Posted by Helen on: 07.05.2006 /
Eliza asked the following excellent question on the discussion board recently:
Anyone who can answer this - could you please enlighten me to something I’ve been wondering about? I’m serious about this question. Where does Jesus teach that every person is a sinner, every day & in many ways - and what does he teach are ‘everyday’ sins? (Not the big stuff, like adultery or murder.) I haven’t been reading with this question in mind, so right now am just thinking of:
(1) the story of the adulterous woman in John 8 (”Let him who is without sin cast the first stone” - but that story ends with Jesus saying “Neither do I condemn you; go, and from now on sin no more” - which seems to me like it would be referring to a ‘major’ sin like adultery)
(2) Matthew 5 & 6, which does set a pretty high bar (don’t be angry with another person & call him “Fool”, don’t look at a woman with lustful intent, if your right eye causes you to sin, etc) but also gives rules that many Christians (as far as I can tell) don’t follow and don’t apparently consider sins (not an iota will pass from the [Jewish] Law, don’t divorce a woman except for sexual immorality and don’t marry a divorced woman, don’t take any oath at all).
I ask because I’ve certainly heard/read other Christians also say the same type of thing about their own daily behavior/actions as shortstopjpc did a page back in this discussion:
“I am just as immoral as you on any given day, but man is it convicting.
I fail everyday.
I sin everyday
I say things I wish I could take back.
I hurt when someone misreads me.
And I love people, and it doesnt come naturally.”
Yet it’s not clear to me where this degree of self-flagellation (if I may call it that…it’s late, & I’m not coming up with a better term, no offense meant) comes from in Jesus’s teachings. He seemed like a more understanding, uplifting, forgiving type than this…or that’s what I took away, in my readings. While he had high expectations of people’s behavior, he also didn’t seem to be expecting perfection…? So, please, any leads would help.
(Paul’s teachings, yes - I see it there. And if that’s the place it comes from, then my next question is: why do Paul’s teachings play such an important role - maybe even more so than Jesus’s teachings, in my humble opinion as an “outside observer”? As someone said a while back, it’s not “Paulianity”…!)
Comment by: Eliza
1Thanks for posting my question(s) here, Helen…this really puzzles me! After reading more of Paul’s writings last night, and comparing them with the gospels, I’m still and again struck that Paul seems to set up explicit standards for Christians that are harder to meet, and more of a pervasive “job” to work towards, than were demonstrated in the expectations described in Jesus’s teachings and in his interactions with the people he led, those he healed…and those he chastised, too.
Comment by: Julie marie
2Interesting observations, Eliza. I wonder (not knowing nearly as much as I want to know) if Pauls background and his filters were at work in how he interpreted Christs message. He was a legalist of the first order, if you will, before his Damascus Road experience. Like any of us who turn to Christ, we come with baggage that can’t help but be reflected in the kind of Christian we are. Hopefully as we grow spiritually, we come more in line with what Jesus modeled.
I think I’ll look back over Pauls letters and see if I can appreciate a difference in tone between his early letters and the letters that came closer towards his death.
Have you read Spong’s Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism? He has a theory on the origins of Pauls self flagellation - that Paul was attracted to men, and despised this about himself.
Whatever the cause, I think some of your observations highlight for me why I made the right decision about how to view the bible - as human thoughts on their experience with God, rather than a transcription of dictation.
Comment by: NCxian
3I am thinking that the apparent difference in approach between Jesus and Paul has something to do with where they were in the history of the movement. Jesus was face-to-face and one-on-one in the stories that are told about him. We get little snippets of his wisdom, recorded from his oral communication. Nobody knew much about him or his philosophy, so he was dealing with people who were sort of blank slates as far as their preconceived notions (excepting, perhaps, those who had messianic expectations about him).
Paul is spilling his guts about a wide variety of things to people who think they know Jesus (first century blogging!). Unlike Jesus, who talks mostly about how individuals should behave, Paul is talking about philosophical underpinnings of what Jesus said, how the Christians should behave corporately, and so on. Unless I am mistaken, Jesus is pretty clear that his followers should have a corporate life, but he is kind of weak on details (”love one another”). Paul is having to deal with real live people trying to live out real love-one-another lives, in big numbers, spread out in a pretty wide area of the Roman Empire.
I think, in some ways, it was probably easier being Jesus than Paul!
From a narrative standpoint, Acts (which recounts Paul’s life) is more comparable to the Gospels (which recount Jesus’ life). I wonder, if you block out the Letters of Paul in your mind, if the Paul of Acts would look more like the Jesus of the Gospels.
And if you put Jesus in Paul’s place, what would Jesus have written? (WWJW?)
Comment by: Nutrideath
4Paul himself referred to himself as “a slave of Christ.” (Romans 1:1) I believe that Paul was working hand-in-hand with Jesus. NCxian is correct in saying that the differences we see between Paul’s ministry & Jesus’ has to do with where they were in history. Jesus laid the foundation, & he used Paul (as his slave) to expand on it, explain it, hone it, help others to it.
If a person is Christian, where do they get the idea that Paul went off on his own tangent & wrote about whatever he felt was right?
Is Romans 1:1 somehow a lie? Was Paul trying to use Christ’s name to get approval & power for himself? Not at all. His writings simply clarified the message of Jesus.
Comment by: Helen M.
5Thanks for your comment, Nutrideath.
I don’t think anyone who has posted on this thread, until you did, is 100% committed to the idea that every word Paul wrote in the Bible was inspired by God and therefore 100% true and accurate.
If they follow Christ, I still consider them Christians.
Eliza, who wrote the initial post and first comment, does not call herself a Christian.
Comment by: Helen M.
6Eliza,
I’ll share how I was taught to interpret the Bible by Bible-believing Christians (BBCs).
BBCs generally observe this principle: since the whole Bible teaches the same thing anyway, use clear passages to interpret unclear ones.
