tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2656181765145241350.post4766883499702162874..comments2023-11-02T08:25:17.606-07:00Comments on I wonder as I wander: Jesus vs Paul, Round One.OneSmallStephttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08189124855157679020noreply@blogger.comBlogger14125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2656181765145241350.post-1758048201802931612007-09-17T13:56:00.000-07:002007-09-17T13:56:00.000-07:00Jon,**the heretics sin-bin. **Sin-bin. I love it....Jon,<BR/><BR/>**the heretics sin-bin. **<BR/><BR/>Sin-bin. I love it. :) <BR/><BR/>Fortunatly, I only get thrown in there in online discussions. I don't actually go to church, because I don't "connect" to a sense of the divine, and they often seem to aim for the lowest common denominator. Not in a bad way, but in the sense that you can't get really technical in discussions if odds are good that 70% of the audience isn't familiar with biblical scholarship.<BR/><BR/>Plus, I'm a heretic. It's hard to focus if I'm mentally arguing/commenting on half the doctrinal statements.OneSmallStephttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08189124855157679020noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2656181765145241350.post-15575340081995530342007-09-15T23:28:00.000-07:002007-09-15T23:28:00.000-07:00Heather,"The other reason is that I see the Bible ...Heather,<BR/>"The other reason is that I see the Bible as more of a collection of viewpoints that don't always agree "<BR/>OK, your earlier reply makes a lot more sense to me now, and I can see how such a view would very quickly land you in the heretics sin-bin. However - if it is any comfort to you - I had independently arrived at this very same conclusion a few months back. It is amazing how much your view of the bible determines/influences what "type" of christian you will be.<BR/>JonAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2656181765145241350.post-53770946431329572552007-09-15T05:56:00.000-07:002007-09-15T05:56:00.000-07:00Jon,I think much of why I have no light to offer i...Jon,<BR/><BR/>I think much of why I have no light to offer is because many of my views on Christianity would be considered "heretical" by orthodox Christians. To many, I wouldn't even be considered a Christian. <BR/><BR/>The other reason is that I see the Bible as more of a collection of viewpoints that don't always agree -- so for me, to try and get those examples you pointed out to mesh with Paul's focus on the cross would be ridiculous, because they don't. I'll end up doing what I hate seeing, which is "These don't mean what they actually say, they mean [convuluted answer]." Paul and the Gospel writers had different focuses, different ideas of Jesus' message. Maybe the cross and the resurrection were enough for Paul, and the gospel writers needed more. <BR/><BR/>On a side note, the focus on the cross has always bothered me. It is an important aspect of the NT theology, but it's also the dominating sybmol. The resurrection sometimes seems to get thrown in as an afterthought, even though that almost seems to be more important -- without the resurrection, there's no Christian faith. Without the resurrection, there's no defeat, there's no new life and so forth. Then again, how does one create a symbol of a resurrection? :)OneSmallStephttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08189124855157679020noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2656181765145241350.post-59356855375754406672007-09-14T22:03:00.000-07:002007-09-14T22:03:00.000-07:00"I don't have any light to offer for this"Heather,..."I don't have any light to offer for this"<BR/>Heather, I am astonished that you should reply in this way!!! This seems (to me anyway) to be such a central key foundational part of the whole christian teaching, and indeed go to any average church on any average sunday and they seem to talk and sing and pray an awful lot about the cross.<BR/>Hmmmmmm.<BR/>Am I missing something here?<BR/>JonAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2656181765145241350.post-65358165560166697812007-09-13T14:43:00.000-07:002007-09-13T14:43:00.000-07:00Yael,I posted an answer on your blog. :)Yael,<BR/><BR/>I posted an answer on your blog. :)OneSmallStephttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08189124855157679020noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2656181765145241350.post-47672638284555481642007-09-12T16:17:00.000-07:002007-09-12T16:17:00.000-07:00Heather,I have a similar question I wrote about on...Heather,<BR/>I have a similar question I wrote about on my blog, perhaps you would like to read and give you view. What was the point of God <A HREF="http://yaelbatsarah.wordpress.com/2007/09/04/blessings-2/" REL="nofollow">blessing</A> Ishmael if Ishmael and his descendants were destined to hell? <BR/><BR/>Just like us, they have no belief in Jesus. Now many Christians write us Jews out of the picture saying they have taken over our blessing, but how to explain Ishmael's blessing? <BR/><BR/>I'm curious what you think.Yaelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13940544469922562089noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2656181765145241350.post-26722425970570668132007-09-10T17:33:00.000-07:002007-09-10T17:33:00.000-07:00Hi, Jon F.I appreciate the compliment. :) **is w...Hi, Jon F.