If your christianity is the 'true' form, does any other kind of christianity put you under a 'curse'

[amorphous_constellation]

For per paul in the letter to the galatians, he starts out being noticeably irked by their lack of conformity to whatever was preached to them earlier. (though he contradicts himself by the end of the letter, saying that you should 'gently correct others') By the way he describes the problem, it seems that alternate understandings of christianity were occurring and spreading, and that was the problem. These other ways of doing it are apparently not valid at all, per paul.

Fast forward to today, and we know that christianity and the understanding of it is splintered into endless shards. You as a christian, are likely to believe that you have the truth, and therefore you zealously want to share it with whomever will listen, though there is much evident disagreement between you and other christians. So my question is this, are those other christians who disagree with you on the gospel actually cursed in the pauline sense, or are they your allies?

One wonders what kind of a forumer paul would be... would he get banned for castigating everyone with a different understanding then he has, (in the middle of galatians, he apparently wishes his detractors would neuter themselves) or would he be more 'diplomatic' in his 'corrections'

 

[Katzpur]

For per paul in the letter to the galatians, he starts out being noticeably irked by their lack of conformity to whatever was preached to them earlier. (though he contradicts himself by the end of the letter, saying that you should 'gently correct others') By the way he describes the problem, it seems that alternate understandings of christianity were occurring and spreading, and that was the problem. These other ways of doing it are apparently not valid at all, per paul.

Fast forward to today, and we know that christianity and the understanding of it is splintered into endless shards. You as a christian, are likely to believe that you have the truth, and therefore you zealously want to share it with whomever will listen, though there is much evident disagreement between you and other christians. So my question is this, are those other christians who disagree with you on the gospel actually cursed in the pauline sense, or are they your allies?

I believe them to be my allies, though I suspect most of them would belive me to be cursed.

 

[amorphous_constellation]

I believe them to be my allies, though I suspect most of them would belive me to be cursed.

So how do you understand paul's attitude about this

 

[exchemist]

For per paul in the letter to the galatians, he starts out being noticeably irked by their lack of conformity to whatever was preached to them earlier. (though he contradicts himself by the end of the letter, saying that you should 'gently correct others') By the way he describes the problem, it seems that alternate understandings of christianity were occurring and spreading, and that was the problem. These other ways of doing it are apparently not valid at all, per paul.

Fast forward to today, and we know that christianity and the understanding of it is splintered into endless shards. You as a christian, are likely to believe that you have the truth, and therefore you zealously want to share it with whomever will listen, though there is much evident disagreement between you and other christians. So my question is this, are those other christians who disagree with you on the gospel actually cursed in the pauline sense, or are they your allies?

One wonders what kind of a forumer paul would be... would he get banned for castigating everyone with a different understanding then he has, (in the middle of galatians, he apparently wishes his detractors would neuter themselves) or would he be more 'diplomatic' in his 'corrections'

It's a good question.

St Paul would have been very concerned about what he would see as wrong ideas spreading, while Christianity was still in the process of forming. If that had proceeded unchecked, there might have been almost no coherent body of doctrine after a while, and the religion would have just dissipated into fragmented micro-cults and died. As the founder of the church among the gentiles, St Paul would have taught as strongly and unambiguously as he could, like any teacher.

Subsequently there were a lot of fierce arguments in the first few centuries of Christianity; so fierce that people died for it. However the schisms that came later involved disagreeing with certain issues in doctrine that were by that time well-defined, so at least the dissident groups were able to define themselves against something concrete and in favour of a concrete alternative.

My own view, as a sort of semi-detached Catholic, is that no denomination has a monopoly on truth. It is plain to me that the Protestant Reformation, for example, was necessary and did even the Catholic church a lot of good, in the long run, not to mention playing a part in ushering in the era of the Enlightenment. I don't find most of the doctrinal differences very significant. Though I do find I dislike some of the attitudes and assumptions inculcated by some denominations.

 

[LightofTruth]

Was the gospel that Paul preached the true gospel?

Or, was the gospel that was preached after Paul the true gospel?

For a person to believe Paul preached the true gospel, he must accept that the Bible contains the true gospel.

Without a point of reference, what do you have whereby to know if there is a true gospel or not?

Some say that the Holy Spirit is teaching them the true gospel. And others who teach a different gospel say the same thing.

 

[Kenny]

For per paul in the letter to the galatians, he starts out being noticeably irked by their lack of conformity to whatever was preached to them earlier. (though he contradicts himself by the end of the letter, saying that you should 'gently correct others') By the way he describes the problem, it seems that alternate understandings of christianity were occurring and spreading, and that was the problem. These other ways of doing it are apparently not valid at all, per paul.

