Christianity without Paul

[sojourner]

Right. The irony is overwhelming. Feel free to explain why its a misdirection, or feel free to actually respond to the actual points. I really fail to see how mentioning the Luke warm being spat out in Revelation is misdirection. Maybe someone else can explain since you don't seem to be that concerned about honest discourse. Which is very typical of the anti-works crowd, they usually make such kinds of replies when holes are poked in their balloon.

And of course, merely asking what kind of "Good works" an englihtened Christian does is a lame attempt at misdirection. Yeah, I can imagine everyone reading agreeing with that.

It's amazing how every single time, I mean EVERY single time I have this discussion with an anti-works, and this has happened more times than I can remember, that they NEVER answer the question of what kind of good works are specific to the saved Christian. I mean seriously, it's funny, I have yet to find a single anti-works Christian who dares to both addressing what kind of good works they think are the "fruit of the saved" to begin with that are unique to them and no other.

Have you actually read the content of any of my posts, or are you just around to be a mild annoyance? Love. I've said it many, many times. Love is what we're supposed to do.

 

[sojourner]

I think we have to accept that Christians can turn there religion into whatever they want,

Well, we are the body of Christ -- it is our religion...

i don't belief in General they follow there own scriptures

Many of us do act out of the various theological constructs that are textually-based...

and if i look into the west i have a damn good reason to assume that.

Because, if we look to the East with all the spineless terrorist action, it's soooo much better there...

If we want to look what ''Real'' Christianity should look like ''with scriptures included'' we can best look at the Orthodoxes Christians who live in Jerusalem but offcourse they belief in Atonement and the trinity what makes no sense in real-life.

What makes you think you have the slightest idea what a "real" Christian "ought" to look like?

 

[sojourner]

Yes indeed, "Christians" have historically twisted and turned what Jesus says to suit their theology into a labyrinth of contradictions, virtually ignoring what is actually commanded to placate their desire for a feel-good theology.

Generalizations are always best for everyone...

And then they use cherry picked passages of Paul and Acts to justify their beliefs (many of them most likely interpolated by anti-judaizers years afterward). The scripture most assuredly says that they will burn.

The scripture also most assuredly claims that the earth is a disc, covered by a sky that is a rigid dome...

I'd love to help them, but they often are doggedly determined to head for the fire as if what Jesus says doesn't actually matter.

Dismissal and blatant disrespect are obviously unhelpful to anything but your own ego...

How "Christians" are able to deal with the cognitive dissonance of virtually ignoring everything Jesus says about how your behavior and adherence to the commandments determines your fate is beyond me.

Obviously, several things about Christianity are beyond you...

What "Real Christianity" looks like is close to Messianic Judaism.

Please, enlighten us with the criteria for "real Xy."
Perhaps it does look like Messianic Judaism. It probably also looks a whole like several other expressions, since Xy is multivalent.

They have all kinds of ways of twisting what it directly, plainly says, to suit their one-size-fits-all dogmas of not having to actually do anything that might be inconvenient. For all their emphasis on Acts 15 (Which was most likely interpolated by anti-Judaizers), they often have no problem eating bloody steaks. It's as if they don't want ANY burdens or restrictions that might possibly make a single inconvenience.

Xy is about freedom and liberation -- not about being bound up and held under the microscope.

They think they are allowed to fornicate, but Paul says Fornicators don't make it to the kingdom: "Well shut up Paul, the doctrine of grace beats your own words, right?"

This is too funny -- mostly because you don't even afford Paul any authority to begin with.

They think they go to heaven just for believing

We certainly don't. Some do -- but not most.

not only did Jesus condemn such a view (Matthew 7:22-23), but even PAUL condemned this view. The understanding of Paul to begin with is so radically skewed it's amazing, maybe I should be sticking up for him, because the same "Christians" who use him to contradict what Jesus teaches, don't even abide by what he says. Whether it's ignorance, apathy, or rebelliousness, I can't decide.

"...But I''m not bitter!"

Quite a rant. I hope you feel better now that you've gotten that off your chest.

 

[Shermana]

Generalizations are always best for everyone...

Says the one who says that my view is "Ridiculous and tasteless" and like "leftovers".

The scripture also most assuredly claims that the earth is a disc, covered by a sky that is a rigid dome...

That is disputed, and even Atheists have admitted that this is a wrong interpretation. As for the Sky, the Atmosphere does in fact look like a "dome". But for the times it seems to imply the "Earth is a disc", it is not referring to "The earth" but the "Land" to begin with, and if you're relying on things like "Corners of the earth", it can be just as well read as "Corners of the land". The word "Eretz" pretty much never means "Planet Earth", but "Earth" as in "soil", or "region/land". So the whole "Earth is a disc" thing is based on bad translations.

Dismissal and blatant disrespect are obviously unhelpful to anything but your own ego...

You should be first in line to listen to your own advice. But what do you mean by "dismissal" exactly? Do you have a problem with me dismissing your doctrines even if I back my case? That's quite often the case.

Obviously, several things about Christianity are beyond you...

Wow, what a thoughtful reply. Obviously, you're desparately looking for digs. Why don't you name some of these things you feel are beyond me. So you basically are admtting then, that you don't actually concern yourself with what Jesus teaches or is something about ignoring everything he says which is correct that is 'beyond me"?