<BR/><BR/>I appreciate the compliment. :) <BR/><BR/>**is why has the church always taught that in order for God to be able to offer us both healing and forgiveness, it was necessary for Jesus to die on the cross (to pay for our sins, etc). **<BR/><BR/>Here's another one for your list: if Jesus' death was necessary for forgiveness and healing, then doesn't that contradict the parable of the Prodigal Son? After all, when that son returned, no one had to die, or be punished in the son's place. The father just forgave immediatly, and celebrated. <BR/><BR/>I don't have any light to offer for this. But the book I posted does mention that, in that the gospels show Jesus telling people that their faith saved them, and he doesn't mention that it can only save them after he dies and resurrects. Their faith saved them in that moment.OneSmallStephttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08189124855157679020noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2656181765145241350.post-63444979087870134282007-09-09T18:50:00.000-07:002007-09-09T18:50:00.000-07:00Heather,Although I no longer read or participate i...Heather,<BR/>Although I no longer read or participate in many christian blogs, you are one I keep coming back to becuase of your good old fashioned common sense.<BR/>Here is a question I posted quite a few months back that I never got a straight answer to, but seems very relevant to your post here:<BR/><BR/>"Ask most Christians what the central element or theme of their religion is and they will probably say ‘The Cross’.<BR/><BR/>Where does forgiveness come from? - the cross<BR/>Where does healing come from? - the cross<BR/><BR/>Listen to the songs and prayers on an average Sunday morning service - by far the majority will have as their central theme the cross.<BR/><BR/>I was reading Mathew 8 and 9, and these bits struck me:<BR/><BR/>Math 8:16-17, Jesus healed many demon-possessed and sick people, and Mathew remarks that “this was to fulfill what was spoken through the prophet Isaiah “He took up our infirmities and carried our diseases”" <BR/>Math 9:2, Jesus healed a paralytic man, then said to him “take heart, son; your sins are forgiven” <BR/>Now my question, having read this, is why has the church always taught that in order for God to be able to offer us both healing and forgiveness, it was necessary for Jesus to die on the cross (to pay for our sins, etc). BUT, in the above account we see Jesus quite happily did both of these things before the cross! He didn’t say to these people ‘look, I’d love to forgive your sins but just wait 2 or 3 years until I’ve died on cross, and then I’ll forgive you’. No … He just went right ahead and said ‘Your sins are forgiven!’ He even offered eternal salvation to the dying thief who hung on a cross beside him, telling him ‘today you will be in paradise’ BEFORE He had died!<BR/><BR/>Can anyone shed some light on this for me?<BR/><BR/>"Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2656181765145241350.post-23315815134392186212007-09-08T09:08:00.000-07:002007-09-08T09:08:00.000-07:00Mike,**That means that the gospels are often attem...Mike,<BR/><BR/>**That means that the gospels are often attempts to bring Pauls ideas to light.**<BR/><BR/>I've also heard some put forth the arguments that the gospels were meant to refute some of Paul's teachings. I don't hold with either view, really, although I'm sure the writers of the gospels were aware of Paul and his influences. It is interesting, though, because Paul doesn't really seem to care about Jesus' life, and yet clearly the gospel writers felt Jesus' actual sayings and actions were important enough to preserve -- and not just in the Bible, but in stuff such as the gospel of Thomas. Think of how different things would be if we didn't have the gospels. <BR/>Pastor Bob,<BR/><BR/>**I think of the various descriptions of the reason for and the effect of Jesus' death as metaphors and that none of them are sufficient to describe the fully picture. **<BR/><BR/>Oh, bless you. That's one of the frustrating things about the atonement theories, because to say that one alone is the only theory really simplifies the Bible. And the Bible is an incredibly complex work. Which is also why the four spiritual laws frustrate me, because it's like "Christianity for an infant." <BR/><BR/>**Matthew in the Sermon on the Mount I think is making Jesus the new law giver.** Are you saying this in the sense that the people understood it to be the new law at that moment, or it was understood to be the new law after the ascension? <BR/><BR/>I would agree with you in terms of the "new law" in the sense that it compacts the 613 laws into two very simple commandments: love God, love neighbor as self. But Jesus was also presenting a clearer picture of God, making God more universal, in that you don't just love those who love you, you eliminate the sin at the source, not just by controlling actions. Because it would be a lot easier to not lust after people/things if the lust wasn't internal.OneSmallStephttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08189124855157679020noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2656181765145241350.post-9667282277269458752007-09-07T22:20:00.000-07:002007-09-07T22:20:00.000-07:00HeatherFirst I agree with you. I think of the var...Heather<BR/><BR/>First I agree with you. I think of the various descriptions of the reason for and the effect of Jesus' death as metaphors and that none of them are sufficient to describe the fully picture. <BR/><BR/>But also I think that Matthew and the other gospel writers had their own purposes in writing. Matthew in the Sermon on the Mount I think is making Jesus the new law giver. I suspect that the gospel writers had the same issue that Paul had: they wrote to deal with problems in their communities.Pastor Bobhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07787179002120424157noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2656181765145241350.post-53386918897184812372007-09-06T06:02:00.000-07:002007-09-06T06:02:00.000-07:00The difference between the two could even be great...The difference between the two could even be greater than it appears. One thing to remember is that the Gospels writers had likely read pauls letters BEFORE creating their narratives. That means that the gospels are