Most of the time Jesus’ sayings are less clear than Paul’s. So, Paul gets used to interpret Jesus.
So, when a man calls Jesus “Good Teacher” and Jesus responds “Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone” - BBCs interpret this as affirmation of Paul’s teaching that everyone is a sinner.
(By the way, it seems to me that Paul often took liberties with the context of OT statements when he used them. In my opinion, the original context of ‘no-one is good’ was somewhat hyperbolic literature, rather than a mathematically accurate ‘zero people are good’. But - to BBCs whatever Paul wrote was inspired by God so it’s irrelevant whether he took huge liberties or not)
Regarding this particular comment by Jesus: I think it should be a problem that Jesus rejects the man calling him ‘good’ if Jesus is indeed God. However, since another gospel - John - clearly says Jesus was God, Jesus’ response “Why do you call me good? No-one is good but God alone” is interpreted by BBCs in the light of the clearer teaching. So Jesus’ response is understood to be a denial that any human could be good - but not a denial that Jesus is God.
I actually suspect Matthew had trouble with Jesus saying “Why do you call me good? No-one is good but God alone” and that’s why he rephrased it to “Why do you ask me about what is good? There is only One who is good.” That’s entirely my own speculation (unless I read it somewhere a long time ago and forgot :))
Anyway, the bottom line is, by being harder to understand than Paul, Jesus destined his sayings to be interpreted in light of Paul’s. Rather than the other way around.
Comment by: Helen M.
7Eliza, another thought: John’s gospel is often ‘clearer’ than the other three (or seems to be, on the surface) and that’s probably why you hear John 3:16 and John 14:6 more than various of Jesus’ other sayings from the other three gospels.
Comment by: Nutrideath
8Ir, a different way to understand what Jesus meant by those words indicates that Jesus is not God, as you indicated in your comment.
If you notice, the man talking to Jesus didn’t just call him a good man, he used the term as a title - “Good Teacher.” Jesus was not saying that he himself was not “good.” Instead, he was refusing to allow the title of “Good” to be ascribed to himself. Why? Well, that’s because Jesus didn’t teach his own ideas. Notice what he said at:
Here Jesus makes a complete distinction between himself & his Father, God. He will claim no title of “Good Teacher” for teaching only what his Father gave him to teach. This does not mean that Jesus is not “good,” or that no man is good.
You say John clearly says Jesus is God, but I disagree. I’m guessing you are referring to John 1:1. If so, please look more closely at the rest of that same chapter, & for that matter the entire book of John. (As you said, use the clear scriptures to help interpret the harder ones.)
For example:
-vs 2: Mentions two distinct persons (the Word & God) and says the Word “was with God” - so there are two indications that Jesus is a separate person in this verse.
-vs 18: Tells us that “no man has seen God at any time.” Yet, many saw Jesus. This same verse goes on to say that, since no one has seen God, Jesus is the one who explained God to us. Again - showing complete distinction of personalities.
I’ll drop the Trinity for now - it is off topic for this thread (sorry). So, back to the topic of “good” I’ll leave you with another scripture of Paul’s:
It’s interesting that Paul makes a distinction between a “righteous man” and a “good man,” indicating that the “good man” is somehow superior. What do you make of this?
Comment by: Helen M.
9Nutrideath wrote:
Well, well, well…Nutrideath, welcome to the ranks of those denounced as heretics by many Evangelical Christians.
We have more in common than I thought ;)
Ironic isn’t it? You know the Bible so well, but if you reject the doctrine that Jesus is God, then as far as many Evangelical Christians are concerned, you’re as hell-bound as any atheist posting here.
Comment by: Helen M.
10I noticed that too! I used to have a theory about why Paul did that but I’ve forgotten what it was now.
Comment by: Eliza
11This is great - giving me more ways to look at & consider things - thanks!
Julie Marie - Good point about the filters & Paul’s focus on strict rules even before his conversion to Christianity. Maybe that’s even why he was picked for the job of building on the foundation of Christianity. And, I haven’t read that Spong book (it’s in the pile next to my bedside table) but I did run across that suggestion in another book of his. It’s an interesting thought, & gives new nuances to Paul’s comments about sexuality & about the/his sinful body. But an idea that doesn’t go over well w/ many, I’m sure (including my former-altar-boy-now-atheist husband!).
NCXian - Great analogy of Paul as a 1st century blogger! And, too, of the corporate partnership, if you will, of the “concept guy” and the “make it work guy”. (And first century people as nonvoting shareholders…nope, I think the analogy ends with Jesus and Paul!)
Regarding Paul in Acts - I’m not as familiar with Acts, but here are two places (the two places?) that spell out the message Paul got from Jesus in/after the experience on the road to Damascus:
Paul is to “carry” the name (and message) - not necessarily to expand on it, though as you point out the practical matters had to be dealt with by someone, somehow. Also, stemming from the second line, maybe Paul extrapolated his own experiences of suffering for Christ, a personal lesson, into rules he articulated for all Christians…?
Paul as servant (which is how my Bible translates Romans 1:1) and witness, interestingly, not only of the vision Paul is describing here, but also of future contacts (”in which I will appear to you”). I’m not aware that Paul claimed more than one contact with Jesus - the one in 1 Corinthians 15:8 (”Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me”) and elsewhere (e.g., Galatians 1:12, “For I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it, but I received it though a revelation of Jesus Christ”). It’s not clear to me - but please correct me if I’m wrong - that Paul reports any subsequent experience of contact with Jesus.
Comment by: Nutrideath
12The way I understand it, a “righteous man” does what is right - but no more. He lives by the “letter of the law” so to speak.
But a “good man” goes beyond that. He understands and lives by the underlying principles of love & concern for others. Thus, a “good man” does more than just “what is right.”