Fast forward to today, and we know that christianity and the understanding of it is splintered into endless shards. You as a christian, are likely to believe that you have the truth, and therefore you zealously want to share it with whomever will listen, though there is much evident disagreement between you and other christians. So my question is this, are those other christians who disagree with you on the gospel actually cursed in the pauline sense, or are they your allies?

One wonders what kind of a forumer paul would be... would he get banned for castigating everyone with a different understanding then he has, (in the middle of galatians, he apparently wishes his detractors would neuter themselves) or would he be more 'diplomatic' in his 'corrections'

Today's Kintsugi Church is quite beautiful. As, in our area 160+ and growing-in-number churches, of all denominations come together under one banner of Jesus Christ, crucified, risen and coming again for a county-wide effort, Psalm 133 is fulfilled

 

[Brickjectivity]

For per paul in the letter to the galatians, he starts out being noticeably irked by their lack of conformity to whatever was preached to them earlier. (though he contradicts himself by the end of the letter, saying that you should 'gently correct others') By the way he describes the problem, it seems that alternate understandings of christianity were occurring and spreading, and that was the problem. These other ways of doing it are apparently not valid at all, per paul.

Fast forward to today, and we know that christianity and the understanding of it is splintered into endless shards. You as a christian, are likely to believe that you have the truth, and therefore you zealously want to share it with whomever will listen, though there is much evident disagreement between you and other christians. So my question is this, are those other christians who disagree with you on the gospel actually cursed in the pauline sense, or are they your allies?

One wonders what kind of a forumer paul would be... would he get banned for castigating everyone with a different understanding then he has, (in the middle of galatians, he apparently wishes his detractors would neuter themselves) or would he be more 'diplomatic' in his 'corrections'

I don't think so, because Paul indicate that humility is paramount and considering others better than one's self. The people he's arguing against are opposing his humble and diverse approach. They are pressing for conformity. He says if anyone including himself does this let him be accursed, which is like saying 'Of no reputation'.

 

[74x12]

For per paul in the letter to the galatians, he starts out being noticeably irked by their lack of conformity to whatever was preached to them earlier. (though he contradicts himself by the end of the letter, saying that you should 'gently correct others') By the way he describes the problem, it seems that alternate understandings of christianity were occurring and spreading, and that was the problem. These other ways of doing it are apparently not valid at all, per paul.

Fast forward to today, and we know that christianity and the understanding of it is splintered into endless shards. You as a christian, are likely to believe that you have the truth, and therefore you zealously want to share it with whomever will listen, though there is much evident disagreement between you and other christians. So my question is this, are those other christians who disagree with you on the gospel actually cursed in the pauline sense, or are they your allies?

One wonders what kind of a forumer paul would be... would he get banned for castigating everyone with a different understanding then he has, (in the middle of galatians, he apparently wishes his detractors would neuter themselves) or would he be more 'diplomatic' in his 'corrections'

What Galatians needs is context. This was a church that Paul founded himself and taught them everything they knew about the gospel. Then some other people came along who claimed to be apostles also and they were telling the Galatians they needed to be circumcised and obey the Law of Moses to be saved; which Paul never told them. The Galatians were gentiles by the way. So, Paul explains it's incorrect and why. And tells them (Strongly worded) they shouldn't listen to any other gospel than the one he told them already. Saying anyone who brings them another doctrine is "accursed". And he's right.

So that's the context. It's not as if Paul is going around telling random people they're "accursed" because they don't believe like he does. But, you shouldn't tamper with the foundation that was laid.

How I view other Christians who disagree with me varies. Some are well meaning and sincere. That's fine. They should walk in the light as it's given to them. My only point for them is that once you're given new light; do you stop walking even though the light is moving forward? You could end up being left in the dark.

As for people who are accursed. That's up to God. It's really about false teachers. Thing is ... the light given by the early church was great. The scripture says that God even made special miracles by the hands of Paul. (Acts 19:11) And Paul describes the miracles that happened everywhere he went as proof he was a true apostle. (2 Corinthians 12:12) And indeed the other apostles had similar signs. (Acts 5:12) So people opposing an apostle like Paul had little excuse. Paul compares them to Jannes and Jambres in 2 Timothy 3:8. These are the traditional names of the magicians who tried to oppose Moses and Aaron when they were doing miracles/plagues in Egypt. So, at some point when you are seeing incredible miracles taking place; then you're really in trouble if you keep contradicting the visible power of God. Because it's obvious who God is with.

So the greater the light is; the more evil it is to resist it. And what I mean by that is; the more powerful of a witness of God's power; the more evil it is to go against that witness. So take me for example. I'm just some guy talking on the internet. Not a very bright light. But if you saw someone healing leprosy like Jesus. Then that would be a great light. And therefore dangerous(spiritually speaking) to oppose.

