bumping into the Lord Jesus.
Afterwards I began to read the New Testament. And when I came to Paul's experience I can say "I certainly can believe that. It corresponds to my own experience."
==============================
I think that his formulation transformed what could have remained a Jewish sect into a new, non Jewish religion. I think this was based on an entirely fresh way to interpret the significance of Jesus. I am reasonably satisfied that my opinion is consistent with what is written in the New Testament.
==============================
Jesus interpreted Himself. You don't get any fresher than that.
But if your observation is that without Paul's enfluence the Christian faith would look very much like what James had going in Jerusalem. That is very likely true.
But, Paul was not the only one to rescue the church in Jerusalem from that mixed situtation. Peter and James too for that matter, made it clear how the new covenant way was different from their older way of Moses.
Paul went on in that regard. But we give the glory to God. God selected Paul to author 13 or so of the 27 books of the New Testament. James contributed 1.
And if you ask me, or if you didn't ask me, I think that was sovereign of God.
=================================
In this I am the atheist, not Paul and clearly not you. Two things you seem to me to believe that I do not share.
==============================
I don't know what you mean by "In this I am the atheist".
Are you putting some kind of qualification on your atheism ? I thought one was either an Atheist or one was not.
================================
One is that God (in the aspect of Jesus, the Holy Spirit or some other aspect) provided this insight to Paul. I think Paul arrived at it through a creative process that makes sense provided you accept that others have intense creative insights also, on diverse topics, religious and secular.
================================
According to the record Paul was 100% dead set against and opposed to Jesus Christ. He didn't wait around to be an opposer of the church. He took the initiative and sought official letters authorizing him to round up Christians, arrest them, put them in jail, force them to blaspheme, and most likely shed blood of some of them.
Suddenly, Paul made an astounding U Turn. Some 14 years latter he emerges as a very experienced apostle.
The point I make is that he did not become as experienced as a Christian worker in one day. His learning took years. But his conversion from a vehement disbeliever in Christ to a believer was dramatically sudden.
As a strict Pharisee Paul would never blaspheme God. The fact that Paul says that as a church persecuter he was a "blasphemer" (1 Tim. 1:13) , proves that he now understands that to blaspheme Jesus was to blaspheme God.
Now his God was the resurrected man Jesus Christ, pure and simple.
===================================
The other is that there is an absolute Truth, quite independent of human agency, which is the Truth of God, so that Paul did not create anything but rather achieved an insight into something that was and is eternally True.
==================================
Paul indeed spoke of eternal truth. However, he also taught that in TIME God was unfolding His operation and doing things. God was entering into TIME and unfolding His eternal purpose in time.
Ie. "But when the fullness of time came, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under law, that He might redeem those under law. " (Gal. 4:4,5)
Ie. "But when the kindness and the love to man of our Savior God appeared, not out of works in righteousness which we did but according to His great mercy He saved us ..." (Titus 3:4,5a)
Ie. " ... now has been manifested through the appearing of our Savior Christ Jesus, who nullified death and brought life and incorruption to light." ( 1 Tim. 1:10)
Ie. " ... until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ, Which in its own times the blessed and only Sovereign will show, the King of those who reign as kings and Lord of those who rule as lords, ..." (1 Tim. 6:14b,15)
All these verse and many others deal with the Divine interference in TIME of this eternal God. Even Christ being revealed in Paul himself was at a certain time:
"But WHEN it pleased God, who set me apart from my mother's womb and called me through His grace, to reveal His Son in me ..." (Gal. 1:15,16)
=================================
By contrast, I think that Paul was a religious genius and discovered a formula to bring together a number of important strands into a single, internally consistent story or myth, using that term "myth" not to mean a lie, but a powerful and persuasive act of imagination.
=================================
Paul may have been a religious genius. But according to Paul, Paul DENIED his natural abilities to instead live and work according to the grace of God. That is how he said he accomplished so much:
"But by the grace of God I am what I am; and His grace unto me did not turn out to be in vain, but, on the contrary, I labored more abundantly then all of them, yet not I but the grace of God which is with me." (2 Cor. 15:9,10)
Paul knew that his natural gifts and abilities meant nothing. He had no confidence in them. Only as he was totally yielded to Christ, enjoying the empowering of the grace of Christ, was he able to labor.