Oh, and thanks but I’m used to being in the “ranks of those denounced” as a heretic by most “Christians!” I have been all my life. ;) I don’t worry about them in the least. They think I’m going to hell, but I know they don’t even understand what “hell” is as the Bible teaches it!
Comment by: Helen M.
13Nutrideath wrote:
I think that was pretty much the conclusion I came to. I’d much rather hang out with a good than a righteous man, if those are the definitions!
I think it’s fascinating that atheists and very Biblically literate non-trinitarians are in the same hell-bound boat, from the point of view of some Evangelical Christians.
Before I ever ‘met’ you here, I got to know someone else online who made it impossible for me to seriously think that anyone could be excluded from heaven simply because the interpretation of the Bible they were taught and sincerely believed did not teach Jesus is God.
But maybe you think people will be excluded from heaven simply because the interpretation of the Bible they were taught and sincerely believed does teach that Jesus is God…
Comment by: Julie Marie
14yes, Spongs analysis of Paul’s considerable self debasement irritates (and boy that is putting it mildly) many Christians. Including my husband. I don’t bring the idea up much. But it seemed pertienent to your question…and I’m pretty much used to speaking my mind here.
Comment by: Eliza
15Thanks for your comments, Nutrideath. As Helen said, I’m not Christian & in fact am “unchurched”. So my questioning of Paul comes from a position, perhaps, of naivete, but also because picking the book up and reading it I’m left unclear what his credentials were, so to speak, to be the one to write 1/3 - 1/2 of the New Testament and much of what I hear/read some Christians citing as their beliefs.
Perhaps this is just his writing style, or something that changed in translation, but in developing his teachings Paul seems to use deductive style, often starting with Hebrew Scriptures and his 1 Corinthians 15:3-5 basic sketch of Jesus: “that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, and that he appeared to…” (lists postresurrection appearances, which, as a side comment, differ from those reported in Matthew & Luke: the eleven disciples; which differ from those reported in Mark: Mary Magdalene and the eleven disciples; and which differ from those reported in John: Mary Magdalene, the disciples, unclear whether to others). Then, especially in some of his writings (Romans and, if it’s his, Hebrews) Paul uses alot of “therefore” and “then” to come to conclusions about Christian beliefs and guidelines. That comes across to me as someone thinking about it and drawing conclusions himself, rather than relating divinely inspired teaching.
Also, it’s not so clear to me that Paul claims he is relaying what the Lord has told him, literally. He does say in Galatians 1:11-12 that “the gospel that was preached by me is not man’s gospel…I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ”, but in other places he puts himself at the same level of importance as other people spreading the gospel, for example:
Maybe he’s being humble, but I’m not hearing where his work, though crucial and requiring great skill, is said to be more than a person building on the foundation of Jesus, in a way that other people were doing in a similar way (but not writing about it, or not as well, or those writings were not saved) elsewhere. Not the standard view of Paul, I’ll grant you - but I’m trying to see where his views come from, & imo it still looks to me like it comes from Paul the human, after he had one incredible, life-changing religious experience.
Comment by: Helen M.
16Once I started questioning what I formerly accepted, I began to have trouble with the whole ‘everyone is a sinner’ construct. It’s so negative.
Some Christians seem to think it doesn’t matter since they’re forgiven anyway (at least that’s what I used to try to tell myself). But it does matter really, whether you live your life thinking there’s nothing good in you and anything good whatsoever in you is all from God, or whether you’ believe you’re a mix of better and worse impulses and it lies in your power to choose good or evil.
If nothing else I think it’s impossible not to have this view affect the way Christians look at non-Christians (speaking from my own experience).
Comment by: Julie Marie
17Oh yes it does matter. The “i am a worm worthy of death” self concept is so unhealthy. It really makes me sad and then angry that so many people parrott that tripe. Do they really believe it? I don’t know.
Of course, once you toss utter depravity overboard, then there is quite a bit you have to rethink. Why do we need a savior? Why did Jesus have to be crucified? quite awhile ago I pondered: did Jesus have to die that way because the religious powers couldn’t tolerate a challenge to their concept of God? And of course, the Romans were just interested in stability. Whatever they had to do to keep the region stable and revenue producing they would do. So maybe if peoples hearts hadn’t been so hard, we could have had God living among us for lots longer?
Comment by: Nutrideath
18Eliza, first here’s a little background on Paul I was able to dig up:
Paul was born in Tarsus, a prominent city of Cilicia. (Ac 21:39; 22:3) His parents were Hebrews and evidently adhered to the Pharisaic branch of Judaism. (Ac 23:6; Php 3:5) He was a Roman citizen from birth (Ac 22:28), his father having perhaps been granted citizenship for services rendered. But, at Jerusalem, he received instruction from the learned Pharisee Gamaliel, suggesting that Paul was from a prominent family. (Ac 22:3; 5:34) Languagewise, Paul was versed at least in Greek and Hebrew. (Ac 21:37-40)
Paul was very well suited to do the things he did: he was extremely well educated - especially as you noted in the Old Testament (being a Pharisee); he spoke & wrote both of the most prominent languages required; he had dual citizenship. For these reasons & others he could be accepted at face value (could “get in the door” so to speak) with both Jews and Gentiles.
What were his credentials? Well, the above may have helped him after-the-fact, but his real credentials are that he was chosen by Jesus himself - he thus became an Apostle.
Also, think about it from the standpoint of profession: For instance, in medicine there are many different disciplines for different ailments (neurology, oncology, cardiology, urology, etc.) You send the right doctor for the job. Jesus sent the right man for the job Paul was sent to do. Specifically, this involved at first a huge missionary work. Later, this experience equipped him for writing much of the Bible. (Indeed, much of the new testament consists of the letters he wrote to those Christian congregations he helped to start during his missionary work.)
I too have noticed his deductive style, but I have always seen this as his way of persuading his listeners to Christianity. It may also have been a style particular to his Pharisee education.
