After 40 years of taking Christianity for granted, I have some really big questions.

[Christy B]

I'm open to all answers.

 

Okay, starting with a BIG presupposition that God created, man sinned, Jesus came, lived, died, rose again:

 

1. Is it my imagination, or does Paul say a lot of stuff that Jesus never said? It seems like all the big rules and all the organized church stuff came from Paul, not Jesus.

 

2. Who decided that Paul's letters got to be on equal footing with the gospel? There were 10 commandments in the Old Testament; two commandments in the New Testament; and then a slew of rules and regulations, most establishing a completely male-dominated system of authority known as "the church" in Paul's letters. It works out very conveniently, giving a very small group of men a very large measure of control over a huge number of people. So, there had to be a specific point in time in which a specific group of people decided to make Paul's letters part of the canon of scripture. That specific group of people were . . . . church leaders? Is it my imagination, or is that kind of hinky?

 

3. Are there people who believe (as in, sincerely believe in Jesus as a redeeming Savior) who reject Paul's letters as inspired scripture? Or is that heresy?

 

4. Assuming Paul's writings are inspired: How does one read Romans 5 and come away with the understanding that Jesus only died to save some people, not all? Thinking especially of verses 18 and 19. "18 Therefore, as through one man’s offense judgment came to all men, resulting in condemnation, even so through one Man’s righteous act the free gift came to all men, resulting in justification of life. 19 For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so also by one Man’s obedience many will be made righteous."

 

How (and maybe more importantly, WHY) is it so important for "all men" to mean that ALL men are sinners, but somehow we have to explain "all men" to mean something altogether different when it comes to how many people Jesus saves? Why can't it mean that all people are sinners, and Jesus died for all people, and therefore all people are saved? This is when I wish I could read the original Greek. Is there anyone here who is a Universalist? Because I think that actually makes more sense than what I've been taught all my life.

 

5. When pastors can take a verse of Scripture and pretty much make it say what they want it to say, and pretty much every denomination can take a verse and make it say something different, where is the credibility of religion? And I'm talking about sincere pastors, don't even get me started on the scary, cult-y, creepy ones.

 

That's all the questions I can put into words at the moment.

[Melinda in VT]

I'm open to all answers.

 

Okay, starting with a BIG presupposition that God created, man sinned, Jesus came, lived, died, rose again:

 

1. Is it my imagination, or does Paul say a lot of stuff that Jesus never said? It seems like all the big rules and all the organized church stuff came from Paul, not Jesus.

 

2. Who decided that Paul's letters got to be on equal footing with the gospel? There were 10 commandments in the Old Testament; two commandments in the New Testament; and then a slew of rules and regulations, most establishing a completely male-dominated system of authority known as "the church" in Paul's letters. It works out very conveniently, giving a very small group of men a very large measure of control over a huge number of people. So, there had to be a specific point in time in which a specific group of people decided to make Paul's letters part of the canon of scripture. That specific group of people were . . . . church leaders? Is it my imagination, or is that kind of hinky?

 

3. Are there people who believe (as in, sincerely believe in Jesus as a redeeming Savior) who reject Paul's letters as inspired scripture? Or is that heresy?

 

4. Assuming Paul's writings are inspired: How does one read Romans 5 and come away with the understanding that Jesus only died to save some people, not all? Thinking especially of verses 18 and 19. "18 Therefore, as through one man’s offense judgment came to all men, resulting in condemnation, even so through one Man’s righteous act the free gift came to all men, resulting in justification of life. 19 For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so also by one Man’s obedience many will be made righteous."

 

How (and maybe more importantly, WHY) is it so important for "all men" to mean that ALL men are sinners, but somehow we have to explain "all men" to mean something altogether different when it comes to how many people Jesus saves? Why can't it mean that all people are sinners, and Jesus died for all people, and therefore all people are saved? This is when I wish I could read the original Greek. Is there anyone here who is a Universalist? Because I think that actually makes more sense than what I've been taught all my life.

 

5. When pastors can take a verse of Scripture and pretty much make it say what they want it to say, and pretty much every denomination can take a verse and make it say something different, where is the credibility of religion? And I'm talking about sincere pastors, don't even get me started on the scary, cult-y, creepy ones.

 

That's all the questions I can put into words at the moment.

 

Although it won't address all of your questions, you may find The First Paul by Marcus Borg and John Dominic Crossan an interesting read.

[ktgrok]

I could have written your exact post at one point. Seriously...especially the stuff about Paul!!! There is a great book called "The Moral Teachings of Paul" that might interest you. It is short and quick to read.

 

I have no answers, but generally don't hold Paul up to the same light most do. As for who is saved, I don't even think/worry about it. I figure God knows, and that is all that matters. I only worry about my salvation, not anyone elses.

[Guest]

You are not alone in thinking this way. I think there's plenty of "good advice" in Paul's epistles, but I don't put them on the same footing as the instructions of Jesus. I have my notions that Jesus did not intend to start a religion, either, but I know I go into the grey area where die-hard Christians dare not tread with those statements.

 

I tend towards more Universalist thinking that would not be condoned by most Christians. My views are usually thought heretical.

[Onceuponatime]

Although it won't address all of your questions, you may find The First Paul by Marcus Borg and John Dominic Crossan an interesting read.

 

:iagree:

 

I recommend their books about Jesus as well.

 

 

ETA: Paul's letters were written before the gospels. There is question among some christians whether Paul is the actual author of all the letters attributed to him. It is said that Paul's true letters are the ones that advocate equality of Jews, Gentiles, Males, Females, Slaves, and Free. This teaching was so radical that other letters may have been written and attributed to Paul in order to temper his teachings along cultural lines.

 

There are many historical views about the various books of the Bible and New Testament. It is not a simple subject. Even the Gospels have questions surrounding authorship, contradictions of scripture, and historical accuracy. What was the real message of Jesus? Are there real places called heaven and hell? What is the Kingdom of God about? These are very interesting questions to pursue and may lead you down roads you never thought you would take. I've found it freeing and disturbing at the same time.

Edited July 2, 2012 by Onceuponatime

[Recovering Sociopath]

You might find Tom Wright's work very helpful, especially What St. Paul Really Said (self explanatory) and The Last Word, his book on what it actually means when we talk about "the authority of Scripture" (hint: not what most fundies think).

 

Wright is the former Bishop of Durham, one of the most formidable living New Testament scholars, and a down-to-earth, kind, thoughtful person. I LOVE his books.

[PinkInTheBlue]

Paul's writings and the Book of Job are what led to my disallusionment with the Bible. That and studying the history of the formation of the Bible. I don't think Paul's words are even an echo of what Jesus would have said. I've always imagined if I met him (Paul) he'd be a woman-hating jerk. ;) But, seriously, that's just my opinion. I spent a long time wondering the same things you are.