Our natural gifts apart from the grace of Christ can be of little use to God. Our whole being surrendered to Christ, however, allows for everything we are created with to be consecrated for God's use.
Yet not I but the grace of God which was with me = "I am crucified with Christ; and it is no longer I who live, but it is Christ who lives in me ..." (Gal. 2:20)
God turned Saul to Jesus. God emptied Paul of all his self trust and self reliance. God taught Paul to live by Christ even as Christ lived by the Father.
"As the living Father has sent Me and I live because of the Father, so he who eats Me shall live because of Me." (John 6:57)
Paul did not invent a new religion. Paul pioneered in the way that Jesus walked. Paul pioneered a man living in the realm of the indwelling divine life of God.
This was what Jesus taught from the beginning - man living in the sphere and realm of God Himself as divine life, mingled with man's created life. It was not Paul's brain child.
Paul said "Be imitators of me, as I also am of Christ" (1 Cor. 11:1)
As the Son of God lived in the Father as a man, so Paul lived in the Son of God. This is what Jesus taught, that is that the disciples would live in Him as the resurrected and indwelling presence:
"Yet a little while and the world beholds Me no longer, but you behold Me; because I live, you also shall live." (John 14:19)
Christ taught living in oneness with His resurrection life. Paul was one of many who pioneered in that experience. He did not invent the teaching. He MAY have done much to rescue the new covenant church from neglecting that to drift back into the law keeping of Moses.
I will concede that much. But the new testament essence had been laid down by Jesus. Jesus continued His ministry from the heaven through the apostles, and especially the faithful brother Paul.
Even while he was probably a young opposer to the church, the divine instruction to the first apostles was to proclaim all the words of this indwelling resurrected life of Jesus:
Acts 5:20 - "But during the night an angel of the Lord opened the doors of the prison, and leading them [ John and Peter ] out, said,
Go and stand in the temple and speak to the people all the words of this life."
Paul lived, spoke, and wrote all the words of this divine life which was the resurrected and glorified Christ. Paul told us "the last Adam became a life giving Spirit" (1 Cor. 15:45)
Paul then pioneered deep into the experience of what Jesus had taught as the new testament life.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieBeing a chessplayer you should read a book by Sun Tsu, The Art of War. I believe that life is about a balance. But it would be terribly presumptive of me to assert that my beliefs are superior to your own.
[b]yes but the question therefore is, of what value does simply being have? If i am content to simply be a Christian, and sit in an empty room, being a Christian, has not the casual observer the right to try to ascertain, of what value is his Christianity? My argument is, that as in chess as in life, passivity has very little value. Yes it may be arg ...[text shortened]... ly just being? It appears to be nothing more than a large puddle, unless its potential is released.
A wall is a passive object, yet can serve a valuable function.
A beaver builds a dam, creating an amazing ecosystem of plants and animals dependent upon that dam. 😏
Originally posted by caissad4actually my dear Caissa i have read excerpts from the book and watched at least two
Being a chessplayer you should read a book by Sun Tsu, The Art of War. I believe that life is about a balance. But it would be terribly presumptive of me to assert that my beliefs are superior to your own.
A wall is a passive object, yet can serve a valuable function.
A beaver builds a dam, creating an amazing ecosystem of plants and animals dependent upon that dam. 😏
videos on Sun Tsu, for i was not always a Christian and much interested in martial
arts. Yes indeed a wall is passive, but it did not keep the Mongols from invading China
and i truly believe, as i heard from one native American that when one chops down a
tree, one destroys a community. Peace to you and yours dear Caisaa, until we meet
again on the chessboard, pistols at dawn 🙂
Originally posted by jaywillSo as you read though the details of Paul's life in the NT, you did so with a filter - "This I can believe. That I will not. This happened. That other thing did not."
Yes.
I believe the plain words of the NT because I also encountered Jesus Christ. Not as dramatically as Paul says, was my experience. But I did experience bumping into the Lord Jesus. / Afterwards I began to read the New Testament. And when I came to Paul's experience I can say "I certainly can believe that. It corresponds to my own experience."
