Will you make it to Heaven? Cont.

[VincitVeritas1]

Feel free to join me in a discussion about Heaven according to the Holy Bible/ Christianity in general.

I agree about the dating. I’m not saying Paul didn’t have interesting things to say. I think (as is commonly accepted) there were various “Jesus cults” which sprung up after his death, each with different views. Each with the own motives driving their message. Paul was no doubt one of the people (after his overtly symbolic enlightenment) who was in this mix. Mark wrote his take slightly after, copied by Matthew but Matthew’s take was slightly embellished. Than Paul’s disciple Luke. There were numerous other takes in those 100 years, some of which have survived others will have not (including the burned components of the nag Hammadi texts).

Why did Paul’s view survive, the cynic in me would suggest involved the stroke of genius that expanded the people who could be incorporated into this religion to non- Jews.

This is what I mean history is written by the victors. We’re told a lot about Paul
but the people in control of the survival of that message we’re also in control of the non- survival of other messages. How many others were similarly enlightened and met God and had his endorsement yet through chance or persecution did not see their enlightened texts survive. It is important to seriously consider the strong possibility/likelihood. that Paul’s message survived due to the meddling of men rather than the will of God.

The bottom line for me is Jesus's resurrection, His founding of the church, and the teachings of those closest to Him (the apostles), as well as Paul who had an incredible conversion and was fully accepted and included by the apostles.

I'm sure many other groups and theories sprang up around that time and that's very interesting, but as someone who believes in Jesus and in the commission he gave to the apostles, I'm very comfortable that the church has received and preserved the essential teachings through the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

It's not strictly true that the church was in control of which messages survived, certainly in the very early church it's more a question of letters and gospels which were accepted by the core followers and spread out from there, generally being far more widely copied and shared. These are the earlier written texts, as well.

Obviously if the church was given a message or gospel to pass on, they'd be keen to preserve that rather than adding in all sorts of other things.

Yes, I know that there’s other reasons why certain teachings did not survive - that’s why I say either “by chance or persecution”. There’s a complex interweaving of why Paul’s Doctrine won through (Doctrine being the operative word). But it’s hard to follow someone who states “I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent” (1 Timothy 2:11-12).” When - If you follow the Gospels Jesus (or a messenger) chose to announce his “ resurrection” via Mary. She was to have that authority and knowledge before any man. Just one of many contradictions!

Jesus prophesied many times re future events. He warned of false prophets. Where did he mention Paul - why did he not seek Paul out in his lifetime (they were contemporaries) and have him as an apostle. Why did he not say to Paul “on this rock I build my church?”

At the end of the day, it’s all conjecture, but there are so many questions which need to be answered that the Church ignore or silence through shouts of heresy.

But it’s hard to follow someone who states “I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent” (1 Timothy 2:11-12).” When - If you follow the Gospels Jesus (or a messenger) chose to announce his “ resurrection” via Mary. She was to have that authority and knowledge before any man. Just one of many contradictions!

Because this is taken out of context. Paul himself contradicts it elsewhere, it appears to be a response to a specific pastoral problem and not IMO intended to be universalised. He mentions Junia, Priscilla and other female teachers elsewhere.

Jesus does things in his own timings and ways. Why have Judas as an apostle? Or why not win over more powerful people as converts? You don't get much more powerful testimony than for someone to go from persecuting the church to dying for the church. Not many upsides for Paul on a personal level either.

Again, the church is not and has never been built on Paul. You're right that he spread it much further than it otherwise would have, and made things easier for non-Jewish converts. Not in implying that he took over and subverted the message, there's simply no evidence for that.

Without Paul there would be no Christianity - well not as we know it, it would have most likely remained a sub - division of Judaism (and probably died out) unless one of the other sects came through.

He was a learned man schooled in the Trivium. His writings clearly show the persuasive techniques of Greek rhetoric.

yes Paul’s wrings are full of contradictions. But how can you seriously follow anyone who says that about women.

why have Judas as an apostle. Well there is a whole gospel on that. But in summary it was to fulfill Jesus’s destiny his True Will.