Please, enlighten us with the criteria for "real Xy."
Perhaps it does look like Messianic Judaism. It probably also looks a whole like several other expressions, since Xy is multivalent.

The "Multivaliency" of Xy would be considered by most Orthodox to be "heretical". And yes, it does look like Messianic Judaism, but not the kind that's preached in most congregations. You should ask Zardoz for his take, I think he understands it well for the most part.

Xy is about freedom and liberation -- not about being bound up and held under the microscope.

Freedom and liberation from what exactly? Jesus specifically says that your bad works will come back to haunt you, he even advises his own disciples to hack off their hands if it causes them to do something to enter the fire. You apparently avoided my Luke warm question as in who the luke warm are in several threads, you obviously don't want to include the parts that disagree with your convenience of freedom.

This is too funny -- mostly because you don't even afford Paul any authority to begin with.

Way to completely miss the point. This is about Pauline authority, and I am proving that even Christians who believe in Paul don't give a rat's behind about what he actually says and think they can go on their merry way without heeding his own details on who gets into heaven and who doesn't. For someone who complains about me being dismissive, you do a fine job dismissing the actual point. Do you disagree that Paul is very clear that fornicators will not get into the kingdom and that most Paulinists are fornicators? Regardless if I give him authority or not, the point of this comment was to show the blatant hypocrisy of Paulinists, and it appears you have no actual reply to this.

The Nazarenes and Ebionites apparently didn't either. Do you afford Clement any authority? Why should Paul be afforded authority? Because the non-Nazarene churches did? This was a major focal point of contention in the early schisms.

We certainly don't. Some do -- but not most.

Oh, so perhaps you'd like to explain what you think the criteria is for getting to heaven for someone who tells me that certain things about Christianity are "beyond me", why don't you explain YOUR view on how you interpret what Jesus (and Paul in your case) said about who gets into heaven and who's destined to roast in Gehenna.

"...But I''m not bitter!"

Right.

Quite a rant. I hope you feel better now that you've gotten that off your chest.

Quite a rant yourself. You have successfully demonstrated the typical Paulinist reluctance to actually address points made. Did you at all make any kind of cohesive counter-argument or did you just make generalizations and dismissals like you complain about?

 

[F0uad]

Well, we are the body of Christ -- it is our religion...

So you agree that ''Christians'' can turn, switch, edit there own religion as you like thanks for coming to that conclusion and agreeing with me they do.

Many of us do act out of the various theological constructs that are textually-based...

Do you sincere belief this? i think all religions without Christianity at-leasts shows devotion to there religion except for Orthodoxes and some of the Catholics

Because, if we look to the East with all the spineless terrorist action, it's soooo much better there...

I am not sure what you mean by ''Terrorist Actions'' Terrorist actions on state levels are much worse then small individual groups

If we look terrorist actions on America soil we come to this conclusion:

Extreme-Left wing Groups 24%,
Latino 42%,
Communists 5%,
Jewish Extremist 7%,
Islamic Extremist 6%
others 16%

Fbi Source-


Because you have a media that hates the Muslim population in America and the West doesn't mean its worse in Eastern Countries i would rather live in Morocco, Turkey, Indonesia, Qatar then in the US

What makes you think you have the slightest idea what a "real" Christian "ought" to look like?

I think this is the major problem in Christianity that you people yourself do not know how a ''Real'' Christian should look like we can see that the ''Definition'' of Christian means a follower of Jesus(p) who lived back then if we are going to be a ''Christian'' then we should abide by the teachings and laws according to your own scriptures what i see Christians in Jerusalem actually do and the praying as Jesus(p) did according the scriptures



Anyway i am going off-topic so i will stop here.

 

[Shermana]

Have you actually read the content of any of my posts, or are you just around to be a mild annoyance? Love. I've said it many, many times. Love is what we're supposed to do.

So are you saying that only "enlightened Christians" can love? If not, what is the difference? Are you saying all that Jesus taught was for people to "love"? Are you saying Christ gave no explicit instructions on what it means exactly? Why don't you define what exactly "love" is supposed to be? Or is too much for you to have to actually define your position with clarity? Do you think you can just skip over all the specifics and questions about what it means to be obedient to Christ by just saying "We're supposed to love"? If so, then thank you for proving my point.

I asked you who the Luke warm are in revelation, you refused to respond and called such a question a "misdirection" and now its an "annoyance" when I ask it again. You wouldn't look nearly as bad if you just said "I don't want to answer who the luke warm who are spat out are", then you wouldn't look like you're trying to weasel out of a critical verse that is a snag to your view. Nothing in the content of your posts in any way answers the question, and your shallow dodges are quite evident.

Let me guess, you think that all the commandments were "replaced" when he said "All the commandments HANG on these two", well that's not what he meant in case that's what you're saying, he was saying that all the commandments are summarized by love of G-d and love of Neighbor. If Jesus taught to not obey any of the Law, he'd be contradicting not only himself but the very reason why he would be accepted as the OT Moshiach to begin with.