I recognize that as a religious experience which can be intense if not overpowering. So does, for example, William James in The Varieties of Religious Experience. It is something that has to be acknowledged in any account of the history of religion. It remains that - a subjective experience - and requires an explanation. One available explanation is that it is evidence of direct contact with Jesus Christ. But that is too convenient since it is also circular and self fulfilling. I have this experience because I have been in contact with the Jesus Christ. My explanation is valid because I have this experience.
There are comparable reports from other religions however and from non religions. I could not distinguish between religions by saying that this religion includes reports of a religious [insight / experience / whatever term we agree upon] but that religion does not. There are, for example, mystical traditions in most if not every religion.
Of course a prominent example to bear in mind is the visions and inspiration of Muhammad, set down in the Qu'ran. I do not suggest you endorse Islam but, on a level of reasoning, to recognize that the form taken in this claim for the source of the Qu'ran is not different to the form taken in the claim that God inspired Paul. Both claim direct inspiration from God. As far as I can tell, you cannot argue this is impossible, only that you do not believe it is true of Muhammad and you do believe it is true of Paul. Well that is not helpful! (Curiously, Muhammad takes a charitable view of the Christian claims and advocates respect for their religion, not a reciprocal deal alas for human history.)
I do not dispute that Christians can induce this sort of experience but I am very dubious about what it demonstrates. What I understand fully is that subjectively, for you or anyone having the experience, it is so convincing that there is no real need for evidence and no space for dispute.
That does, though, leave too many questions unanswered. It is not really the slightest use and arguably it is a serious impediment. Because once you are convinced beyond doubt that you are right, then you are no longer engaged in a useful discussion - just babbling.
Jesus interpreted Himself. You don't get any fresher than that.
Well arguably so, but only if we had direct and unedited and unaltered evidence of what Jesus said and when and in what specific context. You are just taking us in a circle here. Words are placed in his mouth, alas. Fine words many of them but we meet Him only through the New Testament.
But if your observation is that without Paul's influence the Christian faith would look very much like what James had going in Jerusalem. That is very likely true.
That'll do.
God selected Paul to author 13 or so of the 27 books of the New Testament. James contributed 1.
Well this relies on the argument that what Paul wrote was directly inspired by God and what the early Church incorporated into its New Testament was entirely God's work. As such it is no more than a pious form of words. What remains when we omit the pieties is, as I keep pointing out, the huge influence of Paul in establishing the tenets of Christianity.
I don't know what you mean by "In this I am the atheist".
You told me that I was accusing Paul of being an atheist. I was saying that is not the case - I am the atheist, he is not.
I thought one was either an Atheist or one was not.
There are many ways to be an atheist and many ways to be a Christian and many ways to be a Muslim.
As a strict Pharisee Paul would never blaspheme God. The fact that Paul says that as a church persecuter he was a "blasphemer" (1 Tim. 1:13), proves that he now understands that to blaspheme Jesus was to blaspheme God.
Not really the case. What it reminds us is that religious enthusiasts in the Jewish and Christian tradition have a terrible habit of accusing those with whom they disagree on scriptural matters of blaspheming or worse (is there worse?). There is only one Truth of course, so at one time Paul thought he had it and could accuse others (early followers of Jesus) of blasphemy, then he became a follower of Jesus so in his world, the only possible Truth is now a different one and so the earlier Paul must have been blaspheming. What he and the Christians after him never really got the hang of was learning to have scriptural disputes calmly.
This also happens in English law (I am sure also American). When a judge finds at a court of appeal that the Law means something that was never ruled before, then this interpretation of the law is not only definitive from that date, but in fact the law always meant this without knowing it, so previous decisions were wrong (albeit innocently so). We thought something was legally correct but now we know, retrospectively, that it was actually not correct.
The point I make is that he did not become as experienced as a Christian worker in one day. His learning took years. But his conversion from a vehement disbeliever in Christ to a believer was dramatically sudden.
Paul was not naive. He was a figure of at least modest weight in his world, travelled more widely than many (than Jesus certainly!) and a man of business. As a Pharisee he had a significant knowledge of scripture which was entirely relevant to his teaching.
His role "persecuting early Christians" [ there were none at this time of course but there were people preaching about Jesus] was significant in many ways but it seems more logical to me to say his role was to help enforce the rulings of the Jewish leaders in dealing with the diverse and sometimes wild opinions then current. Why would this be happening? Because orthodoxy was closely tied into social order.