There’s lots of contradictions both within Paul’s writings and in opposition to the message of Jesus.

in my eyes Paul was a false prophet or teacher. A person Jesus warned about rather than gleefully endorsed.

But we don't follow Paul, we follow Jesus! Something is not getting through here. 😄

What do you think was false about Paul's teaching (if we take false as meaning contrary to Jesus' message)? Where are the specific contradictions within his writing, and are you certain you're reading each one with the same understanding as a first century Christian?

Even Jesus seemed contradictory at times... the way is narrow and few find it (but there are many rooms in my Father's house), the goats and sheep will be separated but the lost silver coin will be found, etc.

You seem to be assuming that the only way to read Paul is with the kind of literal, fundamentalist approach I imagine you don't bring to other sources.

Without Paul there would be no Christianity - well not as we know it, it would have most likely remained a sub - division of Judaism (and probably died out) unless one of the other sects came through.

Yes, he was probably the greatest evangelist we've had in the church. Do you think God only intended his message for Jewish people?

But it’s hard to follow someone who states “I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent” (1 Timothy 2:11-12).” When - If you follow the Gospels Jesus (or a messenger) chose to announce his “ resurrection” via Mary. She was to have that authority and knowledge before any man. Just one of many contradictions!

@Kdtym10, I suspected that might be your main sticking point, but what is Paul doing here? Complaining about some women's flawed behaviour speaking out and arguing over doctrine in church. What is your issue with Paul? That he's a man with flaws? Who complains?

So just as Paul appears to have decided he won't have a woman teach (although he does seem to acknowledge other women teachers) or have authority you have decided he, as the man of the times he was, shouldn't. By doing this are you not guilty of the same thing you accuse him of?

Perhaps the issue is we should be discerning what is divine in origin from what people say and do, amongst all their faults, rather than discount all of it because of their faults?

Well, I’m reluctant to continue debating given the tone of your opening paragraph. It’s well established that there are many differences between the teachings of Jesus as set out in the Gospels and those of Paul, works/actions v Grace/sola fide, the intended audience Jews/gentiles. Water Baptism

Was Gods message only for the Jews- his chosen people.

Matthew 10:5–6 (KJV 1900)

5 These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into anycity of the Samaritans enter ye not: 6 But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

Well, I’m reluctant to continue debating given the tone of your opening paragraph.

That seems a bit of an overreaction, but happy to leave it there.

I’m sorry but there’s no way to twist this into anything else but Paul
saying a woman should stay silent snd bow down to a man.

Yes this was reflective of society (to a certain extent, but we are often hoodwinked into believing the misogyny that was embedded in the church was the universal status quo from the beginnings of time). It was certainly not reflective of the role Jesus saw for women. But yes the Church has proven time and time again it hates women and they are subservient and responsible for all the bad in humanity.

What, if anything , makes Saul believable? There have been numerous people claiming they are channelling the divine - didn’t Paul say something about Jesus speaking through him? What makes Paul
any different to any other cult leader?

As I’ve sane several times, I think some of his messages are good, but I don’t see him as carrying any more authority than any other man.

I think some of his messages are good, but I don’t see him as carrying any more authority than any other man.

@Kdtym10, but you do seem to see him as carrying less authority? And according to you, it would seem if I understand you correctly, there is nor has been no man who has more authority than another man? So it follows, neither Plato nor William Blake have more authority than any other man. No more authority than Paul. So surely all we can do for anyone, from this perspective, is acknowledge the good messages?

The difference is neither of those two claimed to have any more authority than another man. They put forward their own views for people to look upon and discuss, neither claimed divinely given authority to dictate what others should do and believe.Paul did.

Blake claimed to see Angels in trees, God looking at him through a window He wrote poetry , etched his art for people to hear and see his interpretation of the world he didn’t claim to be anything different to any other man.

Plato devised his cosmology he debated it and taught it. I don’t think he ever claimed he was speaking on behalf of God.