The "Love of G-d" in 1 John 5:3 is to obey the commandments, so looks like your argument is bunk. As for a "Mild annoyance", anyone can see that you're totally sliding away from addressing the specifics (something most Christians do on this subject, you're not alone), if you find it a "Mild annoyance" to have your views challenged, don't post. Don't just call specific questions and concerns a "Misdirection" when they are completely relevant, THAT is an annoyance. Again, if you find it an annoyance to have objections to your views, which is a typical "Christian" mentality, don't post. I will be challenging your views, so if you want to avoid that annoyance, just stay away and don't bother actually trying to engage in debate.

 

[obi one]

Have you actually read the content of any of my posts, or are you just around to be a mild annoyance? Love. I've said it many, many times. Love is what we're supposed to do.

1 John 5:2, "By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God and observe His commandments"

 

[sojourner]

Says the one who says that my view is "Ridiculous and tasteless" and like "leftovers".

That is disputed, and even Atheists have admitted that this is a wrong interpretation. As for the Sky, the Atmosphere does in fact look like a "dome". But for the times it seems to imply the "Earth is a disc", it is not referring to "The earth" but the "Land" to begin with, and if you're relying on things like "Corners of the earth", it can be just as well read as "Corners of the land". The word "Eretz" pretty much never means "Planet Earth", but "Earth" as in "soil", or "region/land". So the whole "Earth is a disc" thing is based on bad translations.

You should be first in line to listen to your own advice. But what do you mean by "dismissal" exactly? Do you have a problem with me dismissing your doctrines even if I back my case? That's quite often the case.
Wow, what a thoughtful reply. Obviously, you're desparately looking for digs. Why don't you name some of these things you feel are beyond me. So you basically are admtting then, that you don't actually concern yourself with what Jesus teaches or is something about ignoring everything he says which is correct that is 'beyond me"?
The "Multivaliency" of Xy would be considered by most Orthodox to be "heretical". And yes, it does look like Messianic Judaism, but not the kind that's preached in most congregations. You should ask Zardoz for his take, I think he understands it well for the most part.
Freedom and liberation from what exactly? Jesus specifically says that your bad works will come back to haunt you, he even advises his own disciples to hack off their hands if it causes them to do something to enter the fire. You apparently avoided my Luke warm question as in who the luke warm are in several threads, you obviously don't want to include the parts that disagree with your convenience of freedom.
Way to completely miss the point. This is about Pauline authority, and I am proving that even Christians who believe in Paul don't give a rat's behind about what he actually says and think they can go on their merry way without heeding his own details on who gets into heaven and who doesn't. For someone who complains about me being dismissive, you do a fine job dismissing the actual point. Do you disagree that Paul is very clear that fornicators will not get into the kingdom and that most Paulinists are fornicators? Regardless if I give him authority or not, the point of this comment was to show the blatant hypocrisy of Paulinists, and it appears you have no actual reply to this.

The Nazarenes and Ebionites apparently didn't either. Do you afford Clement any authority? Why should Paul be afforded authority? Because the non-Nazarene churches did? This was a major focal point of contention in the early schisms.

Oh, so perhaps you'd like to explain what you think the criteria is for getting to heaven for someone who tells me that certain things about Christianity are "beyond me", why don't you explain YOUR view on how you interpret what Jesus (and Paul in your case) said about who gets into heaven and who's destined to roast in Gehenna.

Right.
Quite a rant yourself. You have successfully demonstrated the typical Paulinist reluctance to actually address points made. Did you at all make any kind of cohesive counter-argument or did you just make generalizations and dismissals like you complain about?

 

[sojourner]

So you agree that ''Christians'' can turn, switch, edit there own religion as you like thanks for coming to that conclusion and agreeing with me they do.

There's something wrong with that???

Do you sincere belief this? i think all religions without Christianity at-leasts shows devotion to there religion except for Orthodoxes and some of the Catholics

I have no idea what you're trying to say here. And yes, I do believe what I said. Otherwise, I wouldn't have said it.

I am not sure what you mean by ''Terrorist Actions'' Terrorist actions on state levels are much worse then small individual groups

I'm talking about the schools that take young boys, indoctrinate them to hate Americans, and then feed them into groups like al qaeda. I'm talking about the terrorist opportunists who couldn't leave well enough alone in Iraq. We went in, captured and deposed Saddam, the Iraqis were happy about it. We wouldn't been home inside six months, if it hadn't been for the terrorist groups wandering around, killing themselves and other innocents. I'm talking about the Taliban. I'm talking about Iran's so-called "peaceful" nuclear program. The East is unstable. At best.

I think this is the major problem in Christianity that you people yourself do not know how a ''Real'' Christian should look like we can see that the ''Definition'' of Christian means a follower of Jesus(p) who lived back then if we are going to be a ''Christian'' then we should abide by the teachings and laws according to your own scriptures what i see Christians in Jerusalem actually do and the praying as Jesus(p) did according the scriptures

Thanks for the chuckle.

 

[sojourner]

So are you saying that only "enlightened Christians" can love? If not, what is the difference? Are you saying all that Jesus taught was for people to "love"? Are you saying Christ gave no explicit instructions on what it means exactly? Why don't you define what exactly "love" is supposed to be? Or is too much for you to have to actually define your position with clarity? Do you think you can just skip over all the specifics and questions about what it means to be obedient to Christ by just saying "We're supposed to love"? If so, then thank you for proving my point.