[Dory]

I think this is a case of meaning being lost in the translation. In the Greek the word many would be best understood as the masses. But really, Paul was jewish and more than likely much of his writings were probably in Hebrew. In Hebrew the word Khol would have been used as all but the word for the second would've been the word that is used for nations, or masses. Which means that although in English, when we say many or all they are definitely different things, if it was worded as all, and the nations, or the masses, would they really be different, or would it be more of Paul trying to put into words the enormous number of people that this all included? This is just me thinking and I thought I'd share what was running through my mind. I might be way out in left field.

 

 

I don't read much of my scripture after the gospels. There wasn't anything new after Jesus anyway. He did say, it is finished.

Edited July 1, 2012 by Dory

[Dory]

You are not alone in thinking this way. I think there's plenty of "good advice" in Paul's epistles, but I don't put them on the same footing as the instructions of Jesus. I have my notions that Jesus did not intend to start a religion, either, but I know I go into the grey area where die-hard Christians dare not tread with those statements.

 

I tend towards more Universalist thinking that would not be condoned by most Christians. My views are usually thought heretical.

 

Nope Jesus sure didn't. He came to complete things. Put the finishing touches on it all. Not start something new.

[Halcyon]

 

4. Assuming Paul's writings are inspired: How does one read Romans 5 and come away with the understanding that Jesus only died to save some people, not all? Thinking especially of verses 18 and 19. "18 Therefore, as through one man’s offense judgment came to all men, resulting in condemnation, even so through one Man’s righteous act the free gift came to all men, resulting in justification of life. 19 For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so also by one Man’s obedience many will be made righteous."

 

How (and maybe more importantly, WHY) is it so important for "all men" to mean that ALL men are sinners, but somehow we have to explain "all men" to mean something altogether different when it comes to how many people Jesus saves? Why can't it mean that all people are sinners, and Jesus died for all people, and therefore all people are saved? This is when I wish I could read the original Greek. Is there anyone here who is a Universalist? Because I think that actually makes more sense than what I've been taught all my

 

I believe in universal salvation. You can learn more about it here.

 

I could go on and on about it :tongue_smilie: i believe that God cannot fail, and that to allow anY of his children to live in eternal torment would be to concede failure, that He cannot save certain people. There's more that i could say, but read the Wikipedia first. Another good book that i like is The Inescapable Love of God and Raising Hell (which you can get for 3 bucks on Amazon for kindle)

[Kari C in SC]

I don't have ANY answers, but I can tell you I think along the same lines as you.

[dangermom]

I really enjoyed a short (too short) book called Paul Among the People. Paul gets a reputation as Mr. Grumpy-Pants, but I think a lot of that is because we have little understanding of the issues he was dealing with and the cultures. When we come to an understanding of what he was trying to say, I find him easy to admire. But I also do not assume that his solutions for 1st-century cultures are what I have to do--women wearing veils in church had a certain meaning in his day that no longer holds in my culture. What is the intent behind his advice? (In that case, it was to make all women in the congregation equal and respected, so that none of them felt inferior and worldly social status was erased.)

 

I certainly believe that Jesus died to save all of us. I am not a Universalist, because some few people will say no and refuse to be saved, and they have to be free to make that choice. But of course Jesus died to save all of us, and he wants us all to choose Him. He gives us many, many chances to do so, even after this life, so that no one will be lost--unless they freely choose that.

 

Because people can indeed twist scripture to say anything they want it to, we must, in the end, rely on the Holy Spirit to confirm us in truth. The Spirit testifies of truth.

[fischerl]

I've been lately wondering about your #4 question regarding Jesus coming to save some, not all. I don't have answers for you yet (I'm still mulling things over and praying for clarity), but one article I've found helpful is here: http://www.gotquestions.org/limited-atonement.html

 

Maybe it'll help you in your search...

[Food4Thought]

I could have written your exact post at one point. Seriously...especially the stuff about Paul!!! There is a great book called "The Moral Teachings of Paul" that might interest you. It is short and quick to read.

 

I have no answers, but generally don't hold Paul up to the same light most do. As for who is saved, I don't even think/worry about it. I figure God knows, and that is all that matters. I only worry about my salvation, not anyone elses.

 

This summarizes my feelings pretty well. I'm a pastor's wife and so I often struggle with these concepts. I consider the zealous character of Paul prior to his conversion followed by his zealous character after his conversion and think he's a lot like my mother, who traded an addiction to alcohol for an addiction to church.

 

However, it does not alter my belief in God or in the spiritual realm or in the idea that Jesus saw something on a much deeper level and promised that it is available to anyone. I also tend to think rather oddly about what I believe the Kingdom of God to be, which goes into a kind of theoretical physics type of explanation that no one can understand but me... so I just keep it to myself. (I'm a Conservative Baptist. This message may or may not self-destruct soonish. Just wanted you to know you're not alone in thinking about these things.)

[Parrothead]

1. Is it my imagination, or does Paul say a lot of stuff that Jesus never said? It seems like all the big rules and all the organized church stuff came from Paul, not Jesus.

True, but nothing Paul said goes against the Gospels.

 

2. Who decided that Paul's letters got to be on equal footing with the gospel? There were 10 commandments in the Old Testament; two commandments in the New Testament; and then a slew of rules and regulations, most establishing a completely male-dominated system of authority known as "the church" in Paul's letters. It works out very conveniently, giving a very small group of men a very large measure of control over a huge number of people. So, there had to be a specific point in time in which a specific group of people decided to make Paul's letters part of the canon of scripture. That specific group of people were . . . . church leaders? Is it my imagination, or is that kind of hinky?

The First Council of Nicaea.

 

3. Are there people who believe (as in, sincerely believe in Jesus as a redeeming Savior) who reject Paul's letters as inspired scripture? Or is that heresy?

Not any present day Christians that I've ever read about.

 

4. Assuming Paul's writings are inspired: How does one read Romans 5 and come away with the understanding that Jesus only died to save some people, not all?

There are lots of people in the world who reject Jesus. His death won't save them.

 

Thinking especially of verses 18 and 19. "18 Therefore, as through one man’s offense judgment came to all men, resulting in condemnation, even so through one Man’s righteous act the free gift came to all men, resulting in justification of life. 19 For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so also by one Man’s obedience many will be made righteous."

Again, not all people follow Christanity. According to many Christian religions the non-followers won't be saved.