Under the Romans the Jews had a degree of freedom to worship in their own way, and Herod The Great had built a new temple for them, which was important obviously, but these freedoms and priviliges were conditional and vulnerable not least when Nero wanted to be worshipped as a god in their temple. The freedoms were there largely because the Jews had shown an almost suicidal willingness to provoke a fight with their Roman masters and / or their local ruler, Herod, and it was intended to secure a degree of self policing of the Jews by Jews. These pressures were always stressful and the calamity of the Jewish Wars, culminating in the destruction of the temple, was self inflicted by Jewish zealots.
In this inflammable context, it was hugely important to exercise a restraining influence and Paul would have seen his role as that of a responsible person. But indeed, he did come into contact with the followers of Jesus and he did find it hard to recognize in Jesus the dangers against which he was working as a Temple Guardian.
That conflict clearly drove him to his conversion experience when he found an entirely different way to understand this situation. And when Paul changed sides, as it were, he brought with him all his experience, his politicial acument, his knowledge of the world and his evident energy and drive. He was a great catch.
He also brought with him an understanding of the political disaster facing Jews in the Roman Empire and a very practical reason to seek to distance Christianity as a new religion from the Jewish faith. It is argued certainly that the Acts were written as they were partly if not entirely to reassure a Roman readership that the Christians were quite unlike those rowdy, anti social, turbulent Jews. [I am perfectly aware that the Christians did not succeed in the short term - indeed for some 300 years - in this respect. The Roman authorities were not interested in their separate status and indeed, they never really were all that different at all in the matters of social control that concerned the Romans.]
Paul did not invent a new religion. Paul pioneered in the way that Jesus walked. Paul pioneered a man living in the realm of the indwelling divine life of God.
Again Paul is the pioneer.
This was what Jesus taught from the beginning
Well that is the very topic of our debate and so fits the category "begging the question."
He MAY have done much to rescue the new covenant church from neglecting that to drift back into the law keeping of Moses. / I will concede that much. But the new testament essence had been laid down by Jesus. / Jesus continued His ministry from the heaven through the apostles, and especially the faithful brother Paul.
All this retains the leading role played by Paul and otherwise begs the question - was Jesus speaking directly from heaven to Paul or was Paul inspired by what he knew about Jesus and developing his own, imaginative solutions?
Originally posted by JS357I believe our works will demonstrate the condition of our hearts no matter what
To whom must faith be demonstrated?
to everyone, you say.
I suppose it could equally be said that our works WILL demonstrate our beliefs, no matter what we say they are.
that is, you can do what everyone thinks is a good work for selfish reasons and
your beliefs may not have anything to do with it.
Kelly
Originally posted by robbie carrobieGalatians 2:20 - I am crucified with Christ: neverthless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me. (italics mine)
(James 2:26) Indeed, as the body without spirit is dead, so also faith without works
is dead.
This is a truly staggering assertion, for what does it purport to say, other than, if
your form of worship, whether you are a Christian, Buddhist, Hindu or whatever,
unless your faith can be demonstrated in a tangible way, by the outworking of some ...[text shortened]... its expression, otherwise, just as the
body without spirit is dead, so is faith without works.
The faith of Christ is what is the issue. If I had to depend on my own faith by works of righteousness I'd be dead.
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
Originally posted by KellyJayThe work may be misinterpreted, and that can be part of the intention, that is true. Nonetheless, a better understanding can reveal, as you say, the condition of the heart.
I believe our works will demonstrate the condition of our hearts no matter what
that is, you can do what everyone thinks is a good work for selfish reasons and
your beliefs may not have anything to do with it.
Kelly
Originally posted by finnegan=============================
[b] So as you read though the details of Paul's life in the NT, you did so with a filter - "This I can believe. That I will not. This happened. That other thing did not."
Yes.
I believe the plain words of the NT because I also encountered Jesus Christ. Not as dramatically as Paul says, was my experience. But I did experience bumping into t by what he knew about Jesus and developing his own, imaginative solutions?
One available explanation is that it is evidence of direct contact with Jesus Christ. But that is too convenient since it is also circular and self fulfilling
=================================== [/b]
You have mentioned a couple of times circularity.
You know some people say that any world view contains circular reasoning.
I've always wondered about this.
Why don't you put forth your world view and let's see if we can detect some circularity in your reasoning ?