I asked you who the Luke warm are in revelation, you refused to respond and called such a question a "misdirection" and now its an "annoyance" when I ask it again. You wouldn't look nearly as bad if you just said "I don't want to answer who the luke warm who are spat out are", then you wouldn't look like you're trying to weasel out of a critical verse that is a snag to your view. Nothing in the content of your posts in any way answers the question, and your shallow dodges are quite evident.

Let me guess, you think that all the commandments were "replaced" when he said "All the commandments HANG on these two", well that's not what he meant in case that's what you're saying, he was saying that all the commandments are summarized by love of G-d and love of Neighbor. If Jesus taught to not obey any of the Law, he'd be contradicting not only himself but the very reason why he would be accepted as the OT Moshiach to begin with.

The "Love of G-d" in 1 John 5:3 is to obey the commandments, so looks like your argument is bunk. As for a "Mild annoyance", anyone can see that you're totally sliding away from addressing the specifics (something most Christians do on this subject, you're not alone), if you find it a "Mild annoyance" to have your views challenged, don't post. Don't just call specific questions and concerns a "Misdirection" when they are completely relevant, THAT is an annoyance. Again, if you find it an annoyance to have objections to your views, which is a typical "Christian" mentality, don't post. I will be challenging your views, so if you want to avoid that annoyance, just stay away and don't bother actually trying to engage in debate.

First of all, You 're conveniently forgetting when Jesus said, "the Sabbath was made for man -- not man for the Sabbath." He allowed his disciples to pick grain on the Sabbath. He healed on the Sabbath. All because he recognized that love was supposed to be the impetus for the law, and that picayune interpretation and adherence was a hindrance to the spiritual life.

Second, we're all supposed to love. Christians are supposed to take the lead in teaching love.

I think that Jesus wasn't nearly so impressed with specifics as he was with intentions. Jesus was concerned with the heart, and with the actions that flowed from the heart -- the actions that showed the nature of the heart. Those who love the law so much that they become indifferent to human suffering are not right in the heart. From what I gather of your position and the way you present yourself, you're way too interested in presenting Xy the "right" way. You're way too caught up in the specifics of the law. You think that love for God means keeping all the law, precisely as it's written in the texts -- everyone else be damned.

You're forgetting the very important communal aspect of Xy (and Judaism), in favor of a very individualistic perspective: Getting myself to heaven by "following the law." Forget the law, and concentrate on your fellow human being -- help them by loving them -- not by insisting that they're "just wrong."

The law as summed up in the decalogue is about relationship -- as is the corpus of God's acts.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Paul is a valuable source in knowing how one particular branch began, the Nazarenes and Ebionites from what is written, were in bitter opposition to him.

I'm wondering if you would share your sources and your evaluation of those sources?

 

[Shermana]

First of all, You 're conveniently forgetting when Jesus said, "the Sabbath was made for man -- not man for the Sabbath." He allowed his disciples to pick grain on the Sabbath. He healed on the Sabbath. All because he recognized that love was supposed to be the impetus for the law, and that picayune interpretation and adherence was a hindrance to the spiritual life.

As I showed on the other thread, that doesn't mean at all that he did away with the Sabbath or said you could do ANYTHING on the Sabbath. The modern Rabbis say the same thing that you can heal on the Sabbath from what I understand. He also said "Pray that your flight need not take place in Winter or on a Sabbath day". Winter may have something to do with lack of supplies and shelther for a season, but a single Sabbath day? Surely they could find shelter in a gentile's house. I listed three links (and can list many more) from Christian groups who agree he did not break or teach to break the Sabbath, which would be violating Matthew 5:17-20 to begin with. So it's a matter of interpretation, and I say yours is wrong.

Second, we're all supposed to love. Christians are supposed to take the lead in teaching love.

And what is "love" exactly, as I've asked before? What does 1 John 5:3 say about love of G-d again?

I think that Jesus wasn't nearly so impressed with specifics as he was with intentions.

Except that he taught total obedience to the Law and that anyone who teaches to break the least of them will be called the least in the kingdom. It's as if you ignore pretty much all what Jesus actually teaches, that's fine, most "Christians" seem to as well.

Jesus was concerned with the heart, and with the actions that flowed from the heart -- the actions that showed the nature of the heart. Those who love the law so much that they become indifferent to human suffering are not right in the heart.

That's what he was berating the Pharisees for yes, because they were neglecting aspects of the Law that involved love of neighbor, and this was the gist in things like Mark 7. But he clearly said that the doers of Lawlessness would be rejected.

From what I gather of your position and the way you present yourself, you're way too interested in presenting Xy the "right" way.

From what I gather, you're a total revisionist, and you agreed with that accusation proudly, and that you don't like the idea of a discussion of what exactly the specifics were of the original teachings and you think you can ignore what you want to ignore for the sake of "Changing times" (a very common liberal christian idea), and I simply disagree.

You're way too caught up in the specifics of the law. You think that love for God means keeping all the law, precisely as it's written in the texts -- everyone else be damned.

That would be what 1 John 5:3 says, but you can take that up with him.