 

[Iymus]

So my question is this, are those other christians who disagree with you on the gospel actually cursed in the pauline sense, or are they your allies?

Interesting question.

Even with perceived knowledge I myself could still be cursed based off my application of that knowledge.

Rom 1:21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
Rom 1:22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

It seems the devils believes but has no fruitful application of that belief therefore trembles and is cursed.

Jas 2:18 Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works.
Jas 2:19 Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.

For some people this is probably there kingdom right now and not any to come.

I believe a certain application of what I believe can put me under a curse just as a certain application of others can put them under a curse.

Luk 12:47 And that servant, which knew his lord's will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes.
Luk 12:48 But he that knew not, and did commit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes. For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required: and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more.

 

[LightofTruth]

What Galatians needs is context. This was a church that Paul founded himself and taught them everything they knew about the gospel. Then some other people came along who claimed to be apostles also and they were telling the Galatians they needed to be circumcised and obey the Law of Moses to be saved; which Paul never told them. The Galatians were gentiles by the way. So, Paul explains it's incorrect and why. And tells them (Strongly worded) they shouldn't listen to any other gospel than the one he told them already. Saying anyone who brings them another doctrine is "accursed". And he's right.

So that's the context. It's not as if Paul is going around telling random people they're "accursed" because they don't believe like he does. But, you shouldn't tamper with the foundation that was laid.

How I view other Christians who disagree with me varies. Some are well meaning and sincere. That's fine. They should walk in the light as it's given to them. My only point for them is that once you're given new light; do you stop walking even though the light is moving forward? You could end up being left in the dark.

As for people who are accursed. That's up to God. It's really about false teachers. Thing is ... the light given by the early church was great. The scripture says that God even made special miracles by the hands of Paul. (Acts 19:11) And Paul describes the miracles that happened everywhere he went as proof he was a true apostle. (2 Corinthians 12:12) And indeed the other apostles had similar signs. (Acts 5:12) So people opposing an apostle like Paul had little excuse. Paul compares them to Jannes and Jambres in 2 Timothy 3:8. These are the traditional names of the magicians who tried to oppose Moses and Aaron when they were doing miracles/plagues in Egypt. So, at some point when you are seeing incredible miracles taking place; then you're really in trouble if you keep contradicting the visible power of God. Because it's obvious who God is with.

So the greater the light is; the more evil it is to resist it. And what I mean by that is; the more powerful of a witness of God's power; the more evil it is to go against that witness. So take me for example. I'm just some guy talking on the internet. Not a very bright light. But if you saw someone healing leprosy like Jesus. Then that would be a great light. And therefore dangerous(spiritually speaking) to oppose.

If Paul's gospel is the true gospel then one must know what he knew. One must know who Jesus Christ was and is.

Who is Jesus Christ of whom Paul spoke?

One must know that Jesus Christ was crucified and died.

What does it mean to die?

One must know that Jesus Christ was raised from the dead.

What does it mean to be raised from the dead?

One must know that unless Jesus Christ had died and was raised from the dead then Paul's preaching was empty promises.

Why did Christ have to die and be raised from the dead in order for those baptized into him to have hope?

Is being baptized into Christ necessary?

There are many questions that need to be answered in order to teach the same gospel which Paul preached.

 

[amorphous_constellation]

I don't find most of the doctrinal differences very significant.

You sure... the protestants, at least in america, seem to have radiated out into a profusion of niches. You know that right. There are amish, mormons, snake handlers, churches that speak in tongues, JWs, etc. Their theologically all over the amp

Was the gospel that Paul preached the true gospel?

Or, was the gospel that was preached after Paul the true gospel?

For a person to believe Paul preached the true gospel, he must accept that the Bible contains the true gospel.

He said it was true, and said that the galatians shouldn't listen to other 'gospels.' These people probably didn't have a formalized bible did they, and a lot of them might not have even been able to read

I don't think so, because Paul indicate that humility is paramount and considering others better than one's self. The people he's arguing against are opposing his humble and diverse approach. They are pressing for conformity. He says if anyone including himself does this let him be accursed, which is like saying 'Of no reputation'.

Then what's he doing sending curses around in this letter if people don't want to conform to what he taught? I guess I'm reading the opposite there

 

[amorphous_constellation]

What Galatians needs is context.

I have read a fair bit, so all of the basics don't need to explained

hen some other people came along who claimed to be apostles also and they were telling the Galatians they needed to be circumcised and obey the Law of Moses to be saved; which Paul never told them.

Basically they were just a different christian denomination that was looking to form. They couldn't have been Jews, since they don't go proselytizing.

But if you saw someone healing leprosy like Jesus. Then that would be a great light. And therefore dangerous(spiritually speaking) to oppose.