 

How (and maybe more importantly, WHY) is it so important for "all men" to mean that ALL men are sinners, but somehow we have to explain "all men" to mean something altogether different when it comes to how many people Jesus saves? Why can't it mean that all people are sinners, and Jesus died for all people, and therefore all people are saved?

Yes, (Catholics believe) that all men are sinners (due to Original Sin). If all people follow Christ, all people will be saved. Again, that doesn't happen. Humans have free will and can reject the gift of salvation.

 

This is when I wish I could read the original Greek. Is there anyone here who is a Universalist? Because I think that actually makes more sense than what I've been taught all my life.

I can't help with that.

 

5. When pastors can take a verse of Scripture and pretty much make it say what they want it to say, and pretty much every denomination can take a verse and make it say something different, where is the credibility of religion? And I'm talking about sincere pastors, don't even get me started on the scary, cult-y, creepy ones.

All I can offer is a Catholic POV. The Church teaches what the Bible and Sacred Tradition teaches. Deviating from those teaching puts one in schism. So there isn't much deviating. And today Catholic parishioners won't hesitate to call the priest/deacon/religious on something that deviated from the teaching of the magisterium. All of our beliefs are spelled out in the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Everything in the Catechism can be found in Sacred Scripture.

 

Good luck in your search. :grouphug:

 

ETA: If you have questions we would be glad to have you come to the Crossing the Tiber Social Group. We like answering questions. Oh, and I'm happy to answer PMs if you'd rather keep things private. No pressure, just making the offer.

Edited July 2, 2012 by Parrothead

[Denise in Florida]

You are not alone. :grouphug:

 

My best advice (this is what I am trying to do for my own questions) is too seek answers in prayer and in direct reading of the scripture (as many versions as you find helpful). I also do some footnote type reading to make sure I understand the culture and intent of the writer and the original audience.

 

After I ponder these things in my own heart I look to respected teachings by established theologians. I like the added perspective but it must be teachings that have withstood the test of time or the scrutiny of established teaching traditions.

 

SO:

1 - prayer

2 - scripture

3 - historical context

4 - educated opinions

 

My current feelings on your questions. Your mileage will undoubtably vary, my mileage will change somewhat also. :001_smile:

 

Paul was inspired but not infailable. The Gospel is the primary word, Paul's letters and the other letters are 'wisdom literature' they were also addressed to specific audiences who were facing specific situations.

 

The Bible must be taken in its entirety. It contains; history, laws, poetry, wisdom and 'morality play' type stories. It contains what we need to know in order to find salvation. However, literal application and cherry picking of verses are like following the letter of the law but ignoring the intent. (IMHO)

 

I am not reformed I believe salvation is available to all but not all will accept it. I do not believe in 'the elect'.

 

I wish you luck in your explorations. It may not be easy or pretty but it is the only type of faith that is real.

[frugalmama]

:grouphug:

 

These are the same questions I had several years ago when I began to question was the faith of Jesus truly the church in existence today. Even my biblical studies professor at college who read the texts in their original languages couldn't give me good answers to my questions.

 

I also couldn't get a good answer to one main question - if Jesus was dead when the Roman guards came to break his legs {John 19:31-34}, why did blood and water freely flow from his side when they pierced it? Anyone with hunting knowledge knows that once something is deceased, blood clots almost immediately. Sp either he wasn't really dead {possibly drugged from the wine soaked sponge?}, or the story is lying :confused: And that little question places the entire resurrection story in a questionable light.

 

 

Open disclaimer: now I'm Muslim :D I find the Islamic view of Jesus to be much more in line with Jesus's actual teachings.

[Pamela H in Texas]

Just off the top of my head, for the "all" thing...I would guess that what makes the difference in the end is that people have the choice to accept that gift or not, just as Adam had the choice to God's sovereignty or not in the first place. Of course, if the gift is being saved and therefore having everlasting life, then the opposite of that, the choice of not accepting the gift, is not being saved or having everlasting life.

 

(Btw, my translation is quite different than that quoted which would make the discussion unnecessary)

Edited July 2, 2012 by 2J5M9K

[MamaSheep]

I really enjoyed a short (too short) book called Paul Among the People. Paul gets a reputation as Mr. Grumpy-Pants, but I think a lot of that is because we have little understanding of the issues he was dealing with and the cultures. When we come to an understanding of what he was trying to say, I find him easy to admire. But I also do not assume that his solutions for 1st-century cultures are what I have to do--women wearing veils in church had a certain meaning in his day that no longer holds in my culture. What is the intent behind his advice? (In that case, it was to make all women in the congregation equal and respected, so that none of them felt inferior and worldly social status was erased.)

 

I certainly believe that Jesus died to save all of us. I am not a Universalist, because some few people will say no and refuse to be saved, and they have to be free to make that choice. But of course Jesus died to save all of us, and he wants us all to choose Him. He gives us many, many chances to do so, even after this life, so that no one will be lost--unless they freely choose that.

 

Because people can indeed twist scripture to say anything they want it to, we must, in the end, rely on the Holy Spirit to confirm us in truth. The Spirit testifies of truth.

 

Do you have a link to this book? It sounds like one I would like to read. I have often thought that Paul is somewhat misunderstood.

[Juniper]

I'm open to all answers.

 

Okay, starting with a BIG presupposition that God created, man sinned, Jesus came, lived, died, rose again:

 

1. Is it my imagination, or does Paul say a lot of stuff that Jesus never said? It seems like all the big rules and all the organized church stuff came from Paul, not Jesus.

 

2. Who decided that Paul's letters got to be on equal footing with the gospel? There were 10 commandments in the Old Testament; two commandments in the New Testament; and then a slew of rules and regulations, most establishing a completely male-dominated system of authority known as "the church" in Paul's letters. It works out very conveniently, giving a very small group of men a very large measure of control over a huge number of people. So, there had to be a specific point in time in which a specific group of people decided to make Paul's letters part of the canon of scripture. That specific group of people were . . . . church leaders? Is it my imagination, or is that kind of hinky?

 

3. Are there people who believe (as in, sincerely believe in Jesus as a redeeming Savior) who reject Paul's letters as inspired scripture? Or is that heresy?

 

4. Assuming Paul's writings are inspired: How does one read Romans 5 and come away with the understanding that Jesus only died to save some people, not all? Thinking especially of verses 18 and 19. "18 Therefore, as through one man’s offense judgment came to all men, resulting in condemnation, even so through one Man’s righteous act the free gift came to all men, resulting in justification of life. 19 For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so also by one Man’s obedience many will be made righteous."