You're forgetting the very important communal aspect of Xy (and Judaism), in favor of a very individualistic perspective: Getting myself to heaven by "following the law."

You can ignore and reinterpret what Jesus said as you wish, but he clearly said "Away from me ye doers of lawlessness". You also got hostile when I asked you who the Luke warm are of revelation. You just don't like having your views challenged or discussing critical verses that dismember your theology as I've mentioned before.

Forget the law, and concentrate on your fellow human being -- help them by loving them -- not by insisting that they're "just wrong."

And what exactly is "Love"? I doubt you've even read 1 John 5:3 to begin with and perhaps looking it up will be your first time today. The Law is all about how to love your neighbor and G-d, that's why Jesus said "All the commandments HANG on these two". Meanwhile, he taught that anyone who teaches to break the least of the commandments will be called the least in heaven, you're welcome to call that an interpolation if you want simply because it doesn't show up in "Q" as you claimed. But it shows up similarly in Luke. And then again, there's the question of who the Luke warm are, perhaps you'd like to answer that this time? Or not, that's fine, you can ignore the luke warm issue again.

The law as summed up in the decalogue is about relationship -- as is the corpus of God's acts.

Exactly. Looks like we agree on something. Except you don't agree that one has to actually obey the totality of it and that the laws after the decalogue don't matter or something. Jesus did say "Do not steal" and "Do not defraud" in the same sentence, he was obviously alluding to the whole of the Law when the rich man asked him how to achieve eternal life.

And the fact that Jesus even said "Follow the commandments" should be a clue.

 

[Shermana]

I'm wondering if you would share your sources and your evaluation of those sources?

Here's an example, it seems the Ebionites and Nazarenes at first were mostly one group but then later split, perhaps the major source of the split was that the "Nazarenes" accepted Paul (with caution, as the article says), though interpreted his teachings as being pro-Law. I believe the source is Epiphanius.

There is debate nonetheless on whether the Ebionites and Nazarenes were separate, which is relevant.

Ebionites - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Many scholars distinguish the Ebionites from other Jewish Christian groups, e.g., the Nazarenes;[7] others consider them identical with the Nazarenes.[8]

Nazarenes and Ebionites

Later, when Christianity developed in the 3rd and 4th centuries and gradually lost its Jewish roots and heritage, largely severing its Palestinian connections, the Gentile, Roman Catholic Church historians began to refer to Ebionites and Nazarenes as two separate groups—and indeed, by the late 2nd century there might have been a split between these mostly Jewish followers of Jesus. The distinction these writers make (and remember, they universally despise these people and call them "Judaizers"), is that the Ebionites reject Paul and the doctrine of the Virgin Birth or "divinity" of Jesus, use only the Hebrew Gospel of Matthew, and are thus more extreme in their Judaism. They describe the Nazarenes more positively as those who accept Paul (with caution) and believe in some aspect of the divinity of Jesus (virgin born, etc.). What we have to keep in mind in reading these accounts from the Church fathers is that they are strongly prejudiced against this group(s) and claim to have replaced Judaism entirely with the new religion of Christianity, overthrowing the Torah for both Gentile and Jew.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I am familiar with Wikipedia. I have also read Maccoby (have you?). Anyone who, being remotely familiar with that material, presumes to make factual claims about early 1st century 'Ebionites' is naive at best and a charlatan at worst. As for the rest, I'm perfectly willing to have you associate yourself with Tabor.

 

[sojourner]

As I showed on the other thread, that doesn't mean at all that he did away with the Sabbath or said you could do ANYTHING on the Sabbath. The modern Rabbis say the same thing that you can heal on the Sabbath from what I understand. He also said "Pray that your flight need not take place in Winter or on a Sabbath day". Winter may have something to do with lack of supplies and shelther for a season, but a single Sabbath day? Surely they could find shelter in a gentile's house. I listed three links (and can list many more) from Christian groups who agree he did not break or teach to break the Sabbath, which would be violating Matthew 5:17-20 to begin with. So it's a matter of interpretation, and I say yours is wrong.

I'm not going to reiterate my reply on the other thread. You can read it for yourself. Suffice to say that the groups you linked do not represent the best in exegetical scholarship.
It is a matter of interpretation. Mine is different. But not wrong.

And what is "love" exactly, as I've asked before? What does 1 John 5:3 say about love of G-d again?

I don't give a rat's *** about what 1 john says. Following rules to the letter does not constitute love. Caring for your loved ones constitutes love. 1 John was talking about keeping the law as a sign of love, not as the actual act of love.

Except that he taught total obedience to the Law and that anyone who teaches to break the least of them will be called the least in the kingdom. It's as if you ignore pretty much all what Jesus actually teaches, that's fine, most "Christians" seem to as well.

Except that Jesus also healed on the Sabbath, when such was clearly verboten. It's as if you ignore pretty much all what Jesus actually teaches.
Please stop putting my title in quotation marks, as if I'm not a real Christian.

On the other hand, please continue. It shows others your propensity to divide, dismiss and disrespect people who don't agree with you.

That's what he was berating the Pharisees for yes, because they were neglecting aspects of the Law that involved love of neighbor, and this was the gist in things like Mark 7. But he clearly said that the doers of Lawlessness would be rejected.

Those who love embrace the law of love.

