Romans 11-13

[wolfpurplemoon]

An interesting metaphor, Paul says that the Gentiles he has been preaching to are wild olive branches that have been grafted onto a cultivated olive tree where natural branches have been removed. Paul is saying that they could not survive without the root of their religion so shouldn't turn against the Jews who won't convert.

God has given everyone different gifts, and these gifts must be used. It doesn't say how to work out what gift you have, just use it correctly.

Paul weaves in some instructions to follow what the government tells you to do (and pay your taxes), apparently governments are servants of God and have God's authority to deal with wrongdoers, this comes straight after telling us not to get revenge ourselves but to be nice to our enemies and let God deal with them.

Comments

[hypatiaslore.livejournal.com]

The thing I find interesting about Paul is that he is as close to a contemporary of Jesus' as any of the writers as any of the authors of the New Testament. Paul's writings were written much closer to the actual presumed lifetime of Jesus than any of the other books as well. Yet, what is much more interesting than what is included, is what is not. Considering that this man was alive at the same time as Jesus, and his goal is to educate and inspire new churches through his letters, the things he doesn't tell them about Jesus just blows my mind. I mean, these letters were written before Mathew, Mark, Luke or John. This is excepted scholarship whether you are a Christian or not.

In any of the letter's that are believed to have been written by Paul he doesn't say a word about any of Jesus' Miracles, Parables, Birth, Mary and Joseph, The Lord's Prayer(in fact, he says specifically that we don't know what we're supposed to pray for), The Transfiguration, The Sermon on the Mount, calming the Sea of Galilee, his Temple visit as a child, the journey to/from Nazareth, the trial with Pontius Pilate, Judas Iscariot’s betrayal, Gethsemane, and the most shocking exclusion, the thing I can't believe wasn't written about by people everywhere and in paintings and songs and stories, of course, but he is completely silent about is the ascension.

I mean, he hung out with Jesus' brothers after his conversion, even though he didn't meet the other disciples until later. So he would have heard the stories about when Jesus was a boy, and about his life and death, especially if he was supposedly charged with spreading the gospel by Jesus himself on the road to Demascus. You'd think he'd had been trying to find out every detail he could and including as much as possible.

Eyewitness accounts

[(Anonymous)]

Paul spoke clearly of those things he had first hand knowledge of. While there were those still alive who were there, why wouldn't he leave it to them to write the story. Paul was an educated Jew. He knew the law backwards and forward. Then, after his encounter with Jesus and subsequent 14 years to mull it over, the law became fully realized as fulfilled in Christ so that the law of grace is in place (as was to begin with). Paul knew well of this first-hand. So, this is what he taught.
All that you mentioned as omitted from Paul's writings, are no less important simply because they are not the lessons retaught by another in writings. Each spoke first hand in their calling from and to.

Re: Eyewitness accounts

[hypatiaslore.livejournal.com]

That would work just fine, except he did speak about things he didn't have first hand knowledge of. The Last Supper, His death, His resurrection, (again, I wonder where he think's he is now, considering he completely leaves out his ascension, though) are all things he did not witness personally and still speaks about in great detail.

And if that isn't enough, he also goes head to head with those who received the teachings from Jesus directly from the horses mouth, i.e. Peter, and the other disciples saying that his revelations were more accurate than their first hand knowledge. I mean, can you imagine such a thing happening today? A single person saying that their "revelations" were more accurate than what the Bible says and writing a whole new testament? Oh wait. It has happened. Quite a few times actually and not gone over really well, has it? Did anyone consider that Paul was writing a new religion right off the bat and it was being incorporated right along side with the teachings of the disciples?

There were a couple of contradictions that actually made it through:

Paul:
"Is it not certain that the saints will be the judges of the world? if then the world will be judged by you, are you unable to give a decision about the smallest things? Is it not certain that we are to be the judges of angels? how much more then of the things of this life?" (I Cor 6:2-3)

Jesus:
"Judge not, that ye be not judged." (Matt 7:1)
______

Paul:
"For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not in wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made void."(I Cor 1:17)

Jesus:
"Go ye therefore, and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit." (Matt 28:19)

Re: Eyewitness accounts Continued

[hypatiaslore.livejournal.com]

Paul:
“Do we then overthrow the Law by this faith? By no means! On the contrary, we uphold the Law.” (Romans 3:31)