 

How (and maybe more importantly, WHY) is it so important for "all men" to mean that ALL men are sinners, but somehow we have to explain "all men" to mean something altogether different when it comes to how many people Jesus saves? Why can't it mean that all people are sinners, and Jesus died for all people, and therefore all people are saved? This is when I wish I could read the original Greek. Is there anyone here who is a Universalist? Because I think that actually makes more sense than what I've been taught all my life.

 

5. When pastors can take a verse of Scripture and pretty much make it say what they want it to say, and pretty much every denomination can take a verse and make it say something different, where is the credibility of religion? And I'm talking about sincere pastors, don't even get me started on the scary, cult-y, creepy ones.

 

That's all the questions I can put into words at the moment.

 

I have read your questions over a few times. I am sensing this is an either/or type of situation, between sola scriptura or trailblazing your own path. I get that, I have been there. :grouphug:

 

 

But, there are other ways to look at this. What about the traditions that are not sola scriptura?

 

One question I had to ask myself, before I could begin to answer the others was this: Is God big enough? If Jesus said what he did to Peter about building his church and the gates of Hades not being able to prevail.....was he lying? If Jesus said he was going to send them the Holy Spirit, the helper, who would lead them into all truth...did he lie? Did he fail? If Jesus really sought out Paul in such a miraculous fashion, did He do it just so Paul could become such a miserable misogynist of an Apostle?

 

For me the answer to the above questions was that God (Trinity) is big enough. This led to a different set of questions. Was the Bible meant to be interpreted the way it often times is, by individuals. Is sola scriptura still a healthy response to the historic failing of the RC, or has that time past? After all, there have been great reforms within the RC. Are the issues that led to sola scriptura in the first place still present?

 

Or what about a tradition that hasn't changed that much since the Council of Nicea? How do they interpret Paul? How do the treat and value women? As I began to explore the Orthodox church (hands exploration by actually attending) I was struck by a few things. First, there wasn't any vibe of male dominance, even though the structure of the church is very male, there is such a felt presence of the Theotokos and the female saints that it is impossible to not feel extremely valued. My dd's Patron saint is Mary Magdelene Equal to the Apostles.

 

In hindsight, I see where Paul's writings were out of balance without the intense value the RC and EO traditions place on Mary.

 

I tend to ramble so I will stop now. :D

 

Edited to add: I do believe that Jesus wants all to be saved and all will have that opportunity. I believe that the only ones who choose not to be "saved" (I hate that term) would have to do exactly that....CHOOSE. I also do not believe in Hell the way it is commonly accepted in western Christianity. My understanding of Hell is the place where a soul exists when it chooses to walk away from Love. For God is Love. My personal opinion is that not many souls will make that choice. :)

Edited July 2, 2012 by Juniper

[Ellie]

1. Is it my imagination, or does Paul say a lot of stuff that Jesus never said? It seems like all the big rules and all the organized church stuff came from Paul, not Jesus.

We don't know everything that Jesus said.

 

2. Who decided that Paul's letters got to be on equal footing with the gospel? There were 10 commandments in the Old Testament; two commandments in the New Testament; and then a slew of rules and regulations, most establishing a completely male-dominated system of authority known as "the church" in Paul's letters. It works out very conveniently, giving a very small group of men a very large measure of control over a huge number of people. So, there had to be a specific point in time in which a specific group of people decided to make Paul's letters part of the canon of scripture. That specific group of people were . . . . church leaders? Is it my imagination, or is that kind of hinky?

The Church decided that Paul's letters had an equal footing with the Gospels.

 

3. Are there people who believe (as in, sincerely believe in Jesus as a redeeming Savior) who reject Paul's letters as inspired scripture? Or is that heresy?

There may be people who reject Paul's letters.

 

4. Assuming Paul's writings are inspired: How does one read Romans 5 and come away with the understanding that Jesus only died to save some people, not all? Thinking especially of verses 18 and 19. "18 Therefore, as through one man’s offense judgment came to all men, resulting in condemnation, even so through one Man’s righteous act the free gift came to all men, resulting in justification of life. 19 For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so also by one Man’s obedience many will be made righteous."

 

How (and maybe more importantly, WHY) is it so important for "all men" to mean that ALL men are sinners, but somehow we have to explain "all men" to mean something altogether different when it comes to how many people Jesus saves? Why can't it mean that all people are sinners, and Jesus died for all people, and therefore all people are saved? This is when I wish I could read the original Greek. Is there anyone here who is a Universalist? Because I think that actually makes more sense than what I've been taught all my life.

I don't know whose doctrine you're quoting. It isn't the doctrine *I* have known since 1974.

 

5. When pastors can take a verse of Scripture and pretty much make it say what they want it to say, and pretty much every denomination can take a verse and make it say something different, where is the credibility of religion? And I'm talking about sincere pastors, don't even get me started on the scary, cult-y, creepy ones.

Creepy pastors, including those who take Scrpture out of context to make it mean whatever they want, do not equal true Christianity.

 

:grouphug:

[justamouse]

A great book on stuff questions like this is Hans Von Balthazarr's Dare We Hope That All Men Be Saved?

 

Remember when that Rob Bell book came out Love Wins? Well, Father Barron did a great video response on it, called

and he uses Von Balthazarr's book in his argument.

 

The conclusion is that we can hope there is no one in hell, but to say *everyone* will be heaven is to take away free will, and that is too precious of a gift for God to take back (we can only truly love with free will). So, we can have reasonable hope that everyone will be saved.

 

Paul. Ahh, Paul. We read him with modern eyes, and we say he's a misogynist, when, in his time, the Church was very different and society was very different. So we can't read him through post modern glasses. And, you need to remember that the apostles used to meet at MAry's house. She would teach them after Christ rose, so women had very high ranking within the church, always. We're co creators with God and given a very special reverence due to this.

 

As far as Pastors making what they want to out of scripture, now you're getting to the heart of why I reverted. Isn't it the highest pride to say we know so much we get to start churches based on our own interpretations? Especially when scripture speaks so much to being one church? What's the count on denominations now? I came to the conclusion that I'd rather bend my will to an older authority, than make my own. Because I know I'm just not that smart, and to do so is to make God into my own image.

Edited July 2, 2012 by justamouse
see? I can spell after all...

[milovany]

I have discovered that I have very little wisdom to share, but wanted to offer a hug. :grouphug: I started asking some big questions about Christianity a few years ago and understand that, and know it can be an uncomfortable place to be. For us, the answers came in the verifiable historicity of the church. It became important for us to start at the beginning and look at the writings from the time, and to study the saints of the church, to see how the church God started really developed. I had a lot of erroneous preconceived notions before this time. A lot of answers can come in looking at things from a different perspective.

 

I do wish you the best on your journey.