often attempts to bring Pauls ideas to light. My guess is that Paul developed some metaphorical themes about Jesus: bringing life through his death, being a sacrifice, setting Jesus' events in light of the Jewish calendar, being the messiah, etc. Then the Gospel writers come along and put flesh on the bone by crafting stories to make Paul's ideas come to life.Mike L.https://www.blogger.com/profile/15978997781556741350noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2656181765145241350.post-22797902511454454302007-09-05T19:50:00.000-07:002007-09-05T19:50:00.000-07:00HIS,I don't think the sermons were delivered in a ...HIS,<BR/><BR/>I don't think the sermons were delivered in a straight-shot, either. There's too much of a mixture, as you say, with the light of the world, and then calling people bad. I do find that particular line interesting, given that "bad" people do good things by feeding their children bread instead of stones ... I often wonder if Jesus was using that allegorically, in a way. It's just the basic tone of the Sermon, when read in all the chapters, doesn't come across as telling people how inerently bad they are, but rather show people the final picture of God, the piece they were missing. That God was bigger than they ever imagined, and in turn, they had more potential than they could dream of. <BR/><BR/>Ultimately, though, I think both explanations traditionally provided give a simplistic view of the Sermons. There's a lot of complexity there, especially with Jesus saying those who act on his words are the smart ones. And the fact that Jesus calls people evil/bad in one area seems to get used to interpret the other statements, rather than letting the other statements interpret the bad/evil. Or just let them stand on their own. <BR/><BR/>Society,<BR/><BR/>**Actually I think Paul seen the same thing in Jesus also.** Quiet all right. :)<BR/><BR/>The complication I would see in Paul says just have faith is that Paul gives a specific guideline: faith in the resurrection, the crucifixion, dying for one's sins. <BR/><BR/>There is much of Paul I like -- but I can also see the extremity that the author references in the passages I quoted, because there are sections in the letters that come across that way (to me). In a lot of ways, I get the impression from the letters that anything Jesus said leading up to the crucifixion was of secondary importance to Paul -- that it's not important what Jesus said or did. The salvation occured through the cross and the resurrection, and for the Synoptic Gospels, people's faith saved them before there even was a cross. <BR/><BR/>Then again, I somewhat find Paul all over the map, in a way.OneSmallStephttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08189124855157679020noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2656181765145241350.post-85480426984695314412007-09-05T19:16:00.000-07:002007-09-05T19:16:00.000-07:00I think your take on the gospels is eerily similar...I think your take on the gospels is eerily similar to mine - I get that same information from just a basic read of it (when all denominational doctrine is set aside). I agree with you on this view of the gospels. <BR/><BR/>Where I tend to disagree is with how Paul is seen in all this. Actually I think Paul seen the same thing in Jesus also. If Paul mentions Jesus - he could very well be meaning the same thing the gospels do also - 'follow Jesus - that same path' - so when he says things like Christ crucified matters a lot - it makes sense. This was not a path Jesus himself did not forsee - it was a teaching of his - 'take up the cross'. To me Paul is not very troubling at all - I read the gospels and him - I see calls to action in both (about guarding your character).<BR/><BR/>But to be honest, I see Paul as a letter writer to the Gentiles - trying to explain to them their acceptance into the faith in Jesus. I think Paul does get into the atonement idea like no one else - but even this I am willing to re-check into. <BR/><BR/>But again, it's something I haven't read a lot into - maybe they were a little diverse (Jesus and Paul) - but wouldn't the gospels be the 'sticking point' and Paul a letter-writer (breaking down more about the faith to a new crowd?)? I guess that's how I see it - so I have to give the weight to a book like Matthew - more than a Romans (which basically is all about inclusion about the Gentiles). I find people take pieces of Paul to write doctrine - but not in the fuller context they are trying to relate - since Paul, unlike Jesus, isn't about a wide range of teachings - but focuses on one mainly (inclusion - and addresses problems in those communities).SocietyVshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10892870801259282254noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2656181765145241350.post-41709473358555509512007-09-05T18:18:00.000-07:002007-09-05T18:18:00.000-07:00Heather, a great topic as always. My old church (...Heather, a great topic as always. My old church (Calvary Chapel, numerous baptist churches) went with your second option on the sermon on the mount. It was designed to show us all how far we are from God's ideal, or as Jesus said in the Sermon, "Therefore, be ye perfect".<BR/><BR/>I have to say Heather, that does make some sense to me. I do think that the Sermon on the Mount is a collection of sayings from Jesus, and the mount, (or valley if you read Luke) is just a fictional backdrop. Now Jesus can tell the crowds that they are the light of the world, which is great. But later in the same sermon, he calls them evil (eg Matt 7:11), presumably in comarison against a perfectly good God. How can the common folks be the light of the world, salt of the earth, and yet evil at the same time?HeIsSailinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09154368305822276669noreply@blogger.com