Zone1 Question for Christians

[BULLDOG]

Paul was chosen by God to write most of the NT

Why do you think that was?

What scripture says Paul was chosen by god to write most of the NT?

 

[Meriweather]

the bible says he rejects some people no matter what they do. That doesn't align with a loving compassionate forgiving god.

I have always maintained: Seek God first. The Bible makes more sense after that.

 

[BULLDOG]

I hope some of the Biblical scholars you studied were Jewish rabbis who know the Hebrew language.

First, not everything in the Bible is about us. It addresses certain people in specific times. Finding the themes is vital because it separates the wheat from the chaff. There are many truths, and each individual is greatly affected by some truths, but perhaps not all. A line in a popular 1970s song noted, "They seek the truth before they can die..." Before Christianity, before Judaism, people believed each of them had their own God. (We see this is scripture--The God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, the God of Jacob.) It is was the ancient perspective of God and in God they would find truth.

Of course some were Jewish rabbies.

 

[BULLDOG]

Some Christians, perhaps, but not Christianity as a whole. Even decades ago, I was reading where some Christian scholars were noting Paul's despair in the verses you quoted in the OP. Their conclusion is that perhaps Paul should have kept his own despair to himself. Paul could not understand why all Jews could not accept Jesus.

And many Christians believe God chose Paul to accurately bring Jesus' teachings to the gentiles. If so, God screwed up. God didn't know Paul would add his own bullshit that had nothing to do with Jesus teachings?

 

[Votto]

What scripture says Paul was chosen by god to write most of the NT?

It does not, but the NT is obviously dominated by him.

Why?

 

[BULLDOG]

It is what ancient culture was. Read the Bible in modern English through the lens of Western culture and the result is an entirely different understanding of what the original author was saying to his original audience. What they understood is entirely different from what we understand. People can get a sense of this when they seriously study the Jewish faith with a mind to the Hebrew language.

So god didn't know, and couldn't prevent his inspired word from becoming bastardized by modern translations? What does that say about today's christians who base their faith on a bible that reads much differently than it once did?

 

[BULLDOG]

I have always maintained: Seek God first. The Bible makes more sense after that.

It all made much more sense before I decided to seek a better understanding of gods laws as accepted by christianity.

 

[Votto]

So god didn't know, and couldn't prevent his inspired word from becoming bastardized by modern translations? What does that say about today's christians who base their faith on a bible that reads much differently than it once did?

The Dead Sea Scrolls showed us all that the Bible has not been "bastardized"

Try again.

 

[Meriweather]

And many Christians believe God chose Paul to accurately bring Jesus' teachings to the gentiles. If so, God screwed up. God didn't know Paul would add his own bullshit that had nothing to do with Jesus teachings?

Do we come to the crux of the matter here? That God screwed up?

Humans are imperfect, but it seems to me that God works quite well with the imperfect. Apparently Paul's notes that we can't argue with how God made us hit a nerve. I see it more as God working with who we are. While I see Paul's anguish with his own people, the Jews, not accepting Jesus. But that was Paul's anguish--it was not God's.

Nor do I dismiss Paul's words. As despairing as he may have been, what also comes through clearly is that the Glory of God will draw people together. That can happen anytime people choose to focus on God instead of their different beliefs. In other words by noon today, or in any number of millenium.

 

[BULLDOG]

It does not, but the NT is obviously dominated by him.

Why?

That is a totally different subject, but there was more politics involved in the Council of Nicea and the Council of Trent than there was religious belief.

 

[Meriweather]

So god didn't know, and couldn't prevent his inspired word from becoming bastardized by modern translations? What does that say about today's christians who base their faith on a bible that reads much differently than it once did?

God works with us. When I assign schoolwork, I could do each student's work perfectly. Or, I could work with each student where they are and they can grow into perfection themselves.

What does it say about today's Christians? It says they live in a society where the Bible was removed from public education and therefore more will continue to be more and more ignorant of what it is our ancestors wanted to teach us and pass on to us.

 

[Meriweather]

It all made much more sense before I decided to seek a better understanding of gods laws as accepted by christianity.

Were you a Catholic Christian? I ask because Catholics seem to be more aware of their Jewish roots. I found intense study of Judaism gave me a better understanding of Catholicism, of the Gospels, and of Paul. They had a different way of thinking. We don't need God to write us a better translation/interpretation of the present Bible--we can do that study on our own.

 

[Meriweather]

It all made much more sense before I decided to seek a better understanding of gods laws as accepted by christianity.

Then try a better understanding of God's Law as taught by those of the Jewish faith.

 

[Votto]

That is a totally different subject, but there was more politics involved in the Council of Nicea and the Council of Trent than there was religious belief.

Biblically speaking, God chose Paul for a reason.

From my estimation, it was because he:

1. Devoted his life to the scriptures and was well educated
2. He was a natural born leader
3. He was once an enemy of the faith.