Edited July 2, 2012 by milovaný

[Bluegoat]

Well, if Paul's letters said just the same things we hear in the Gospels, it would have been somewhat redundant to include them. They are there because they tell us different things than the gospel accounts.

 

I think people forget the historical context that produced the Scriptures. Paul's letters to the growing and functioning Church were some of the earliest really Christian writings. The gospels were written down when those who remembered those events personally were becoming older and unavailable. All of these texts were read communally in the context of the meetings of Christians during the liturgical rites, as most people didn't have their own copies and many couldn't read.

 

Over time it was realized that there needed to be some quality control on the texts being read as other versions of events which were not legitimate were appearing, and there was seen to be a need for some level of standardization. So all the texts available and especially those read in the services were examined and considered and a fairly standard canon was created - though it has never been totally uniform and there has always been some variation.

 

So just as the Church produced the texts, it was the Church that decided which texts were legitimate, which had the right kind of inspiration and authority, to be included in the canon. There are a variety of reasons some were rejected - some were thought to be fraudulent, for example, some were thought to contain heretical teachings, and some were thought to be legitimate works of the Church but not the inspired word of God.

 

The question becomes, is the Church really a divine institution protected in some sense by the Holy Spirit to proclaim and live out the teachings of Christ and carry out his directives in the world. If it is, it makes sense to trust the inclusion of Paul's epistles. If it isn't, then it is hard to say if any of it is reliable or not, as it not only made the decisions about the texts, it wrote them and preserved them in its institutional forms.

Edited July 2, 2012 by Bluegoat

[laundrycrisis]

I will suggest three books for you to read.

 

Jesus Wars: How Four Patriarchs, Three Queens, and Two Emperors Decided What Christians Would Believe for the Next 1,500 years by Philip Jenkins

 

Jesus, Interrupted: Revealing the Hidden Contradictions in the Bible (And Why We Don't Know About Them) by Bart D. Ehrman

 

The Rise and Fall of the Bible: The Unexpected History of an Accidental Book by Timothy Beal

[MamaSheep]

Here are my thoughts, for what they're worth. :)

 

I'm open to all answers.

 

Okay, starting with a BIG presupposition that God created, man sinned, Jesus came, lived, died, rose again:

 

1. Is it my imagination, or does Paul say a lot of stuff that Jesus never said? It seems like all the big rules and all the organized church stuff came from Paul, not Jesus.

 

One thing to keep in mind is that the gospels do not, in fact, contain every word and deed ever spoken or performed by Jesus. As John wrote in his gospel, "And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen." (John 21:25)

 

The gospels were written for a different purpose, and with a different focus than the epistles. A person who puts pen to paper (or parchment, as the case may be) with the purpose of explaining to people who Jesus was, why He was important, and why they should believe in Him would be foolish to go off into lengthy discourses on organizational administrative procedure. It's off topic. Similarly, if a person is writing in response to questions about administration and doctrinal confusion from people who already "believe", it would be inefficient to first present an account of Jesus's life and significance--these people already accept that, they're just wondering about some of the details and applications.

 

As far as the church goes, a lot of organizational stuff can be found in Acts, which is generally believed to have been written by Luke, not Paul, so I don't think we can lay ALL the "organized church stuff" at Paul's feet. The epistles of Peter, James, John and Jude also acknowledge an organized church. Jesus mentions the church in Matthew 16:18, and 18:17, and states clearly (in John 15:16) that it was he who called and ordained the apostles, they didn't take that position on themselves--it was his idea to make them preachers, not theirs.

 

2. Who decided that Paul's letters got to be on equal footing with the gospel? There were 10 commandments in the Old Testament; two commandments in the New Testament; and then a slew of rules and regulations, most establishing a completely male-dominated system of authority known as "the church" in Paul's letters. It works out very conveniently, giving a very small group of men a very large measure of control over a huge number of people. So, there had to be a specific point in time in which a specific group of people decided to make Paul's letters part of the canon of scripture. That specific group of people were . . . . church leaders? Is it my imagination, or is that kind of hinky?

 

You're right that it was church leaders who ultimately decided which writings should be included in the Bible. Over the course of the first three centuries or so, certain writings came to be more accepted as authentic and accurate than others amongst the church membership at large, and were circulated and read among the various churches. When Constantine commissioned a Bible in the 4th century, a group of church leaders convened to determine which writings were considered generally authoritative by the church. There was disagreement then as to which should be included, and I understand there were some negotiations (I'll allow your favorite book if you'll allow mine), and indeed the wrangling over which books should be considered truly authoritative has continued down through the centuries--which is why the Catholic Bible has books not included in the Protestant Bible, and why Luther felt justified in advocating the removal of the book of James (because he didn't like its focus on works).

 

In general, though, what we have now has been considered the core of the authoritative Christian writings since the people who knew Christ and the apostles. And one of the reasons these writings have been considered authoritative is because they were written by well-respected apostles and elders of the church who were closely connected with Jesus and knew his teachings and instructions. And that includes the gospels, by the way; we have no extant writings that were actually written by Jesus himself. Is it "hinky" that later church leaders chose the writings of earlier church leaders to be representative of the church's teachings? I don't think so, no. I think it would be much more "hinky" if the Bible were compiled by random individuals with no way to prove they had a decent grounding in what Jesus taught, and to include writings by people who never really knew Jesus, but had an opinion on the subject anyway. But you are, of course entitled to your own opinion as far as that goes.

 

Regarding commandments and rules, the Old Testament includes a lot more than 10 commandments; it also includes all of the rules and regulations of the Levitical priesthood--the various sacrifices that were to be made at the temple and all that--as well as a number of rules relating to the general governance of the people. In the New Testament Jesus does point out that all of the commandments of the Old Testament can be boiled down and summarized as two commandments--love God, love your neighbor. However, Jesus also gives additional instructions and commandments that can also be viewed as breaking the two great laws down into more specific applications.

 

For example (from Matthew 5)

21 ¶Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment:

 

22 But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.

 

23 Therefore if thou bring thy gift to the altar, and there rememberest that thy brother hath ought against thee;

 

24 Leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way; first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift.

 

25 Agree with thine adversary quickly, whiles thou art in the way with him; lest at any time the adversary deliver thee to the judge, and the judge deliver thee to the officer, and thou be cast into prison.

 

26 Verily I say unto thee, Thou shalt by no means come out thence, till thou hast paid the uttermost farthing.

 

27 ¶Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery:

 

28 But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.

 

And from Luke 22:

19 ¶And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me.

 

20 Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you.

 

 

 

3. Are there people who believe (as in, sincerely believe in Jesus as a redeeming Savior) who reject Paul's letters as inspired scripture? Or is that heresy?