I don’t quite understand what you mean by your last paragraph. You point out that his work is no more than building on the foundation of Jesus (with which I agree), but then you finish by saying this just looks like it comes from Paul himself…?
And this:
I’d love to hear more about, particularly the discrepencies you mention. I’m not sure if this has any bearing on the matter, but the “list” of Apostles changed some:
1st - the 12 selected by Jesus at the start of his ministry;
2nd - Judas was removed from that list;
3rd - The other Apostles selected another man to replace Judas (Bartholemew? or Matthias? I’m not sure…); and
4th - Paul was selected by the resurrected Jesus in heaven.
In any case, you may find Paul’s account at 2 Cor. 12:1-5 interesting. There he speaks of “a man” who was given a vision of heaven & paradise. It’s generally accepted that Paul was probably talking about himself here, but in the context you’ll see that he was also trying not to sound “boastful,” so maybe that’s why he couched his words as he did.
Comment by: Nutrideath
19Helen,
I understand what you mean about “everyone’s a sinner” being negative. But I’ve never looked at it that way.
Really, for me that piece of information just explains a few things: 1) why we need the ransom sacrifice of Jesus; 2) why we grow old & die.
Yes, humans by nature are sinful. But we don’t have to dwell on that. God himself is completely pure, and so has nothing to do with any sin whatsoever. That would just leave us out in the cold - except that Jesus acts as our “mediator”:
This ransom, among other things, cleanses our consciences.
We are thus able to approach God in prayer (thru our mediator, that’s why we pray “in Jesus’ name”) with a clean conscience. If we put faith in that sacrifice, we can truly feel guilt free.
Imagine that you live in a small town. There you are accused of some heinous crime. You are tried by a local judge and convicted. You though know you are innocent, and so you appeal to a higher court. You appeal all the way to the Supreme Court. There, you are exonerated.
But when you return home, the local judge still treats you with contempt. Should that be so? No, of course not. He should abide by the decision of the higher court.
Sometimes our consciences treat us with contempt. We feel “convicted” and full of guilt. But in light of the ransom sacrifice of Jesus, God — the Supreme Judge — judges us innocent. If we truly have faith in that sacrifice (which includes repentance and changing sinful ways to live in accord with the principles found in the Bible), our conscience is clear.
Comment by: Nutrideath
20(Sorry, hit enter too soon…)
Living with a clean conscience is a gift from God - literally. It is part of the gift of the ransom.
Comment by: shortstopjpc
21“I am just as immoral as you on any given day, but man is it convicting.
Felt a need to clarify this. Before Christ, I would sin intentionally. There were days that I would know that I was going to do something that was sinful in nature. My tendency to go into the thought process of sin has substantially decreased. Of course you will have to take my word for that, for you do not know what goes on in my mind. However, I believe that God does. I am accountable for my thoughts and actions as I understand these things to be true. I have also through my study of Gods word gained a greater understanding of where I was sinful, and I have taken action to correct those areas of my life. Not to perfection, but the desire is there. Am I as sinful, and as ignorant of what the Bible describes as sinful today as I was before I accepted Christ?… No.
I fail everyday.
Yes, but my desire to please my father appears to improve as the days pass.
I sin everyday
Although I believe that my realization of what sin is, is more clear to me now then ever before. I would be lieing to say I have reached perfection. And I dont expect it from anyone else. I believe that as individuals begin their personal journey following Christ, that they all reach different levels at different times, obviously, and that nobody has the right to determine what speed the progress is made. A first year Christian has the capability to obtain more from Gods word, then someone who has been saved for 10 years and never picked up a Bible, if that individual desires that level of relationship with God.
I say things I wish I could take back.
Before I followed Christ, and learned more about what was expected of me, I would say things I would not only never take back, but I purposefully stated things with the intent of harm to another person. And, I would justify the verbal abuse with a “they had it coming” attitude. No, not all the time. And yes before I followed Christ, I had what I would call the morals according to shortstopjpc BC. Which was whatever I wanted morals to be, as long as they did not hinder my lifestyle and choices. On occasion, usually out of anger, I will say things to my wife, children, or close relationship, that I truly wish I could have worded differentley, or lowered my tone. This also has improved, because the realization that it is wrong and harmful is a reality to me. I dont just accept it anymore. My understanding is deeper now then before. Hence, progress, and the willingness to progress.
I hurt when someone misreads me.
always, but I do my best to evaluate why the other party feels how they feel, and I try to find resolve.
And I love people, and it doesnt come naturally.”
Jesus by His words have taught me lessons that go against what I really want to do according to “my feelings”. To this day it is hard to go against how “I feel”. But by Faith I have forgiven people in my life, that before I would not have loved. It was natural for me to carry hatred in my heart. And now, I have a desire to forgive. Not forget, or be careless. But to forgive. Somewhere in the world, I have hurt someone also. Somewhere in this world something I have done to someone at one time in my life has affected them. I hope they have the ability to forgive me, and go forward with their lives. And the forgiveness thing was a task for me. I had walked with the Lord for 8 years before I realized I had never truly forgave my own mother. And when I did, the power of forgiveness was revealed to me. And for some reason, when I forgave my mother, my relationship with my wife improved. GO figure.
Sorry for my need to clarify these statements, if anything it was therapy for me.
As for the discussions of Paul compared to Jesus, more to come.
The reason Christians use the Law to point out sin, is because by God word it is shown to be a school master bringing people to the knowledge of their need for a savior. This is not to be done in a way where the Christian presenting the gospel would imply in any way that he or she is without sin. But clearly pointing out that they themselves are sinful, but have come to the realization that by this knowledge they realized their need for a savior, and they are passing this information on. Unfortunatley, for those that do not wish to hear this information, it can come off as judgemental. When in actuality, it should be clearly presented by the presenter, in a loving way.