From what I gather, you're a total revisionist, and you agreed with that accusation proudly, and that you don't like the idea of a discussion of what exactly the specifics were of the original teachings and you think you can ignore what you want to ignore for the sake of "Changing times" (a very common liberal christian idea), and I simply disagree.

Your disagreement doesn't make you "right" and everyone else "wrong," unless you agree with the actions of the orthodox you so willingly dismiss. It simply makes us "different." There's nothing wrong with difference. Diversity is a good thing. Your take is a very common, ultra-conservative Christian idea. I simply disagree with it.

You just don't like having your views challenged or discussing critical verses that dismember your theology as I've mentioned before.

you haven't dismembered anything. Dismissed, certainly. But not dismembered. i don't mind having my views challenged. But there's a difference between challenge and disrespect. you're crossing a social line here.

You also got hostile when I asked you who the Luke warm are of revelation.

Revelation doesn't have anything to do with Paul (or anything else, for that matter). I see no need to drag a highly symbolic and multivalent book into the mess.

And what exactly is "Love"? I doubt you've even read 1 John 5:3 to begin with and perhaps looking it up will be your first time today. The Law is all about how to love your neighbor and G-d, that's why Jesus said "All the commandments HANG on these two". Meanwhile, he taught that anyone who teaches to break the least of the commandments will be called the least in heaven, you're welcome to call that an interpolation if you want simply because it doesn't show up in "Q" as you claimed. But it shows up similarly in Luke. And then again, there's the question of who the Luke warm are, perhaps you'd like to answer that this time? Or not, that's fine, you can ignore the luke warm issue again.

Asked and answered. Many times. Read my answers in the last post.

Exactly. Looks like we agree on something. Except you don't agree that one has to actually obey the totality of it and that the laws after the decalogue don't matter or something. Jesus did say "Do not steal" and "Do not defraud" in the same sentence, he was obviously alluding to the whole of the Law when the rich man asked him how to achieve eternal life.

And the fact that Jesus even said "Follow the commandments" should be a clue.

I'm assuming your'e referencing Lk 18? If so, at the end of the pericope, Jesus says, "It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God." Those listening said, "Who, then, can be saved?" Jesus replies, "What is impossible for mortals is possible for God."

In other words, we can't keep the totality of the Law. Jesus acknowledges that.

In fact, I'd go further in saying that, if it was the Law that someone loved, Jesus would tell them to give that up. The story isn't finally about the importance of keeping the law -- it's about the importance of dying to self. It's a poor example to support your position.

So is Luke 10. It's not about the law, but about love.

 

[Shermana]

I'm not going to reiterate my reply on the other thread. You can read it for yourself. Suffice to say that the groups you linked do not represent the best in exegetical scholarship.

Please feel free to link to what you consider a better exegetical scholarship on the subject.

It is a matter of interpretation. Mine is different. But not wrong.

Well just as you consider mine wrong, I consider your wrong.

I don't give a rat's *** about what 1 john says.

Well there you have it folks, Sojourner's view basically involves totally ignoring what 1 John says. Thank you for proving my point once again, you've been most helpful.

Following rules to the letter does not constitute love.

I highly disagree.

Caring for your loved ones constitutes love. 1 John was talking about keeping the law as a sign of love, not as the actual act of love.

I don't see the difference between a sign of love and an act of love, but you're welcome to your (wrong) opinion.

Except that Jesus also healed on the Sabbath, when such was clearly verboten.

Where was it clearly verboten? By the Pharisees?

It's as if you ignore pretty much all what Jesus actually teaches.

No that would be you. Jesus was quite hostile to those who he didn't like the views of. So was Paul. What parts of Jesus's teachings do you think I ignore? I don't consider you a brother, so keep that in mind.

Please stop putting my title in quotation marks, as if I'm not a real Christian.

I'll do as I please thank you, I almost always refer to "Christians" with quotation marks.

On the other hand, please continue. It shows others your propensity to divide, dismiss and disrespect people who don't agree with you.

Jesus was all about dividing and dismissing, and things like "brood of vipers" was pretty disrespectful. Paul was very dividing and dismissing too. Check yourself.

Those who love embrace the law of love.

And yet again I ask you, what is this "love" exactly? You don't seem to want to explain.

Your disagreement doesn't make you "right" and everyone else "wrong,"

The point of a debate board is to say what you think is right and wrong.

unless you agree with the actions of the orthodox you so willingly dismiss.

Huh?

It simply makes us "different."

In the same way the orthodox viewed the Gnostics and Judaizers as "different"?

There's nothing wrong with difference.

Once again, I quote Paul (whether I agree with him or not), "Let anyone who preaches a different gospel, let them be damned".

Diversity is a good thing. Your take is a very common, ultra-conservative Christian idea. I simply disagree with it.

Right, but this is a debate board.

you haven't dismembered anything.

In your opinion I guess.

Dismissed, certainly.

I guess when you back up your claim and discuss the facts it's just "dismissing"? What would constitute dismembering exactly?

But not dismembered. i don't mind having my views challenged. But there's a difference between challenge and disrespect. you're crossing a social line here.

You are not required to respect anyone's views here, and I certainly don't respect your views. And I have in fact challenged them. You have disrespected me by refusing to answer simple questions like who the Luke warm are in revelation and called me a "Clown who likes to hear his own head rattle".