What do you believe as a world view ?
Originally posted by finnegan=================================
[b] So as you read though the details of Paul's life in the NT, you did so with a filter - "This I can believe. That I will not. This happened. That other thing did not."
Yes.
I believe the plain words of the NT because I also encountered Jesus Christ. Not as dramatically as Paul says, was my experience. But I did experience bumping into t by what he knew about Jesus and developing his own, imaginative solutions?
There are comparable reports from other religions however and from non religions. I could not distinguish between religions by saying that this religion includes reports of a religious [insight / experience / whatever term we agree upon] but that religion does not. There are, for example, mystical traditions in most if not every religion.
====================================== [/b]
It would be nice if in every area of human life there was universal agreement.
Even something like sexual union is not agreed upon by people.
Some say men's unions with men is the norm.
Others, women with women.
Others, adults with kids.
Others, humans with animals.
This is just an example that something you would think would be a candidate for universal agreement is not.
The reaction of dispair seems not a good way to solve the issue. One does not have to say that because all peoples do no agree on what is the proper sexual relationship therefore the whole matter of sexual relationship must be illusionary.
And the multitude of voices claiming "I am meeting God" while admitedly confusing and contradictory, is no cause to dispair that no such relationship must exist.
The multiplicity may be only a long but temporary matter.
And many do not use multiplicity of claims as a rational to not make a decision to seek the truth for themselves.
I did not refuse to make choices in life based on the sheer multiplicity of claims in other important areas.
Originally posted by finnegan===================================
[b] So as you read though the details of Paul's life in the NT, you did so with a filter - "This I can believe. That I will not. This happened. That other thing did not."
Yes.
I believe the plain words of the NT because I also encountered Jesus Christ. Not as dramatically as Paul says, was my experience. But I did experience bumping into t by what he knew about Jesus and developing his own, imaginative solutions?
All this retains the leading role played by Paul and otherwise begs the question - was Jesus speaking directly from heaven to Paul or was Paul inspired by what he knew about Jesus and developing his own, imaginative solutions?
====================================== [/b]
Beg questions ....
You make assumptions plenty in support of what you are trying to prove.
You do so in your extremely selective treatment of what you will believe from the New Testament and what you will filter out.
You select just enough to fit comfortably into you a-prior anti supernatural bias. I guess the rest is conspiracy or liturary corruption.
You can believe Paul had "some kind" of religious experience.
But you won't take him at his word about it. You won't take what he believed it to be even if he was wrong.
I think you have been question begging throughout, if I understand the phrase. You require a prior that we accept your skeptical assumptions to support your skepticism.
It is interesting how some people cannot see their own biases while looking down their spectacles to scold others.
Originally posted by jaywill[B]egging the question is proving what is not self-evident by means of itself.
[b]===================================
All this retains the leading role played by Paul and otherwise begs the question - was Jesus speaking directly from heaven to Paul or was Paul inspired by what he knew about Jesus and developing his own, imaginative solutions?
====================================== [/b]
Beg questions ....
Yo ...[text shortened]... some people cannot see their own biases while looking down their spectacles to scold others.[/b]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question
In this case you cite the New Testament as evidence supporting the claims made in the New Testament.
To say my position is one of skepticism is not satisfactory though it has some validity. The concept is quite a mixed one.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skepticism
However I suspect your intention is far less complex - suggesting that I am one of those who would not be prepared to consider any evidence as a matter of principle or personality, presumably because of my intense bias.
My bias is declared from the outset as you know, and so is your own. Your insinuation that this blinds me is an argument ad-hominem and hence a fallacy.
Originally posted by josephwAre you saying it's better to have faith in JC than to do good works?
Galatians 2:20 - I am crucified with Christ: neverthless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by [b]the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me. (italics mine)
The faith of Christ is what is the issue. If I had to depend on my own faith by works of righteousness I'd be dead.[/b]
If I came to you and said that it's more important for you to have faith in and worship Lord Shiva than to assist your fellow man, you would not question such a request?
How ever do you type of christians conclude that Jesus is more important than any other "gods"? There are plenty of sutras and scriptures about other religous figures who have influenced the world just as much as JC. Who have preached words as wise as Jesus, who have led saintly lives like Jesus,etc.
How on Earth can you pick one over the other?