Paul had a questionable vision and went blind. Apparently!,he went against the teaching of Jesus several times, yet seemingly seemed to think he had Gods authority to speak, and if memory serves me correctly claimed Jesus was speaking through him.

if he had put forward his theories as his own, not claimed divine authority to be setting out a bunch of rules telling people what they should and shouldn’t be doing. Stuck to Jesus’s teachings all would be good. But as it is, he didn’t. If he’d fessed up to his influences he might be worthy of better consideration,

@Kdtym10 but Paul openly acknowledged his weaknesses.

"Although there is nothing to be gained, I will go on to visions and revelations from the Lord. 2 I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago was caught up to the third heaven. Whether it was in the body or out of the body I do not know—God knows. 3 And I know that this man—whether in the body or apart from the body I do not know, but God knows— 4 was caught up to paradise and heard inexpressible things, things that no one is permitted to tell. 5 I will boast about a man like that, but I will not boast about myself, except about my weaknesses. 6 Even if I should choose to boast, I would not be a fool, because I would be speaking the truth. But I refrain, so no one will think more of me than is warranted by what I do or say, 7 or because of these surpassingly great revelations. Therefore, in order to keep me from becoming conceited, I was given a thorn in my flesh, a messenger of Satan, to torment me. 8 Three times I pleaded with the Lord to take it away from me. 9 But he said to me, “My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness.” Therefore I will boast all the more gladly about my weaknesses, so that Christ’s power may rest on me. 10 That is why, for Christ’s sake, I delight in weaknesses, in insults, in hardships, in persecutions, in difficulties. For when I am weak, then I am strong.
(2 Corinthians 12:1-10 NIV)

So is it more prideful/conceited to acknowledge your own weaknesses and attribute anything special / good in what you have to say as coming from God? Or to attribute anything good as being a result of your own understanding and creative thought?

Basically Paul was saying he himself was so degenerate anything good in him, what he said/did, at all had to come from God because he was not capable of it himself.

Of all the writings of Paul to pick to show his humility I’m not sure I would have picked one to show his claim to enlightenment to have entered heaven to claim angelic form and equality with the achievements of Ezekiel. This part of Corinthians is probably the strongest evidence of Paul’s Jewish Mysticism explains it very well.

i suspect it’s not an interpretation you will agree with but we might just have to agree to disagree on this

@Kdtym10 and yet what was the message Paul received in the passage I quoted?

"9 But he said to me, “My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness.” (2 Corinthians 12:9)

So for all the Mysticism you allude to and related practices it is God's Grace that matters.

How do you understand God's Grace in this respect?

Well I don’t know enough about chariot mysticism to which this passage allludes. But to me this passage reads Paul is subject to the will of God and even though he fights against it he has to grin and bear it. I would say it has echo’s of Job.

@Kdtym10, so Paul recognises he is under God's authority...and weak. Not exactly claiming to have a superior authority himself here, is he?

I wouldn’t think anything but him thinking he is under Gods authority, he clearly thinks God is on his side, he’s entered heaven during his life as only a select few other Jewish prophets did, Ezekiel and Enoch. He is suffering as Job. He is aligning himself to these people, hero’s of Judaism.

@Kdtym10

He is aligning himself to these people, hero’s of Judaism.

As you align yourself to Christ?

I’m not trying to gather people round me to follow my cult though😀.

@Kdtym10, I don't view Christianity as a cult. But, ok, then, so you don't completely align yourself with Christ, as you don't have followers?

Jesus had followers. The concept of Christ is an internal personal one so no followers involved.

At the time of Paul there were lots of Jesus cults.

Jesus had followers. The concept of Christ is an internal personal one so no followers involved.

@Kdtym10, how would you understand this piece of scripture in terms of your idea stated above?

"30 “Whoever is not with me is against me, and whoever does not gather with me scatters." (Matthew 12:30)

As I said Jesus had followers. Those words fit well with a person who wants followers.

The title of Christ which has been claimed for the man Jesus is an internal and personal title that is not concerned with followers.

in other words the concern about people following is ego led, it is of this world, of earth. The term Christ is spiritual.

As an aside I think that particular verse has been used to justify innumerable deaths and incomprehensible pain