Revelation doesn't have anything to do with Paul (or anything else, for that matter). I see no need to drag a highly symbolic and multivalent book into the mess.

You mean you don't want to answer a simple question of who the Luke Warm are, when it's very clear who they are, there's nothing symbolic about that passage. I wonder if you don't want to get into it because it hits close to home? I'd say so.

Asked and answered. Many times. Read my answers in the last post.

I challenge anyone else reading to prove that you're telling the truth in that you've actually answered this.

I'm assuming your'e referencing Lk 18?

And the other gospels with the same story.

If so, at the end of the pericope, Jesus says, "It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God." Those listening said, "Who, then, can be saved?" Jesus replies, "What is impossible for mortals is possible for God."

This is an example where I refer to the "Gospel to the Hebrews" version of the story, which states that the Rich Man was being hypocritical in not obeying the Law to help his neighbors in need. The context of the end of this story is not necessarily that no one can obey the Law. It's just that the Rich may have a difficult time.

In other words, we can't keep the totality of the Law. Jesus acknowledges that.

No, Jesus did not acknowledge that. He acknowledged that the RIch may have a hard time getting into heaven and may require G-d's assistance. This is a common conclusion drawn from this story (and there's the issue of what the Gospel to the Hebrews version says), but it completely ignores the context of Jesus asking him if he obeyed the commandments. Why would he even tell him to sell everything? The fact that the rich man refused is the context.

In fact, I'd go further in saying that, if it was the Law that someone loved, Jesus would tell them to give that up.

Which would completely contradict what he taught about keeping the Law of course.

The story isn't finally about the importance of keeping the law -- it's about the importance of dying to self. It's a poor example to support your position.

In this case I guess I'm going to have to defer to the Gospel to the Hebrews version of the story.

So is Luke 10. It's not about the law, but about love.

But love hangs on the commandments, so there's a bit of a contradiction with what you're saying.

 

[Shermana]

I am familiar with Wikipedia. I have also read Maccoby (have you?). Anyone who, being remotely familiar with that material, presumes to make factual claims about early 1st century 'Ebionites' is naive at best and a charlatan at worst. As for the rest, I'm perfectly willing to have you associate yourself with Tabor.

I've only read The Mythmaker (which apparently may have some spurious references in it), he has like 10 other works, I want to read Judaism in the 1st century, but I've read many who say that he is a charlatan as you say. Do you say the same about Tabor?

 

[sojourner]

Please feel free to link to what you consider a better exegetical scholarship on the subject.

Go to Atla or Ebsco and look at the scholarly abstracts.

Well there you have it folks, Sojourner's view basically involves totally ignoring what 1 John says. Thank you for proving my point once again, you've been most helpful.

I don't totally ignore it. But I also don't lend as much weight to it as I do other texts. BTW, what does this have to do with the OP?

I don't see the difference between a sign of love and an act of love, but you're welcome to your (wrong) opinion.

Of course not. Which is why you (wrongly) think my opinion is wrong.
But feel free to hang on to your delusions fabricated out of eisegesis.

No that would be you.

Again with the Pee Wee Herman argument. How mature of you!

Jesus was quite hostile to those who he didn't like the views of.

Oh, good grief! That's why he saved the prostitute. That's why he paid attention to the Samaritan woman. That's why he had compassion on the soldiers who crucified him. That's why he ate with sinners. That's why he was aligned with the Pharisees. That assessment just won't wash, I'm afraid. And it illustrates perfectly that you don't follow Jesus' teaching, as you claim to do.

I don't consider you a brother, so keep that in mind.

Thanks for proving my point.

I'll do as I please thank you, I almost always refer to "Christians" with quotation marks.

I thought you said that you do as pleases Jesus...

Jesus was all about dividing and dismissing, and things like "brood of vipers" was pretty disrespectful.

Yeah. Dan Quayle identified himself with Kennedy, too. And that was a mistake.
You're not Jesus. As I said in another thread, you reeeaally need to go back and reread Matthew. Matthew spends practically his whole gospel recounting how Jesus blurred distinctions and acted inclusively. I still don't see what any of this has to do with the OP...

The point of a debate board is to say what you think is right and wrong.

In part -- and only to a point.

And I have in fact challenged them.

No, you really haven't. You've come up with some increasingly weird rebuttal. But nothing patently challenging.

You mean you don't want to answer a simple question of who the Luke Warm are

You have failed to provide definitive evidence of any law that is "original."

when it's very clear who they are

Uh huh.

there's nothing symbolic about that passage.

Riiight...

The context of the end of this story is not necessarily that no one can obey the Law. It's just that the Rich may have a difficult time.

You really are delusional.

 

[Shermana]

Go to Atla or Ebsco and look at the scholarly abstracts.

So that's yet another refusal to actually link to something specific when asked.

I don't totally ignore it. But I also don't lend as much weight to it as I do other texts. BTW, what does this have to do with the OP?

The cognitive dissonance must be staggering. You just said earlier that you "Don't give a rat's a-- about 1 John". It has a LOT to do with the OP, can you take a guess how? It's about what Jesus actually taught. And what 1 John states is in line with what Jesus actually taught.