 

I don't really know the answer to that. Sorry.

 

4. Assuming Paul's writings are inspired: How does one read Romans 5 and come away with the understanding that Jesus only died to save some people, not all? Thinking especially of verses 18 and 19. "18 Therefore, as through one man’s offense judgment came to all men, resulting in condemnation, even so through one Man’s righteous act the free gift came to all men, resulting in justification of life. 19 For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so also by one Man’s obedience many will be made righteous."

 

How (and maybe more importantly, WHY) is it so important for "all men" to mean that ALL men are sinners, but somehow we have to explain "all men" to mean something altogether different when it comes to how many people Jesus saves? Why can't it mean that all people are sinners, and Jesus died for all people, and therefore all people are saved? This is when I wish I could read the original Greek. Is there anyone here who is a Universalist? Because I think that actually makes more sense than what I've been taught all my life.

 

I think Jesus did die for all men (meaning humankind) and offers salvation to all men (ditto). However, I think he offers us the option to refuse it, because he is not a despot. Being "saved" doesn't just mean believing a certain thing, it means becoming a certain thing, and some people prefer not to.

 

5. When pastors can take a verse of Scripture and pretty much make it say what they want it to say, and pretty much every denomination can take a verse and make it say something different, where is the credibility of religion? And I'm talking about sincere pastors, don't even get me started on the scary, cult-y, creepy ones.

 

That's all the questions I can put into words at the moment.

 

In my opinion, this demonstrates one of the problems with NOT having an organized church with a central authority. When everyone can just make up what they want the religion to mean it's not Jesus's religion anymore; each individual becomes his own god and makes up his own doctrine and if he can convince other people, he has his own church. To be Jesus's religion, it must teach the things Jesus taught. This is one reason early church leaders put more weight on the writings of people who actually heard Jesus teach, and on the leadership of those who Jesus selected to be in charge. How does one know which voices to follow? I believe if you ask God for guidance He will give it.

[heart'sjoy]

I don't have all the answers by a long shot.

But I think you've been given some great advice by a previous poster who suggested a way to study the Bible, with prayer, reading a verse in the context of the paragraph and topic it's set in, reading in context of the culture and audience each book is addressed too, and reading opinions that have stood for a long time.

 

These questions are totally worth going to the source for.

 

 

OP: I have some really big questions.

The subject line grabs me because I hear a cry for someone big enough to answer them.

 

And ultimately I think the foundation to all of the questions asked is:

 

Is God Big enough?

How far reaching is God's authority over my free will?

 

These are the same questions I hear from young children who are excruciatingly honest. More honest than me, it was a long time before I was even able to ask the hard questions.

 

It would be interesting to read the whole Bible starting in Genesis and highlight in blue everything that points to God's "bigness", highlight everything in green that points to God's extent of authority over man, and highlight everything in yellow everything that points to man's free will/ choice.

 

:grouphug: Melody

[momteel]

Hi,

 

I have had questions and doubts before... the more I study what people have done in history the more I am brought down. the more I study what the Bible says about God, and the more I spend time with Him in prayer and contemplation, trying to see Him in all around me, the more I realize that He offers what no one else can offer- grace!!!!

 

People always fail along the way, none of us are perfect!!! But the closer I desire to come to God, the more He is my rock in all difficult times and I do not know how I would survive without the faith that He loves me and is in charge! no, not everything goes perfectly in life, but I know where to go for comfort and peace!

 

laura

[PrincessMommy]

I'm open to all answers.

 

Okay, starting with a BIG presupposition that God created, man sinned, Jesus came, lived, died, rose again:

 

1. Is it my imagination, or does Paul say a lot of stuff that Jesus never said? It seems like all the big rules and all the organized church stuff came from Paul, not Jesus.

 

2. Who decided that Paul's letters got to be on equal footing with the gospel? There were 10 commandments in the Old Testament; two commandments in the New Testament; and then a slew of rules and regulations, most establishing a completely male-dominated system of authority known as "the church" in Paul's letters. It works out very conveniently, giving a very small group of men a very large measure of control over a huge number of people. So, there had to be a specific point in time in which a specific group of people decided to make Paul's letters part of the canon of scripture. That specific group of people were . . . . church leaders? Is it my imagination, or is that kind of hinky?

 

3. Are there people who believe (as in, sincerely believe in Jesus as a redeeming Savior) who reject Paul's letters as inspired scripture? Or is that heresy?

 

4. Assuming Paul's writings are inspired: How does one read Romans 5 and come away with the understanding that Jesus only died to save some people, not all? Thinking especially of verses 18 and 19. "18 Therefore, as through one man’s offense judgment came to all men, resulting in condemnation, even so through one Man’s righteous act the free gift came to all men, resulting in justification of life. 19 For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so also by one Man’s obedience many will be made righteous."

 

How (and maybe more importantly, WHY) is it so important for "all men" to mean that ALL men are sinners, but somehow we have to explain "all men" to mean something altogether different when it comes to how many people Jesus saves? Why can't it mean that all people are sinners, and Jesus died for all people, and therefore all people are saved? This is when I wish I could read the original Greek. Is there anyone here who is a Universalist? Because I think that actually makes more sense than what I've been taught all my life.

 

5. When pastors can take a verse of Scripture and pretty much make it say what they want it to say, and pretty much every denomination can take a verse and make it say something different, where is the credibility of religion? And I'm talking about sincere pastors, don't even get me started on the scary, cult-y, creepy ones.

 

That's all the questions I can put into words at the moment.

 

I really like your questions...they are quite thought-provoking. I am an Eastern Orthodox convert, so I'm quite biased having been in your shoes and trying to unlearn 40yrs of Western thought/Christianity.

 

I agree with others that you should do some heavy early church research. I would start with the originals. Find out what that church looked like. Remember- there were 300+ years of church before the canon of scriptures... and even then it wasn't set in solid stone right away. Read the Apostolic Fathers... read the Didachae, read Justin Martyr. Read Athanasius' "On the Incarnation" and some St. John of Damascus. None of these are hard reads - those guys wrote very accessible books for the non-theologian types like me. Slowly work your way up. Read some about the shape of early church belief. After that read some Henry Chadwick. He's very well respected by both East and Western Christians (I think he was Anglican). He wrote a book called "The Early Church"... it's a good book.

 

Your questions:

 

1. I don't know the answer to this.

 

2. As far as I know within the EO faith the Epistles are not on equal footing with the Gospels. That is why we hold the Gospels in such great regard, we kiss it, we keep it on our altars, we are encouraged to read the Gospels above all others (not that we shouldn't read the whole Bible). In fact, within the EO faith we regard the Sermon on the Mount and especially the Beatitudes in high regard and use that as a measuring stick for our lives. We sing the Beatitudes every Sunday as part of the Liturgy.