The last one is the kicker, because as has been said, the historical fact is he used to murder Christians before his conversion.

Why the conversion? Why did he turn from killing them, to being one of them being killed? Paul had the same dedication the disciples did, which was giving up their lives for the gospel and it came from the truths and miracles they saw and heard.

Also, Paul was driven by memories of how he used to treat Christians. It was all the motivation he really needed to endure what he had to endure.

 

[DGS49]

Let's keep in mind that The Church has, for about two thousand years, tried to understand God's message, as revealed MAINLY through the Torah, the teachings of Jesus, and the explications of Paul.

Brilliant scholars have examined and re-examined the texts, the translations, the cultures in place at the relevant times, and the "traditions" that have grown over the centuries. Their writings are all over the place, for those who care to look for them - especially now in the age of the Internet.

So the (Protestant) idea that any uneducated rube can pick up his (version of the) Bible, read it, and challenge the beliefs and teachings of the Church, is fatuous indeed. It is not unlike the Average Citizen who comes into a copy of the U.S. Constitution, reads it while sitting on the toilet (it's not very long), and proceeds to challenge long-established interpretations because "it doesn't make sense to him."

To be vulgar about it, it is bullshit. On this very forum, one reads people saying that they read something in the Bible and figured out that they understood something that no one else had figured out before. Gimmeafukkinbreak.

 

[Votto]

Let's keep in mind that The Church has, for about two thousand years, tried to understand God's message, as revealed MAINLY through the Torah, the teachings of Jesus, and the explications of Paul.

Brilliant scholars have examined and re-examined the texts, the translations, the cultures in place at the relevant times, and the "traditions" that have grown over the centuries. Their writings are all over the place, for those who care to look for them - especially now in the age of the Internet.

So the (Protestant) idea that any uneducated rube can pick up his (version of the) Bible, read it, and challenge the beliefs and teachings of the Church, is fatuous indeed. It is not unlike the Average Citizen who comes into a copy of the U.S. Constitution, reads it while sitting on the toilet (it's not very long), and proceeds to challenge long-established interpretations because "it doesn't make sense to him."

To be vulgar about it, it is bullshit. On this very forum, one reads people saying that they read something in the Bible and figured out that they understood something that no one else had figured out before. Gimmeafukkinbreak.

So the Bible is BS just like the Constitution?

No, we need both.

It is interesting that we have the same documents for a myriad of interpretations.

The Bible and Constitution have similarities in that they are warnings. When you violate their precepts, there is no bolt of lighting that comes down from the sky to make things right, but when you violate them bad things start to happen.

 

[BULLDOG]

The Dead Sea Scrolls showed us all that the Bible has not been "bastardized"

Try again.

The Dead Sea Scrolls showed us all that the Bible has not been "bastardized"

Try again.

None of the NT was included in the dead sea scrolls, so they have nothing to do with this discussion. There were, however, disagreements with what is included in the bible. Seems odd for something inspired by god. Why do you think he allowed those disagreements?

 

[Votto]

None of the NT was included in the dead sea scrolls, so they have nothing to do with this discussion. There were, however, disagreements with what is included in the bible. Seems odd for something inspired by god. Why do you think he allowed those disagreements?

True, but the NT was written very close to the time Christ walked the earth as the documents have been dated accordingly.

At best, Mark was written under a 100 years after Christ walked the earth.

Documents written much later, therefore, are more suspect.

As for Paul, he was historically a peer of the original disciples.

Those people are the closest living historical sources we have to Christ.

 

[BULLDOG]

Do we come to the crux of the matter here? That God screwed up?

Humans are imperfect, but it seems to me that God works quite well with the imperfect. Apparently Paul's notes that we can't argue with how God made us hit a nerve. I see it more as God working with who we are. While I see Paul's anguish with his own people, the Jews, not accepting Jesus. But that was Paul's anguish--it was not God's.

Nor do I dismiss Paul's words. As despairing as he may have been, what also comes through clearly is that the Glory of God will draw people together. That can happen anytime people choose to focus on God instead of their different beliefs. In other words by noon today, or in any number of millenium.

You can choose to see it any way you want. That's exactly what I did for so many years, until I looked up exactly what the bible says. My choice of which parts to believe, and all the little things I had to add to make it all fit weren't as easy for me at that pont.

 

[BULLDOG]

God works with us. When I assign schoolwork, I could do each student's work perfectly. Or, I could work with each student where they are and they can grow into perfection themselves.

What does it say about today's Christians? It says they live in a society where the Bible was removed from public education and therefore more will continue to be more and more ignorant of what it is our ancestors wanted to teach us and pass on to us.

I'm sure you think that makes sense in this discussion, but it's not the school's job to teach christianity, or any religion. Churches teach religion, and unless you can point to a church that had it's bibles removed, I'll ask you to stay on subject.