Where some Christians go wrong, myself included, is when our desire for others to believe goes beyond giving the gospel, and is presented poorly. The whole problem appears to be the strong desire a Christian has for spreading the news. It becomes intrusive to those that are not interested, but essential for the person presenting the gospel. Thats a problem. The Christian truly believes that the information being shared, could save a soul and lead to eternal life with the Father. It is hard to hold back this information. But I can understand if someone did not believe, that it would be taken as judgement. From what I have learned, I do not have the authority to judge. And not my intention. jC
Comment by: Eliza
22What about James and Peter? They were also leaders in the church, yet few of their writings are included. (I don’t know anything about how much they may have written, etc., but I know there’s some controversy over whether Peter wrote either of the epistles with his name on them, and there are various dates given for all of these letters.)
The Letter of James in the N.T. reads to me as being closer to Jesus’s teachings and examples than Paul’s writings. It hits a lot of the high points - remain steadfast under tribulation and temptation, show no partiality, have faith in God and do good works, wisdom is from above, avoid worldliness, don’t boast, give away your riches, be patient, swear no oath, bring sinners back from wandering.
Neither Paul nor James refer to events in the life of Jesus (except Paul’s references to crucifixion and resurrection; he says the latter was spiritual - also, I think there’s one reference to Pilate, which might have been added later). Interestingly, James uses “Christ” just twice, at the start of chapters 1 and 2, in introductory phrases - after that, he uses “God” and “Lord”. Whereas Paul’s writings use “Lord” but also focus heavily on use of “Christ”, about half of the time using just the title without “Jesus” before or after. The Letter of James sounds like it was written by someone who witnessed Jesus’s life and teachings on earth. The letters of Paul sound like someone who was really taken with the idea of Christ.
I know this will hit like a dud bomb, but Paul’s letters are rife with gnostic terms and images. I’ve tried suggesting it before, on the DB, and hear back from people that it’s just not so, that’s a lie, can’t be true, etc.
Turns out you need to read the text in Greek and know key gnostic terms and meanings, but people who have background in these 2 things can point out many, many examples of gnosticism in Paul’s writings. His hometown was a hotbed of Mithraism; he would have known something about it in addition to his official education. I’m sure I cannot find a source that will be acceptable to all, so I might just suggest googling Paul and gnostic or gnosticism and seeing what comes up. I can also point people to a debated Wikipedia page on Paul and gnosticism for more details that you can read and disagree with. But, again, people who can recognize gnostic terminology in Greek say his writings are loaded. (I’m trying to read Elaine Pagels’ Gnostic Paul but it’s a slog - written at a pretty academic level.)
Some of that does show up in the English translations, but in many places the words have been translated (gnosis becomes knowledge, sophia becomes wisdom, etc).
In the 2 Corinthians 12 section on Paul’s visions, he says in verse 2 that the man he is talking about went up to “the third heaven” - this is a gnostic or Mithraic concept, not a Christian or Jewish one.
In Romans 1:11, Paul writes “For I long to see you, that I may impart to you some spiritual gift to strengthen you” - or, in a different translation, transliterating the Greek words that have meaning in gnosticism, it reads “For I long to see you, that I may share with you a certain pneumatic charisma“. (There’s more, but I’ll try for a smattering, a taste, rather than anything comprehensive.)
1 Corinthians chapters 2-4 are full of gnostic terms and images:
2:6 Yet among the mature we do impart wisdom…
2:7 But we impart a secret and hidden wisdom of God…
2:8 None of the rulers of this age [a gnostic term for demonic powers] understood this…
2:10 these things God has revealed to us through the spirit. For the spirit searches everything, even the depth of God.
2:13 And we impart this in words not taught by human wisdom but taught by spirit, interpreting spiritual truths to those who are spiritual.
2:16 …but we have the mind of Christ.
3:1 But I, brothers, could not address you as spiritual people, but as people of the flesh…
4:1 This is how one should regard us, as…stewards of the mysteries of God.
Secret, hidden wisdoms, being imparted by those on a higher level. Spirit versus flesh. Stewards of the mysteries of God. (Doesn’t Paul say several times that there are things he told them in person, or wants to tell them in person, but can’t write? Secret teachings.) I am not going off some deep end here, but only trying to point out that Paul really seems to be bringing in a strong influence from another approach to spiritual practice, that I would guess was more likely from his own inclinations and beliefs than from any revelation he received. But the tracks have been covered up, because gnosticism was deemed heretical and as many traces as could be were wiped out in the first few centuries AD.
Some of the later epistles said to be written by Paul but pretty widely thought not to be actually work to try to remove the gnostic influence - for example, 1 Timothy says 1:4 “nor do devote themselves to myths and endless genealogies [a poke at Matthew 1 and Luke 3??] which promote speculations…” and 2:5 “For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus…” (as opposed to the gnostic approach of each person gaining gnosis and sophia, knowledge and wisdom, via passing from one to another of initation into secrets, with goal of each gnostic moving higher into the spiritual realm on his own).
Comment by: Eliza
23Well, I didn’t mean to say so much about gnosticism, knowing that it goes over with a thud like a lead balloon!