 

3. I don't think so - but I'm not sure.

 

4. all I can say is that the EO church intreprets Roman's 5 very differently than Western and modern (16th century on) Christians. We reject double Predestination.

 

You should ask the question: "What were men saved from?" In the old testament ...at Passover. What were the israelites saved from? They were saved from DEATH. Christ came and trampled down Death by death. This is the clear teaching of the early church. Yes, forgiveiness of sin is very important. We must live a life of repentance, love and humility. The Israelite's had access to repentance. What no man had access to was Life after death. This is what Christ came for. He came to bring us back to God after the ties had been severed by Adam. But, how is eternal life lived? What is that like for someone who completely rejects God and turns his back on Him?

 

During your studies I would strongly encourage you to figure out what the early church meant by these words: Sin, repentance, church, overseer (i.e. Bishop), grace.

 

Okay, I'm very tired...I'm not sure I'm making much sense right now, and I don't even know if I want to hit the "post" button because I don't know if I feel like defending myself right now.

[dangermom]

Do you have a link to this book? It sounds like one I would like to read. I have often thought that Paul is somewhat misunderstood.

 

My complaint about the book is that it's too short--I would have liked it to be twice as long. Here's my more detailed review of it, that has the amazon link too. Amira has also read it.

[MamaSheep]

My complaint about the book is that it's too short--I would have liked it to be twice as long. Here's my more detailed review of it, that has the amazon link too. Amira has also read it.

 

Thanks. :)

[alpidarkomama]

There were 10 commandments in the Old Testament

 

Actually....... there are 613! :)

[milovany]

Actually....... there are 613! :)

 

:D

[Christy B]

I appreciate all of the responses so far!

 

613 :svengo:

[mommy5]

I wasn't sure how to answer your questions ... my first thought is this: "Draw near to God and He will draw near to you." James 4:8 I think you should spend some time in prayer asking God to reveal himself to you and to give you peace as you search for these answers.

 

I chose to believe that the Bible is God's word. All of it ... not just certain books. I believe that Paul had a conversion experience brought on by the Holy Spirit and the words he said were from God working through him.

[Parrothead]

My dd's Patron saint is Mary Magdelene Equal to the Apostles.

 

Mine too!. My dd also picked Mary Magdalene as her confirmation saint. :D

[Dealea86]

Actually....... there are 613! :)

 

:iagree:

 

And Jesus gave way more than 2 commandments. He taught on marriage, divorce, adultery, hate, church discipline, the Lord's Supper, giving up everything to follow him, baptism, etc, etc, etc. The Gospels are full of his teachings and commands.

 

As for Paul...

 

I assume you accept the Gospels as being inspired? If so, then you presumably take Acts as inspired (as it was written by Luke). In Acts, you read about Paul's conversion and eventual transformation into the apostle for the gentiles. Paul is very obviously a prominent leader in the church in Acts. He is well-respected and influential. He also, according to Acts, was full of the Holy Spirit and able to preform miracles.

 

In other words, if you accept the Gospels as inspired, you should accept Acts. If you accept Acts, then it makes sense to me to accept Paul's writings as inspired. And, really, Paul's teaching aren't fundamentally different from Jesus' teachings. If you could give me an example of where you see a discrepancy, I'd like to see it.

 

Now regarding salvation for all - that wasn't ever a teaching in the Bible. Period. In the Old Testament salvation was for the Jew only. In the gospels, Jesus says, "Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it." He also says, "Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?’ Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’"

 

I have more to say, but this is all the time I have right now. Good luck with your searching. :-)

[alpidarkomama]

Now regarding salvation for all - that wasn't ever a teaching in the Bible. Period. In the Old Testament salvation was for the Jew only.

 

Actually Judaism has always been for the Jew only (we don't seek out converts, but sincere converts are welcome; it's no easy process!). Any righteous gentile who follows the seven noahide laws can enter the gates of heaven; they don't have to be Jewish.

[tntgoodwin]

First of all, I am glad you are asking these questions instead of just blindly following what you have been taught.

 

And I want you to know that I will be praying for you that you find the answers.

 

I think reading a good book on Systematic Theology will help you. Starting with the doctrines of Scripture, and then the Church and the Atonement.

 

I HIGHLY recommend this book:

 

http://www.amazon.com/Systematic-Theology-Introduction-Biblical-Doctrine/dp/0310286700

 

It is long, but thorough and very readable.

[justamouse]

Actually....... there are 613! :)

 

:D

[garddwr]

Actually Judaism has always been for the Jew only (we don't seek out converts, but sincere converts are welcome; it's no easy process!). Any righteous gentile who follows the seven noahide laws can enter the gates of heaven; they don't have to be Jewish.

 

What are the seven noahide laws?

[justamouse]

I really like your questions...they are quite thought-provoking. I am an Eastern Orthodox convert, so I'm quite biased having been in your shoes and trying to unlearn 40yrs of Western thought/Christianity.

 

I agree with others that you should do some heavy early church research. I would start with the originals. Find out what that church looked like. Remember- there were 300+ years of church before the canon of scriptures... and even then it wasn't set in solid stone right away. Read the Apostolic Fathers... read the Didachae, read Justin Martyr. Read Athanasius' "On the Incarnation" and some St. John of Damascus. None of these are hard reads - those guys wrote very accessible books for the non-theologian types like me. Slowly work your way up. Read some about the shape of early church belief. After that read some Henry Chadwick. He's very well respected by both East and Western Christians (I think he was Anglican). He wrote a book called "The Early Church"... it's a good book.

 

 

 

Also read Irenaeus.

 

That's a whole lotta, right there, but it's broken down in other places like Mike Aquilina's Fathers of the Church.

[alpidarkomama]

What are the seven noahide laws?

 

http://www.aish.com/jl/jnj/nj/48961716.html

[LostSurprise]

I don't think you're the first person to have doubts about Paul. Its very common for modern women to cringe a bit with Paul.

 

What's helped me:

 

*understanding society of the time

 

*reading Paul as what he was...an organizer. He can be inspired and also be writing to fight fires and promote unity within specific churches. Often he prefaces statements with the authority he is saying something with, things like "not I, but the Lord" or "I, not the Lord" (1 Corinthians 7:10-12), "concerning X I have no commandment of the Lord, yet I give my judgement" (1 Corinthians 7:25), "according to the Lord's word" (1 Thessalonians 4:15). This means Paul was aware of how seriously some people took his words, and also that he admits that some of his words are his...not on par with God's commandments.