However, paul says you shouldn't even trust an angel against his word. Surely, a being from heaven could perform miracles more readily than paul, but he states that you could be deceived by it

 

[Brickjectivity]

Then what's he doing sending curses around in this letter if people don't want to conform to what he taught? I guess I'm reading the opposite there

He is not telling people to conform to rigid standards such as those required for circumcision and is not going about accusing anyone. He's just advising these people to ignore folks who try to put the hoodoo on them, these who suggest all kinds of regulations and special standards or shibboleths. We examples of his lessons about this elsewhere such as his comments about holy days: He says if somebody tries to say you have to celebrate holy days that, no, it is up to the individual to decide.

 

[amorphous_constellation]

Even with perceived knowledge I myself could still be cursed based off my application of that knowledge.

R

I guess what he says would seem to warrant that kind of concern. To me, the gist of the letter seems to be that you shouldn't really try perceive all these things in too independent a fashion, if at all

 

[Brickjectivity]

I guess what he says would seem to warrant that kind of concern. To me, the gist of the letter seems to be that you shouldn't really try perceive all these things in too independent a fashion, if at all

Wow. No I definitely don't agree.

 

[amorphous_constellation]

He is not telling people to conform to rigid standards such as those required for circumcision and is not going about accusing anyone. He's just advising these people to ignore folks who try to put the hoodoo on them, these who suggest all kinds of regulations and special standards or shibboleths.

So what do you think this man's view would be of the great diffusion of christian denominations today, if he were here today looking at all of it. There are all sorts of things going on now, surely more than there was then.

 

[amorphous_constellation]

Wow. No I definitely don't agree.

Well, he claims to have the interpretation that is 'not of human origin.' What could humans add to it then

 

[Brickjectivity]

Well, he claims to have the interpretation that is 'not of human origin.' What could humans add to it then

He is a human, and he isn't claiming an interpretation. He's claiming something else. He's claiming that the truth is with God and that people's interpretations are merely that. I don't think he is what we today call a gnostic, but he has some things in common with gnostics. The term 'Accursed' which he uses is not intended as a slander against anyone who disagrees with his interpretations. Its something different than that.

So what do you think this man's view would be of the great diffusion of christian denominations today, if he were here today looking at all of it. There are all sorts of things going on now, surely more than there was then.

The diversity might not concern him, but finger pointing, escapism, leader worship and general refusal to put up with any disagreement probably would. He wrote against these kinds of things. One thing he said was "We cast down argument which exalts itself against the knowledge of God." The knowledge of God is against arguments among humans. The Knowledge of God comes from God. This is where Paul has some things in common with the gnostic sects. So he is against people judging each other, and he is himself a person.

 

[Iymus]

Circumcision to Jews seem like repping American flag to Patriotic Americans. But what good is repping the American flag if you do not believe in the US Constitution?

So what good is the covenant between God and Abraham "circumcision" if you not keeping his commandments and accepting his anointed?

Keeping the US Constitution is more expedient than repping the American Flag.

Keeping the Commandments of God and accepting his anointed is more expedient than circumcision.

1Co 10:23 All things are lawful for me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but all things edify not.

 

[exchemist]

You sure... the protestants, at least in america, seem to have radiated out into a profusion of niches. You know that right. There are amish, mormons, snake handlers, churches that speak in tongues, JWs, etc. Their theologically all over the amp



He said it was true, and said that the galatians shouldn't listen to other 'gospels.' These people probably didn't have a formalized bible did they, and a lot of them might not have even been able to read



Then what's he doing sending curses around in this letter if people don't want to conform to what he taught? I guess I'm reading the opposite there

Re your first point, yes you are right, I don't live in the USA and I am not exposed to the wackiest sects you have over there. When I wrote what I wrote I had in mind the main Protestant churches here (C of E/Episcopalian, Methodist, Presbyterian.) My mother was Anglican and one grandfather was a Methodist minister, so I grew up with a variety of versions of Christianity around.

We do have some JWs, who strike me as fairly bonkers, but mercifully few of the born-again exclusivist types that smugly think they are guaranteed a place in heaven while the rest of us are damned. I do regard that sort of thing as pretty fatuous.

 

[amorphous_constellation]

The term 'Accursed' which he uses is not intended as a slander against anyone who disagrees with his interpretations. Its something different than that.

Well, I guess the greek word is anathema. Whatever it is that the term means, to come back round to primary the question of the op, how is the accusatory mode that the letter goes into supposed to be applicable? Today, we know how cultural diffusion occurs through study with modern anthropology. We know that people are creative and radiate with new approaches to religion for example, with time and distance from other people who start with the same 'root' religion. I guess my argument is that this was what paul was seeing take place, and he didn't like it. But it's hard for a religion to remain unchanged at great distances from its origin