It seems like there actually may be two religions here, Christianity and Paulianism.
It seems like there actually may be two religions here, Christianity and Paulianism.
It seems like there actually may be two religions here, Christianity and Paulianism.
Pretty much no serious critical scholar will deny a development of doctrine by Paul and his followers. Christians however will deny it with a passion.
>a development of doctrine
That is a sneaky way to put it. Paul had revelation of doctrine beyond what already existed, but this didn't contradict anything that was already revealed in the Old Testament or the rest of the New Testament. It explained it all more fully, since God was the one who inspired all of the writings of the apostles. But, if by "development of doctrine," you secretly actually mean "contradicting what was already taught," then yes Christians will disagree. As it says in Galatians 1:9, "As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed."
Paul was constantly calling out where other people were changing and perverting the Gospel. That was what God had him do, and it doesn't contradict what the apostles taught generally, indeed it meshes perfectly with it and explains it. I would also say that upon reflection and study, the whole Bible is actually remarkably consistent, from the beginning to the end. The Bible was clearly revealed by our Creator as opposed to all other things which are manmade and not inspired. Non-biblical writings clearly lack that quality of truth, they are clearly fallible and just aren't the same as God's word.
"We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:
Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost."
- 2 Peter 1:19-21
Amen.
>That is a sneaky way to put it.
Actually, its the polite way to put it. A more blunt person might say he essentially made up new doctrines, based on his "visions" if you believe that, and he tried very hard to convince Peter is ideas were right.
> But, if by "development of doctrine," you secretly actually mean "contradicting what was already taught," then yes Christians will disagree.
Yet we know there were groups of Christians in the 1st and 2nde centuries that would have agreed. There were Christians who did not like Paul very much. On the other side, there were even sects that thought the other Apostles didn't get it so God Sent Paul to correct them. That the Pauline sect survived on the others by in large do not, is not proof that Paul was the one in the right, that's absurd thinking.
>2 Peter
Neither first nor second Peter was actually written by Peter.
>Actually, its the polite way to put it.
It's definitely sneaky. For example, a person saying what you said can pretend like they didn't say want to or mean to say Paul added new doctrines, even though that's what is being vaguely implied. It's intellectually dishonest though. The whole politeness thing is just an excuse to be ambiguous rather than be honest and forthright about things right away.
A more blunt person would be more immediately easy to detect and less like someone who is lurking and won't come clean about exactly what they mean, but simply wants to make insinuations.
>Yet we know there were groups of Christians in the 1st and 2nde centuries that would have agreed.
The person who told you that is redefining what being a Christian means. That's another dishonest tactic. Gnostics aren't and never were Christians, nor Judaizers or other false prophets. They never were Christians, not historically, not now. You know this based on what the Bible says and what it condemns. It's very clear.
>There were Christians who did not like Paul very much.
People who reject the inspired Scripture were outside of Christianity though. It's always been that way. I understand why non-Christian academic scholars now are trying so hard to redefine and change things. I believe it's because they hate the God of the Bible and in all times they are constantly making these attempts to change and redefine things. Why? Because they want nothing more than to undermine the cause of Christ. Just so you know, anon, the Bible and what it says isn't changing, and it never has changed.
>That the Pauline sect survived on the others by in large do not, is not proof that Paul was the one in the right, that's absurd thinking.
That's not what I'm saying, though. What I said is all you have to do is look at what the Bible actually says. The book of Acts tells us exactly what happened with Paul. The book of Second Peter directly states that his writings are considered Scripture.
>That's another dishonest tactic. Gnostics aren't and never were Christians, nor Judaizers or other false prophets. They never were Christians, not historically, not now. You know this based on what the Bible says and what it condemns. It's very clear.
That's absurd logic. There is no universally agreed upon definition of who is and is not a Christian, and in terms of history there is little reason to label groups with historic ties to Christianity, that consider themselves Christian, as non-Christians.
"Gnostics" was how the proto-orthodox identified some of their opponents. They did not call themselves gnostics, they called themselves Christian. And of course the bible discludes these groups, it was put together by proto-orthodox, Pauline christians that discluded them. It wasn't handed down by God in some divine act, It wasn't even completely agreed upon: Reformed, Catholics and Orthodox all have slightly different biblical cannons, and yet no reasonable person would argue all three of those are not types of Christian, at least as far as the public is concerned. Likewise the various sects had their own lists of valid books. In fact the oldest list comes not from the proto-orthodox but someone they labeled a heretic.
> understand why non-Christian academic scholars now are trying so hard to redefine and change things. I believe it's because they hate the God of the Bible and in all times they are constantly making these attempts to change and redefine things.
Because their job is not to assume the bible is true, and work backwards from there. You wouldn't take seriously an academic that assumed the Koran is true and worked backwards from that assumption, would you?