Nutrideath, you said:
Matthew, Mark, and Luke all specify “the eleven” - so they give a timing of resurrection appearances that was before a new 12th was selected. Paul says in 1 Corinthians 15:5-8, “…he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. Last of all…he appeared to me.” Cephas [Simon Peter] was one of the disciples, he’s listed first separately then apparently is part of “the twelve”, though it’s not clear whether Paul was referring to the disciples after a new 12th was chosen, or whether he didn’t know Judas Iscariot had betrayed Jesus. “More than five hundred” is unusual - this is not mentioned anywhere else in the N.T. or in histories of the time, to my knowledge. “James” would apparently be Jesus’s brother James, not James the fisherman disciple. “All the apostles” would mean, I would suppose, all of the people who were going around teaching about Jesus Christ - though again there’s not any other mention of such appearances, to my knowledge. So, part of my question here is, why is Paul the one whose writings and thoughts are so important to Christianity? Why aren’t the teachings of the others to whom Jesus appeared included? I guess one can conclude that the appearance to Paul was to chose him for this particular role, and the appearances to the others had different purposes…
Comment by: NCxian
24One thing that kind of jumps out at me from the quote is “carry my name before the Gentiles”. That seems to be an expansion of Jesus’ message. Although Jesus occasionally dealt with and taught about non-Jews, his ministry seems to be closely connected to the Jewish nation. Paul is generally seen (and sees himself) to be the guy to take Christianity out beyond Judaism. And since that is how it ultimately winds up (outside Judaism) maybe that is why Paul’s writings are the ones preserved (because they were gentiles doing the preserving) and now that I think about, maybe why we call Jesus “Jesus”?
Comment by: Eliza
25Helen, thanks for your comments on how Bible-believing Christians approach Paul - that’s very useful, & I can see how going for the easiest-to-understand writing makes sense in the BBC view. I think some of the appeal of the Gospel of John is also that it’s the most poetic - there’s some really lyrical writing in it. And I agree that it can seem the clearest on the surface, but boy when I try to delve into it, or see how it fits with the other 3 gospels, my head starts to spin!
NCxian - yes, that makes sense, he’s the one who will do carry the message to the Gentiles, he says that in Galatians 1 & 2. But Jesus named Peter as the rock of his church - would that have meant just among Jews? In Galatians 2:7 Paul says “Peter had been entrusted with the gospel to the circumcised”, but didn’t Peter also work with Gentiles? Bishop of Antioch and then, I think, Rome? Paul and Peter (Cephas) argued (Galatians 2:11-14), which seems like such a human touch…but again, a comment that leads me to wonder how much of their preaching and views were their own, and how much came right from the Lord…
Comment by: NCxian
26I seem to recall that a contingent of the early Christians (who were Jews) thought that you had to become a Jew to be a Christian. I suppose they had good reason to believe that was consistent with Jesus’ message, since they actually lived with him. So perhaps being entrusted with the gospel to the circumcised lost some of its glamour when they had that “first Vatican council” in Acts and decided all the Jewish laws (including circumcision) would not apply to everybody.
I’m way over my head with all these details here. Anything I say would be right out of the mouth of somebody I’ve read who I don’t know enough to defend or reject! I’m really a big-picture kind of girl. What does Jim H. say–I believe in the “Jesus movie”?
Comment by: Helen M.
27Eliza wrote:
Yes indeed - good point, Eliza!
Comment by: Helen M.
28NCxian wrote:
Yes, I think so, NCxian. :)
I question what being into the details has actually achieved - maybe you’re better off without them anyway!
Comment by: Helen M.
29Eliza wrote:
Actually I liked that, Eliza. The possible influence of gnosticism on Paul is not something I’ve studied to date. It sounds interesting.
Comment by: Helen M.
30Nutrideath wrote:
But that’s the problem right there, Nutrideath. The doctrine of original sin says that babies are born sinful. That a baby is a sinful selfish creature only interested in meeting its own needs.
In this way, the doctrine of original sin turns the basic will to live into a sin.
And in spite of all you wrote about Christian consciences being clear and Jesus fully forgiving them - the minute-by-minute experience of a Christian is: continually being tempted to sin; often giving in; then repenting and being forgiven.
This might be ok for some people. It wasn’t very ok for someone like me who is rather a perfectionist. It forced me to compare myself with perfection and I was always falling short.
Perhaps now you’ll think “Aha - this is why she had to quit. She wasn’t living the Christian life ‘properly’.”
Maybe so. But, see - to people like Eliza all this obsession over personal sin frankly seems…weird.
Comment by: Eliza
31shortstopjpc, your post was apparently “in moderation” for a while so I hadn’t seen it before this. I’m sorry for having including your name along with the quote from you in the middle of the message that started this thread. But, thank you for your comments and explanations. I feel I have a better understanding of what your life was like before, and what your acceptance of Christ has meant for you.
Helen’s right - I’ve been puzzled over what seems like a contradiction and an obsession. The contradiction is between “Jesus died for our/your/my sins” [in atonement - the perfect sacrificial lamb] and the view of one’s self (and others) as being full of sin. Didn’t he wipe the slate clean, so to speak? Why wouldn’t that gift be fully and gracefully accepted and the chance used to move on to other things? The obsessional aspect is just that it does seem that alot of emotional energy goes into the concern over sin. I just wonder if there wouldn’t be a different direction to channel that concern and energy, that might have more visible fruit, so to speak.
Comment by: Eliza
32And, one last comment tonight - I came up with an example of the difference in meaning that transliteration from the Greek can convey, compared with translation from the Greek. I don’t know alot about gnostic terms, so “pneumatic charisma” and “sophia” etc don’t mean anything to me, I have to rely on what others say about terms like that.
But if you were reading a text you hadn’t seen before, translated into English, I would guess you (and I, too) would have a very different understanding (and gut reaction) of what you were reading if you saw this:
as opposed to this:
And yet they’re linguisitically equivalent on some level that doesn’t consider the meaning of names and terms. Hope that makes an iota* of sense… (*another Greek word, transliterated!)
Comment by: Eliza
33(darn, now I feel like I have to clarify. I meant, “they’re linguistically equivalent at a level that doesn’t consider the meaning inherent in recognizable names and terms” - hope that clears the mud a bit!)
Comment by: Doreen
34Paul’s letters were shaped by his experience in prison and with the court system. He was condemned by the Romans while innocent. He recognized that God justified him by grace. In Roman law, grace did not count, but rather only the merits–social status, power, and wealth–of the accused.