 

*others realized that Paul's words could be misunderstood. When talking about Paul's teaching on the salvation and the end times Peter wrote: "His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures" (2 Peter 3:16).

 

Paul was the right man for the right time. He was inspired and driven for the job he needed to do. A gentler, modern man might not have gotten so much done. Was he a perfect man? By no means. Can I learn from him? Yes, I can, but I can do so and understand that some of his inspired words were his words for his time, and others were God's words for all time. There's a difference between a commandment and history. If I am not sure which is which, I look for context clues and agreement with his position with commandments from other scripture.

 

We don't quote Samuel (history) or Psalms (poetry) in the same way we do Paul (granted they are OT) because while we accept them as inspired we instinctively recognize that they are inspired for a specific purpose. The problem is Paul moved in and out of eternal questions and local concerns. He is not for the faint of heart, and frankly I don't trust any minister who simplifies him.

[Walking-Iris]

I was pretty highly into Christianity and church and Navigators on campus etc when I was younger. I've moved away from a lot of "organized" religion and church issues in the past 10 years mainly for some of the same reasons as well as others more personal. I also studied psychology and comparative religious studies in collage and still hold a lot of these topics as a high interest of mine. I think religion and spirituality are a life-long quest and search for knowledge.

 

The thing about Paul that was and still is my main issue is that Paul's letters were written *before* the gospels were authored. "Paul" wrote around 40 CE/AD and the first gospel, Mark, came around 70 CE/AD.

 

Also none of the authors of any of the gospels or letters were anywhere close to being primary sources. Then take into account the various translations and interpretations and you're getting into even more muddy water. Why do some insist on KJV for example? The original Greek, Aramaic, Hebrew etc does not come close to being translated as thee and thou and thy.

 

Personally I believe that the overall concept and message of the Bible (New Testament especially) is mythology. If you read as a metaphor instead of literal then the messages become universal. I think a person becomes spiritually mature when they take on the authority for their own life. I believe in a creator God (not the God of *this* world and culture but one beyond what any manmade religion has made) and I believe that there is a lot of Truth in scripture (various different scriptures).

 

But I also believe that separation, judgement, strict legalism, wars, politics, etc are the unfortunate result of using the human desire and yearning for something higher against them. This was basically the reasoning behind Constantine and Nicaea etc. Standardization and organization of religion (any religion) is the best way to control the masses. Paul couldn't "beat em" and so he decided to "join them"---the better to control them and change them. It's not a coincidence that the rejected "heretical" books were the ones that allowed for more spirituality and less control.

 

Anyway my thoughts. Ymmv. And that's the point. It's your soul, your mind, your spirituality---not any others.

Edited July 2, 2012 by Walking-Iris
Thanks to P{arrothead for showing my dates backwards---hard to type with wiggly nursing toddlers

[Parrothead]

I was pretty highly into Christianity and church and Navigators on campus etc when I was younger. I've moved away from a lot of "organized" religion and church issues in the past 10 years mainly for some of the same reasons as well as others more personal. I also studied psychology and comparative religious studies in collage and still hold a lot of these topics as a high interest of mine. I think religion and spirituality are a life-long quest and search for knowledge.

 

The thing about Paul that was and still is my main issue is that Paul's letters were written *before* the gospels were authored. "Paul" wrote around 70 CE/AD and the first gospel, Mark, came around 40 CE/AD.

 

Also none of the authors of any of the gospels or letters were anywhere close to being primary sources. Then take into account the various translations and interpretations and you're getting into even more muddy water. Why do some insist on KJV for example? The original Greek, Aramaic, Hebrew etc does not come close to being translated as thee and thou and thy.

 

Personally I believe that the overall concept and message of the Bible (New Testament especially) is mythology. If you read as a metaphor instead of literal then the messages become universal. I think a person becomes spiritually mature when they take on the authority for their own life. I believe in a creator God (not the God of *this* world and culture but one beyond what any manmade religion has made) and I believe that there is a lot of Truth in scripture (various different scriptures).

 

But I also believe that separation, judgement, strict legalism, wars, politics, etc are the unfortunate result of using the human desire and yearning for something higher against them. This was basically the reasoning behind Constantine and Nicaea etc. Standardization and organization of religion (any religion) is the best way to control the masses. Paul couldn't "beat em" and so he decided to "join them"---the better to control them and change them. It's not a coincidence that the rejected "heretical" books were the ones that allowed for more spirituality and less control.

 

Anyway my thoughts. Ymmv. And that's the point. It's your soul, your mind, your spirituality---not any others.

What am I missing? BCE/BC runs backwards, CE/AD runs forward so 40AD comes before 70AD so Mark wrote before Paul.

 

Most scholars do not use the KJV for studies. The KJV was written for its beauty (which by its very nature is subjective) not its accuracy.

[EmmaNZ]

Just wanted to echo Frugalmama. Many of those questions that you have, along with a few others, were what lead me along a path to Islam. I have been a Muslim nearly 10 years now, and I no longer find myself with deep, unanswered questions.

[mommy5]

:grouphug:

 

These are the same questions I had several years ago when I began to question was the faith of Jesus truly the church in existence today. Even my biblical studies professor at college who read the texts in their original languages couldn't give me good answers to my questions.

 

I also couldn't get a good answer to one main question - if Jesus was dead when the Roman guards came to break his legs {John 19:31-34}, why did blood and water freely flow from his side when they pierced it? Anyone with hunting knowledge knows that once something is deceased, blood clots almost immediately. Sp either he wasn't really dead {possibly drugged from the wine soaked sponge?}, or the story is lying :confused: And that little question places the entire resurrection story in a questionable light.

 

 

Open disclaimer: now I'm Muslim :D I find the Islamic view of Jesus to be much more in line with Jesus's actual teachings.

 

Just wanted to comment on your questioning the resurrection through the passage in John. It seems ironic, because that very passage should have proven that He was indeed dead ...

 

Here is what one commentary says: 19:34 Pierced his side. Finding him lifeless, the soldiers did not break his legs, but to make sure of death thrust a spear into his side.

 

Came there out blood and water. The water, with clots of blood, can be accounted for only the previous rupture of the heart and the flow of blood into the pericardium, or outer sack of the heart, where it would separate very rapidly into water and clots of blood. Hence, it seems certain that the immediate physical cause of the death of Christ was rupture of the heart.

[sassenach]

http://www.aish.com/jl/jnj/nj/48961716.html

 

Curious, what happens if you break one of those laws? Are there second chances, or is it a one shot deal?

[Parrothead]

Curious, what happens if you break one of those laws? Are there second chances, or is it a one shot deal?

I was curious and found this. It is interesting.