Of course not. Which is why you (wrongly) think my opinion is wrong.

Don't we all think each other's opinion in wrong and their own is right. Except I try to actually back my case.

But feel free to hang on to your delusions fabricated out of eisegesis.

For someone who complains about dismissal, you sure don't like to actually address counterpoints.

Again with the Pee Wee Herman argument. How mature of you!

Again with the hypocritical dismissal from the person who likes to call people dismissive. You said that I ignore everything Jesus teaches, so I simply turned it around. You don't actually obey what Jesus teaches, do you disagree? If not, please feel free to explain why you think I don't actually obey what Jesus teaches and you do.

Oh, good grief! That's why he saved the prostitute.

Ummm, you're completely ignoring all the times Jesus argues with people who he disagrees with. Saved the prostitute? Are you referring to the Pericope Adulterae? Pretty much everyone knows by now that's a false later addition.

That's why he paid attention to the Samaritan woman.

And how exactly does that have to do with what I said? If anything, you're not catching on to the actual context of the Samaritan woman story. I don't think you even know what the actual context was. Did the Samaritan woman outright disagree with Jesus's teachings? Your example here has NOTHING to do with the concept, if you feel it does, quote John 4 where you think it does, or kindly admit that the Samaritan woman example has nothing to do with the subject in question. He specifically says "You Samaritans worship what you don't know" and is if anything castigating her to change her views in a way, but accepts her acceptance that the Moshiach is coming.

That's why he had compassion on the soldiers who crucified him.

So what does that have to do with the fact that Jesus is not exactly too respectful to the people who he disagreed with? Are you talking about when he says "Forgive them father for they know not what they do?" Feel free to quote for your example and show how it relates to the actual context of the disagreement about what I said how Jesus calls the Pharisees a "brood of vipers".

That's why he ate with sinners.

He ate and drank with sinners because he was apparently teaching them about the Kingdom of G-d and trying to get them to change their ways. So what does that have to do with the fact that Jesus is not exactly too respectful to the people who he disagreed with?

That's why he was aligned with the Pharisees.

WHOA THERE. Did you just say that Jesus was aligned with the Pharisees????

That assessment just won't wash, I'm afraid. And it illustrates perfectly that you don't follow Jesus' teaching, as you claim to do.

Ummm, so not only do you completely ignore the fact that Jesus was outright aggressively disrespectful to the Pharisees, you say that he was ALIGNED with them, and then you accuse me of not obeying Jesus's teachings. You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about, end of story. I challenge anyone else reading to validate your claim.

Thanks for proving my point.

Your point is hogwash, Did Peter and Paul consider those of what they considered heretical sects to be brothers? You keep dancing around the concept of Paul saying "Let those who preach another gospel be damned", like say the Nicolations. Do you think Paul considered the Nicolations brothers? Neither did the Apostles. Do you consider anyone who calls themselves Christian a brother? Do you consider me a brother? If not, drop the act.

I thought you said that you do as pleases Jesus...

So you're saying you know for a fact that it displeases Jesus to use quotation marks on people who call themselves "Christian" when you disagree with their views? Pretensiousness precedes you.

Yeah. Dan Quayle identified himself with Kennedy, too. And that was a mistake.

Ummm, are you completely dismissing the concept that Jesus said "I have not come to bring peace but a sword" and divide families? This is utterly desparate.

You're not Jesus.

Really? All this time?

As I said in another thread, you reeeaally need to go back and reread Matthew.

I say the same to you.

Matthew spends practically his whole gospel recounting how Jesus blurred distinctions and acted inclusively.

So you mean to say that you think I need to go back and read Matthew again with YOUR interpretation. Why don't you explain what exactly you mean with actual quotes, unless you like showing that you make blatant assertions that have absolutely no biblical precedent while dismissing the actual claims which disprove you.

I still don't see what any of this has to do with the OP...

I don't see how your objections have anything to do with the OP, but I'm simply responding to your objections. This is about what Jesus taught as opposed to Paul. Why don't you start by explaining how your initial objections had anything to do with the OP of which I'm responding to.

In part -- and only to a point.

Oh really now, only to a point? Why don't you explain what it's for then.

No, you really haven't. You've come up with some increasingly weird rebuttal. But nothing patently challenging.

Calling my rebuttal "increasingly weird" is not a substitute for an actual reply. If you want to continue to embarass yourself, have at it.

You have failed to provide definitive evidence of any law that is "original."

That's your reply to me saying that you haven't defined who the Luke warm are?

Uh huh.

Have you even read Revelation? It point blank says that the Luke Warm are those who haven't done enough good works. I've asked you like perhaps 8 times by now, and the reader can see that you've absolutely refused each and every time to define who you think the Luke warm are. It's quite obvious that you are dodging the subject.

Riiight...

Well then why don't you explain why you think that particular passage is symbolic and what the symbolism is. I challenge anyone else reading to say if they think the Luke Warm passage is purely symbolic or uses just enough metaphor to explain that its' referring to "Christians" who haven't done enough good works.

You really are delusional.

It must be so nice to think you can just call people delusional instead of countering their points.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

What would the "Christian" religion be without Paul's epistles?

In my opinion: Extinct.