Paul’s reference to the righteous may mean those who thought they would gain salvation by keeping the works (in the ol’ “faith vs. works discussion), which at the time meant keeping Mosaic law.
Paul’s letters are in response to specific issues raised by the churches to whom he is responding. This is one reason they may seem harsh. He doesn’t waste any time telling them what they are doing right.
Yes! Paul was an excellent communicator and tailored the language of each letter to the audience. At the time, the church in Corinith was full of Gnostic elements. Hence, Paul’s gnostic terms & images.
Oh stop me, I could go on & on about Paul….
:)
Comment by: Helen M.
35Doreen wrote:
This is a very important point. Context is everything!
If we analyze Paul’s letters as if they were articles whose content he chose according to what was most important to him, we come to certain conclusions regarding his priorities and emphasis.
However, if the content and emphasis of them was driven by them being responses to other letters, it’s inappropriate to draw conclusions about Paul’s own theological emphasis from them.
How we interpret what Paul wrote about women, for example, is very dependent on whether he was giving advice on how to solve particular problems in churches or was simply outlining his theology about men and women.
This may not be realistic but anyway, for purposes of illustration:
If you heard me tell another person “Don’t let your child go outside!” you would draw very different conclusions about me based on whether that’s some universal principle of mine or whether it was a response to knowing that it’s the middle of summer and the other person’s child is on some medication which means he/she must not be exposed to direct sunligh.
Comment by: Nutrideath
36Helen wrote:
So, you might ask what the concept of sin in general does for us. Without the concepts of “right” & “wrong” what would we be? Doesn’t the concept of sin set humans apart from animals? It teaches us to resist our inborn animalistic and selfish tendencies.
We are not trapped in an endless vicious cycle, though sometimes it may appear so. Notice what John wrote:
Notice especially that last part — that “God is greater than our hearts…” John clearly knew that it was possible for us to feel condemned at heart.
We may have no difficulty believing that God has great love for his people in general. However, sometimes we can become so overly concerned about our own shortcomings that we are convinced that God could never love us. “I am too imperfect for Jehovah to love me,” we may think. Of course, we all have negative feelings from time to time. But some seem to wage a constant battle against feelings of worthlessness.
God knows our inborn weaknesses and shortcomings, and he takes these into account. “He himself well knows the formation of us, remembering that we are dust,” wrote David (Psalm 103:14.). God realizes the impact our background has in making us what we are. In fact, he knows us far better than we know ourselves.
He knows that many of us would like to be different, but we are unable to overcome our imperfections. Our situation could be compared to that of the apostle Paul, who wrote: “The good that I wish I do not do, but the bad that I do not wish is what I practice.” (Romans 7:19) All of us are engaged in the same struggle. In some cases this may result in our having a self-condemning heart.
Always remember this: More important than how we view ourselves is how God views us. Whenever he sees us trying to please him, he reacts not simply with mild satisfaction but with rejoicing:
Though what we achieve may seem to be relatively little in our own eyes, our willingness and good motive delight him. He looks beyond what we accomplish; he discerns what we want to do; he is aware of our wishes and desires. God can read our heart. (Jeremiah 12:3; 17:10)
When we sometimes feel downhearted because we compare ourselves to perfection, remember that “God is greater than our hearts.” Even when we might condemn ourselves, that doesn’t mean that he does the same.
Comment by: Nutrideath
37Eliza wrote:
I think its important to point out that the teachings of Paul & the teachings of the others were all the same. They were all in agreement, and in unity. Jesus prayed the following, just before he was taken to be killed:
And as to why so much of the Bible was written by Paul, instead of that work being divvied up between all the Apostles, he himself wrote:
They all had different abilities, some miraculous & some were just inborn or learned or who they were. Some of the Apostles have no writings of their own in the Bible for us to read. That doesn’t mean they were not extremely valuable to that early Christian congregation. Instead of being writers, they may have been teachers or administrators or whatever was needed at the time. It was all very important work.
I found your Gnostic information very interesting — I’ve never heard anything about Paul & Gnosticism. Doreen’s ideas on that subject might be right. In any case, I personally do believe that Paul was writing only what Jesus directed him to write.
Comment by: Helen M.
38Nutrideath wrote:
That’s just it, Nutrideath. This is a very negative view, imo. What’s wrong with ‘animalistic’? We’re highly related to (other) animals whatever you believe about our origins. And if we had no so-called ’selfish tendencies’ we’d never made it to adulthood. They are part and parcel of our ‘will to live’.
I still don’t see why a baby crying is sinful. But read certain Christian parenting books and they’ll tell you all about how you must not let your selfish baby run your household. From BIRTH you must put them on a feeding schedule and put them down to cry themselves to sleep, so you the parents and not the baby, are in control. And they will tell you that this is God’s way to look after a baby. Implying, of course, that any other way is not God’s way.
Babies have ended up severely dehydrated in the hospital as a direct result of this teaching (perhaps they’ve moderated it since that happened - I’m not sure - but the authors don’t seem the flexible type so maybe not) - which I find very distressing. (Here’s their website page about infants - there’s a paragraph about ‘getting your baby on a healthy routine’ which hints at how they will tell you to ’schedule’ your baby’s time from birth)
Eliza I hope we are still on topic. I think we are, if the topic encompasses ‘the [Bible-believing]Christian’s view of sin’.
Comment by: Eliza
39We are still on topic, and wow, this discussion has been great. Thanks to all for the information, interpretations, and insight. This really helps me think about Paul’s writings. Keep going, if you like - I have to actually do some work today :) so will not be able to check in again until much later today.
Doreen, I wouldn’t be the one to stop you from going on and on about Paul! Thanks for the very useful contextual points, including considering his audience for the letters. Are there any books about Paul’s life and writings that you might recommend? (Seminary textbooks would be over my head, but anything for a more general audience?)