Yet, consider this scene regarding Kosher laws and their importance to Jesus:

" 1 The Pharisees and some of the teachers of the law who had come from Jerusalem gathered around Jesus 2 and saw some of his disciples eating food with hands that were defiled, that is, unwashed. 3 (The Pharisees and all the Jews do not eat unless they give their hands a ceremonial washing, holding to the tradition of the elders. 4 When they come from the marketplace they do not eat unless they wash. And they observe many other traditions, such as the washing of cups, pitchers and kettles.[a])
5 So the Pharisees and teachers of the law asked Jesus, “Why don’t your disciples live according to the tradition of the elders instead of eating their food with defiled hands?”

6 He replied, “Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you hypocrites; as it is written:

“‘These people honor me with their lips,
but their hearts are far from me.
7 They worship me in vain;
their teachings are merely human rules.’[b]

8 You have let go of the commands of God and are holding on to human traditions.”

9 And he continued, “You have a fine way of setting aside the commands of God in order to observe[c] your own traditions! 10 For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and mother,’[d] and, ‘Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death.’[e] 11 But you say that if anyone declares that what might have been used to help their father or mother is Corban (that is, devoted to God)— 12 then you no longer let them do anything for their father or mother. 13 Thus you nullify the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down. And you do many things like that.”

14 Again Jesus called the crowd to him and said, “Listen to me, everyone, and understand this. 15 Nothing outside a person can defile them by going into them. Rather, it is what comes out of a person that defiles them.” [16]

17 After he had left the crowd and entered the house, his disciples asked him about this parable. 18 “Are you so dull?” he asked. “Don’t you see that nothing that enters a person from the outside can defile them? 19 For it doesn’t go into their heart but into their stomach, and then out of the body.” (In saying this, Jesus declared all foods clean.)

20 He went on: “What comes out of a person is what defiles them. 21 For it is from within, out of a person’s heart, that evil thoughts come—sexual immorality, theft, murder, 22 adultery, greed, malice, deceit, lewdness, envy, slander, arrogance and folly. 23 All these evils come from inside and defile a person.”(Mark 7:1-23)
_____________________________________


Then again, Romans itself has contradictions as to what constitutes salvation and faith, does it not?


Therefore no one will be declared righteous in his sight by observing the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of sin. (Romans 3:20)

Contradicted by:

For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God's sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous. (Romans 2:13)
_____________________

“If you confess with your lips the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved” (Romans 10:9)

Contradicted by:

“For he (God) will repay according to each one’s deeds; to those who by patiently doing good seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life” (Romans 2:6)
______________________


Paul seems to make a habit of going of on his own and talking about things to which he has no knowledge and directly contradicts the actual verbatim words of Jesus. And when he was called out on it, he got upset and went out on his own. Later on in I Timothy, he even acknowledges that a lot of his own churches turn against him because of his own teachings. If you research the history of the early church, the only reason his teachings were included as opposed to some of those more aligned with Peter's or less contradictory with Jesus' own teachings has more to do with internal politics and money than it ever had to do with the spiritual purity of the texts available.

Re: Eyewitness accounts Continued

[zen-says.livejournal.com]

Imagine Paul going to be tried,,,,,

Is he going to write bad about Roman government when he himself also a roman.

His teaching clashes with James, which teaches faith with works. (James was almost kicked out of the canons of the bible), and also with Peter. (Peter's epistles also nearly did not make it). Accordingly the gospel according to Peter was also excluded.

Paul was a politician through and through, and he was sort of Pharisee of pharisee,,, whereas Peter John and the guys are mainly fisherman and I think the better educated person of the 12 disciples would be the tax collector Matthew.

Paul span a great story. And introduce a new gospel.

Re: Eyewitness accounts Continued

[hypatiaslore.livejournal.com]

Is he going to write bad about Roman government when he himself also a roman.


Well, exactly. From the beginning there was a constant struggle between whether Christianity was too "Jewish" or not. There were many, many controversies surrounding this, leaders going as far as to say the disciples themselves has misunderstood what Jesus had said to them, etc. There were a couple of key apologists in the first couple of centuries, on both sides, that, without whom, I really think this little religion would have died out easily and been reabsorbed back into mainstream sects of Judaism and various Roman cults of the time. The thing is that this gave them something to get behind and argue about.