>What I said is all you have to do is look at what the Bible actually says
You can't expect academics, outside maybe theology, to take the bible and faith for granted, even if they believe, they need to work off the accepted standard on anything they publish or teach professionally.
>In fact the oldest list comes not from the proto-orthodox but someone they labeled a heretic.
It comes from Marcion because he was trying to change it. Yes I know.
These people are plagiarists, like Mormons, Muhammad and the rest of them. They don't know or understand the power of God which is far beyond their ability to know or even grasp. It is so beyond them, that words can't even begin to describe how blind they are, and how easy therefore it is to see through their cheap bootleg version of things. They're trying to replicate something that they have zero ability to understand. They can't even begin to understand the most basic of basics as to why their fraud is so easily detectable. And this is because to them it's all the same, due to their utter, complete spiritual blindness. You can't sit here and expect me to act like it's the same for even a second. The difference is like night and day.
>Reformed, Catholics and Orthodox all have slightly different biblical cannons
The apocrypha is clearly not inspired.
>Because their job is not to assume the bible is true, and work backwards from there.
They assume that it's not true, while proceeding merrily along and pretending not to have made an a priori conclusion, but they actually did.
>You can't expect academics, outside maybe theology, to take the bible and faith for granted
There are those who pretend to be Christian leaders though. I constantly see people who follow rationalist higher criticism in principle, but they claim to be spiritual leaders. They are out there pushing these new translations and things all the time. Still, they don't tell you up front that they are operating under assumptions that the Bible isn't true, and that they inwardly think they can change it to whatever they want. Because to them, it's just a meaningless infinitely malleable thing. But they don't openly say that, and make outward displays and professions to get people to think they believe it.
>It comes from Marcion because he was trying to change it.
You can't change something that doesn't exist. No one, as far as we know, bothered to compile a list before him.
>The apocrypha is clearly not inspired.
Well both the Catholics and Orthodox disagree. That is by far the majority of Christians, and arguably the oldest continuous Christian institutions. If your definition of Christian does not include those groups than your definition is absurd.
>They assume that it's not true,
That is wrong, many are believers.
>pretending not to have made an a priori conclusion,
Like it or not, there is hundreds of years of biblical research behind us, that suggests the bible is not all Christianity has claimed. You can argue against it as a scholar but you cant just dismiss all the research as the work of athiests and satanists and not address it.
>. I constantly see people who follow rationalist higher criticism in principle, but they claim to be spiritual leaders.
Maybe the assume that the bible contains spiritual truths separate from whether it is a literal and accurate account of events. This is reasonable, as the alternative point of view you suggest is inconsistent with our current understanding of material reality and history. You would have to declare: "The evidence is against my faith, but I still choose my faith". to have any claim to being intellectually honest and informed.
>You can't sit here and expect me to act like it's the same for even a second. The difference is like night and day.
I expect you have have the humility to at least entertain, for a moment, the idea your subjective experiences of the faith and the discernment there of are not universal, and that people who believe opposite you might be acting in good faith.
>That is wrong, many are believers.
Not if someone assumes it's not true they aren't. If a person has already decided that they need to reject biblical claims a minimum percentage of the time to remain "kosher," and accepted within certain circles, then they will always find things to argue against. Each individual will always find some silly thing to rail against, which becomes their stumbling stone. The thing I find interesting though is that no two critics can agree on what exactly the problem is, they just "know" that the Bible wrong, but without explaining or being able to explain why. That is their one common touchpoint. Working from that assumption, they have been trying for centuries in various ways to undermine the faith. All have failed, in time. Each failure gives rise to a new falsehood to take its place, another lie. But we know already that such attempts will ultimately fail.
They have to make you believe that they are acting from a purely neutral, impartial perspective on things. The reality though is everyone approaches metaphysical questions loaded with presuppositions. That's the fact of it. Because the scientific method was never developed to even inform those kinds of inquiries. The higher critical approach was invented as an explicitly anti-Christian way of viewing things. By way of sophistry, this worldview dishonestly and grotesquely masquerades as something it is not, i.e. objective science, leading to what we see today. It is not science, it has been falsely called that. Paul warned against it. It's the same thing that has led to what can be seen today.
>the bible contains spiritual truths separate from whether it is a literal and accurate account of events.
If Jesus Christ did not rise from the dead, there is no point to any of it. Paul said this in 1 Corinthians 15. If people think Jesus was nothing more than a good teacher, they haven't really bothered to learn His teachings. There is none good, save one, that is, God.
> that no two critics can agree on what exactly the problem is,
No, plenty of critical scholars agree on all sorts of things.
>hey have to make you believe that they are acting from a purely neutral, impartial perspective on things.