It also makes sense why, when the Roman emperor himself converted to Christianity, the writings of another Roman eventually became the foremost canonical works included in the Bible. Meaning, the Christianity that finally came to be under Constantine, a Roman emperor, was influenced highly by his ordering of 50 copies of the books that were of the list that Eusebius,a Roman, had compiled. Eusebius' list was based on Origen's work, who was probably Egyptian by birth, but spent nearly all of his life in preaching and studying throughout the Roman empire in various capacities, especially in Caesarea, which just happens to be where Eusebius was born and grew up. So, not really surprising that he would have used his texts and teachings as a basis for his own version of Christianity, either.

Re: Eyewitness accounts Continued

[(Anonymous)]

One can conjure conspiracies til the end. It won't get us anywhere. These ideas are just that. However, there are two way to look into these apparent coincidences, if you will. Either man has been politicizing this too from its beginnings, or God has been the Maestro for his own orchestra in which he welcomes us to play along. If the former, I will agree it is all pointless. If the latter, we are the beneficiaries when love has truly been the motivation, not religion or politics, as if there's a tangible difference.

Re: Eyewitness accounts Continued

[hypatiaslore.livejournal.com]

It is obviously your choice whether you believe that the politics surrounding the various happenings that put together the Christian religion and it's texts were man inspired or divinely inspired. I think it's a matter of what methods you believe your deity uses in order to transmit his information to the people he wishes to receive it and the time frame that it would take for that message to get across through that method should also be considered as well. First, a method that involves the very prohibitions that are laid down seems suspect. However, if one is not permitted to question or debate the very methodology that was used, then it is difficult to look at the data that is gathered and see anything but the religion as it is as a foregone conclusion. However, you'd have to completely ignore the hundreds of years (and this is where the time frame problem comes into play) where the majority of people, those of whom even considered themselves devout Christians, had beliefs that most would find completely unrecognizable by today's standards. These people were not following heretical Christian cults because they were not discerning individuals, but because Christianity was largely an oral tradition (imagine a great game of telephone over an enormous distance and spanning decades and eventually centuries) and because even the disciples taught different interpretations of what they believed Jesus intended, and so did the eventual Bishops that were ordained later. Some of which, by the way, did not even believe that Jesus was a divine individual. This particular point was not even canonized until 325, and even then, the Bishop that believed that he was not was allowed to be reconciled with the church and continued to preach. Would the Counsel of Bishops have done that if they believed he was out there sending people to their graves in spiritual peril?

The point, of course, is that deciding on a strict canon on what it meant to be Christian was a process that took hundreds of years and was many generations removed from when Jesus, his disciples or even Paul was to have written or preached. What is to have happened to those souls who could not possibly have been able to have known or had the "correct" interpretation of the events that had transpired while the church was not yet formed a cohesive canon and made it available for distribution among even the Bishops, let alone the Priests or general populace?

These are hardly philosophical questions, or even faith worthy ones, though. I know the answer will be, inevitably, "God had a plan" or that He has it all taken care of, or some other such thing. I just wonder why I was given a brain and the ability to question things at all, if I was meant forgo its use for what, I would think, would be the most important questions we could ask.

Re: Eyewitness accounts Continued

[(Anonymous)]

Open and honest debate is welcomed. My personal belief is that the bible is both man and divinely inspired. This hurts many who would claim Christianity. But, my personal belief was not the subject at hand. I will say, however, I once considered myself Atheist, but now after long study (and no deliberate Kool-aid) have come to trust the Bible as inerrant. This offends others. I see God's inspiration through the use of errant humans to produce such a letter to communicate his affection and compassion to a world gone astray. Love can only be expressed through freedom.
Yes, we have a choice to believe what we want about the facts and details of anything. And, here I was pointing out this point. True, that what seems obvious on the surface is often more an interpretation based on a point of view. Your 'facts' are a bit askew. Your philosophy may have tainted your perception of details. Some things you cannot fully learn simply by recounting what another has said for the same reasons mentioned.
The 325 canon compilation was not an invention, but an affirmation of what materials were already being most commonly referenced. The canon, as it formally exists after this date is the canon that already existed, though in political informality, beforehand. This is easily seen through the personal writings of those who were teaching ' the Way' from the first century on. Granted, this council was called together to answer false teaching of one who was becoming more influential, and to formally declare what had already informally been well known. The deity of Jesus comes not from this, but from his own words. The argument, not that you've made it, that Jesus never declared himself God is irresponsible at least. Furthermore, don't confuse the councils and structures of man with the work of God. The former is often not the result of the latter. By this I mean to say, the Bible stands alone, and very often even condemns what was done apparently in God's name. We the people, in our pride and arrogance, will run amuck every time we would seek to run the show.