No, they would not. This alone is proof you haven't interacted with them much. The process they use tries to weight evidence is a logical manner, but few would argue they have no presuppositions. But this work is collaborative. the senior scholars dont just declare something true and no one else questions it ever.
>The reality though is everyone approaches metaphysical questions loaded with presuppositions.
Yes they are. the only presupposition you have bought up have to do with the truth of Christianity however, none of those, either for or against are fundamental presuppositions of the field.
>The higher critical approach was invented as an explicitly anti-Christian way of viewing things
This is wrong on so multiple levels. The critical method was pioneered by professing Christians. (whether you consider them Christians is not the issue, they considered themselves Christian so calling their method explicitly anti-christian is silly). And the higher critical method is basically the same methods used on most works from the same period as the bible. It is just treating the bible like any other book from that time. Before that scholars in the west tended to just assume the bible was accurate. If the bible is true, as you claim, the historical critical method should have validated it, not raised hard questions.
> By way of sophistry, this worldview dishonestly and grotesquely masquerades as something it is not, i.e. objective science,
No, few historians or critical scholars would use the word "science" to describe what they do. On the other hand, physical science does have some things to say about dating the universe and a bunch of stuff here on earth that contradicts a literal interpretation of the bible.
(Continued)
It seems to me, and I think we have had this argument before, you will not entertain for a moment that your discernment or faith might be a mistake on your part, Or entertain thought experiments like "Consider for a moment if the Buddhists are right?"
This is so contrary how I think about things it just comes off as prideful arrogance. I know that you see it as simply insisting of truth. But, from where I stand, what you consider truth is factually incorrect, and your presuppositions far more about finding the conclusion you have already decided on than the academics you rail against. They at the very least start with the premise they could be proven wrong with the right evidence.
You realize I never said I believe in myself? I believe in He who was before me. That's who no one can ever prove wrong.
>You would have to declare: "The evidence is against my faith, but I still choose my faith".
I actually don't think the evidence is against the faith. I gladly claim this faith as my own.
>the idea your subjective experiences of the faith and the discernment there of are not universal
My subjective experiences aren't relevant to what I've been claiming. And I wouldn't bring them up, either. But as far as discernment is involved, of course not. The Bible makes it very clear that some people are able to discern while others are completely blind. That doesn't mean all views are equal though, even though the blind (I should say, the spiritually blind) might think so.
>that people who believe opposite you might be acting in good faith.
Good intentions is not the point of this either. However, acting in good faith will invariably lead to the ascertaining of the truth. If someone who believes opposite of me right now is trying to grow and find the truth, they will find it. The only ones who won't find it are those who aren't looking. Luke 11:9-13.
Christ fulfilled the Law and abolished it. He fulfilled the Law by making it clear to walk in the Spirit and not in the flesh. Thus abolishing at the old law.
There is no conflict.
>t. Satan
>Cut off part of your dick as a blood sacrifice to my Canaanite flood god
>NOOO? You must be a demon
Paul was based and philosophically correct.
St Paul used to be a pharisee so for him the law was the perverted version of the pharisees with it's hypocrisy and legalism. In his perspective, Jesus got rid of it.
Also, St Paul's letters were likely written before the gospels, so this was to make clear they weren't going to get rid of everything. St Paul also literally heavily criticised the churches' actions, so it's not like actions weren't important.
Atheists are so intellectually moronic and dishonest, as if nobody has seen these verses before and you morons think you've discovered some epic gotcha. Didn't even read it, loser, your deliberate misinterpretation is just a spam thread, you're just spamming IQfy loser.
Not what he said, but praise God lying trash like you will perish.
>Also, St Paul's letters were likely written before the gospels
1 Timothy 5:18 quotes directly from Luke 10:7.
>1 Timothy
And most scholars don't think this one was written by Paul.
>1 Timothy 5:18 quotes directly from Luke 10:7.
Or St Luke quoted St Paul. Kinda hard to tell since they used to accompany one another.
Yes. Good way to put it. Just to make things extra clear. Luke was Paul's physician and he gave authority to Peter, so it's unlikely they would be opposed like OP tries to claim.
Dear Da Crusher,
There is no contradiction between these teachings. Jesus does not abolish the moral law, but brings them into their full meaning. The old Mosaic Law has been fulfilled in the new Law which is of grace and faith. The "end" or "telos" of the law is to bring us into full communion with God through Christ. It is not through knowing the law that we are saved, but by knowing Christ, for if we know Christ the law will be no longer required. The law was our first teacher, but Christ is the school master.
So can we eat bacon or nah?
>The problem isn't the people who are violating the 613 commandments. The real problem is the people who have a problem with people violating the 613 commandments. Don't judge bro. Peace, love, and tolerance.