Re: Eyewitness accounts Continued

[(Anonymous)]

The bible does not need me nor anyone else to defend it. Upon thorough and honest investigation it always comes out on top. The apparent contradictions turn out to be just that, apparent, at the surface. But, in context, clarity can be gained. Sometimes, regrettably, the English translation does not do the more complex original Greek justice. There are two 'helps' that I would recommend to anyone who is truly seeking answers rather than just arguments: a bible handbook (Haley's preferred), and a concordance (Strong's preferred). However, if we are only seeking to win arguments rather than find answers, there's no point to any of this. But, if we are truly wanting to know all we can respectfully, then my friend, I applaud you. For, not many would rather know than just banter.

Re: Eyewitness accounts Continued

[hypatiaslore.livejournal.com]

I don't know why you would think that I am not coming from a philological perspective already. I have spent the greater part of my life studying the Bible, it's history, the time period, languages, and context, not only from an academic perspective, but from a spiritual one as a young person, as my initial study began because of a personal wish to engage in an in depth understanding of my own religion. You are not speaking with someone who lightly "banters" with whomever crosses their path on the internet just to illuminate the most shallow instances of Biblical contradiction for the sake of being argumentative.

It seriously pains me to see such assumptions being made with no basis, just because my observations regarding this compilation of don't mesh with your ideology. The fact is that just because you believe that arguments in favor of it being an ethereally inspired text are meaningless unless you personally understand the reasoning behind such an assertion. To assume it is true in the face of evidence to the contrary seems to beg the question as to why you would suggest that I do more research to defend my position, and why your position requires no defense at all?

If it can be said that the Bible can stand on it's own, it doesn't mean that you don't have to say anything to defend it. It means that there would be no logical way of poking holes in it's defense of itself. It means literally, that it could be used in it's own defense.

Re: Eyewitness accounts Continued

[(Anonymous)]

My name is Tim. I do't see the point in creating a blog account here, so I'll just identify myself in this way. I am who you have responded to.
Thank you for your reasonable and thoughtful argument here. I don't mean that to sound condescending in any way. I once considered myself an Atheist.
My point about the Bible being its own defense, I have come, through study and then faith to wholeheartedly believe. While it is true most do not have rational or thoughtful arguments n either side of this, I hope never argue from a point of pious ideology alone. But, my point was merely that there is vast conjecture surrounding the Bible, and many ideas being taught as fact. But, when all is boiled down, and notions for or against are investigated, the Bible stands. Forgive me if I read more from your post than was there.
You are right. There is no right to assume anyone is off the hook for debate. This is why Peter tells believers to always be ready to have an answer. Unfortunately the church's actions throughout history, and those ascribed to the church, have been used to discount what is written. It's like reading the instructions and performing the task wrong, then blaming the instructions rather than the light reading they were given. I cannot defend the actions of any who claim adherence then pursue their own interests through a perverse interpretation. I choose to leave out interpretation as much as possible while learning of the root evidences for what is written and why. I wish more of us would think through why any of us believe what, and investigate before prosthelytizing for, or prognosticating through, positions.
I simply suggest you, and all of us, do more research. The answers can be found. Often we have to sift through the rhetoric to find it, but they are there. And, time (or space) would not permit adequacy for such an undertaking here. BUt, we ought to constantly be reviewing the 'other side' if the truth is to win out, and not rest with what is comfortable. The Christian God never requires comfort, but begs the use of his given ability to reason through topics and apply wisdom. Unfortunately, that is not often the prevalent witness offered.

[princessellie0.livejournal.com]

We are to pay our taxes and obey the law of the land as long as it does not go against Gods laws, the reasoning behind this is that Christians are not to be seen as trouble makers, we are humble and live to serve God, money and earthly things are to hold no weight to us for God says he will provide if we are in need.