Helen, your analogy about warning against sunlight helps, but then I have to wonder the same thing you mentioned:
Yes, and imo it would be inappropriate to extend his admonitions to everyone, or all Christians, but also very hard without more context to know what was intended for one audience and what was intended as a general guideline.
Nutrideath, we have somewhat different ways of looking at the Bible. I understand your point that
I know a lot of people agree with you, but there are also people, including Christians (and atheist me) who see differences between teachings in various parts of the Bible. Isn’t this the basis for some of the differences between different types of Christianity? For example, you’ve mentioned that you don’t believe in the Trinity, yet that seems to be minority view in Christianity overall. And all sides see their view as being consistent with the Bible.
One example of the differences I see are the sayings from Jesus in 2 of the gospels (this is from memory, not quoting directly):
One who is not against us is for us
but, another place:
One who is not for us is against us.
They look very similar, but in fact are crucially different. The first is inclusive, the second is exclusive. And I see a lot of the assumption of the second version in the attitudes around, say, separation of church and state issues — when imo the first would be a healthier, less divisive assumption-approach.
Comment by: Julie Marie
40Helen,
I took that class. Luckily Cody was a regular little guy who conformed to mommy’s schedule for the most part. My old church (which they are members of) supports this very much, and my husband and I almost took the 26 week class covering preschool through teenage years. Schedules kept not jiving though…and I’ve since had a change of heart.
I’m relying more on my favorite auntie now…who has her PhD in early childhood development…to direct me to resources to understand what to expect from my child, and how to guide them.
They have modified their language somewhat, arguing for a degree of common sense, which is good…rigidly adhereing to a plan that is clearly not working cries out for common sense. I couldn’t let my Cody-man cry on and on…so against all teaching, in addition to breast feeding, I gave him formula for his nighttime feeding. He was just a hungry little dude! And neither of us have sufferred as a result of breach of protocols. The other big no-no I do is lay down with him for a few minutes each night. Yes, I know he should be able to put himself to sleep without me…but I love the time together! And it makes him so happy to have me there. Its some of our most tender time. Might I take a different stance if I had 3 kids, all expecting mommy to “lay down wif me!” ? Yes. But the reality is Cody is my only child, so that caveat doesn’t apply. The Ezzos do a better job of presenting the idea of understanding why you are doing something before you do it in their books geared towards raising older children.
And yes, the title of the series is a bit off putting to me now…but I do like parts of what they teach, which is parents…take charge. Don’t assume with enough love and tenderness your children will raise themselves to be kind human beings, you must teach them.
One of the things I really disliked about some of these books (not just this series, but the old school christian childrearing books in general) is that when you discipline your child, you tell them you are accountable to God for how you raise them. I understand they are trying to show that mommy and daddy are accountable too…but from my point of view, that is making the God into the enforcer. I want my son to internalize my values, and have his conscience hurt him when he misbehaves not because of the enforcer, but because it causes him pain to realize he has behaved badly.
I know, I wandered off topic. But when this particular parenting course came up, I had to jump in…
Comment by: Helen M.
41(Just a quick response to Julie Marie re: Christian parenting - I highly recommend The Baby Book by Sears and Sears . The book isn’t specifically written to Christians but I happen to know the authors are Christians. It’s the opposite approach to the Ezzos and it might be too extreme the other way, but it sure is affirming of all sorts of things the Ezzos imply are ‘wrong’, ‘bad’ and ’sinful’ ).
Comment by: Nutrideath
42Helen wrote:
What’s wrong with ‘animalistic’? Well, we’re not animals and really it’s quite horrifying for humans to have those animalistic qualities. Think about it this way:
What if you had a child that never developed any of the characteristics that make us “human.” I’m not talking about physically - physically they were defect-free & healthy.
But imagine a child that never learns to speak. That in itself would be quite horrifying to a parent. But the parents could still take comfort that in most other ways, including emotionally & mentally, their child was normal.
So take it a step further - imagine the child never displays love. I think that autism is somewhat akin to this, and it is terribly hard for the parents.
Even further, what if the child never grasped the concept of good & bad, right & wrong. They acted on any impulse that came into their mind because there was nothing to balance them out. They completely had no understanding of justice, and could not even be taught this thru harsh discipline.
What kind of adult would this child grow into? Would you want to be the parent of that person?
Imagine the heartache of everyday life. You, as the parent, might feel that you needed to restrain your child - because they think nothing of being violent. They would kill, or maim, or rape at will, without the slightest compunction. Would you wind up putting them in a cage? On a mental and emotional level, would this person be more like an animal than human?
This is an extreme analogy, but it points out that even in small doses we are repulsed by “animalistic” tendencies in other humans. The biggest of these are crimes, but even the smaller ones that are not usually disgust us. They’re even stereotypical:
- the career-mad middle manager who steps on anyone to get ahead
- the liar who’ll say anything to manipulate you
- the womanizer/adulterer, man-eater/adulteress
- the playground bully
- the slick salesman who sells shoddy merchandise
And the list could go on, but you get the idea. If it’s a crime, you can invariably trace it back to “animalistic” behavior. If it’s a person you don’t like or cannot stand your reasons are also usually in the same vein.
Now, I don’t have children of my own, and I know nothing of the program you related. But I think it’s ridiculous to think that the crying of a baby is “sinful.” IMO, that’s twisting the concept of original sin out of all reason.
Comment by: Helen M.
43Eliza wrote:
Exactly.
But there are Christians who think the meaning of Paul’s writing is clear and obvious - and they suspect anyone who tries to analyse the text in any complex way (for example, based on likely context) of simply trying to wriggle their way out of submitting to what Paul - and hence God - commands [to all Christians, at all times]. Their attitude seems to be - the person doing the analysing has a stubborn rebellious spirit; that person should quit the analysis and surrender to God and admit God knows best.
I’m not saying all Christians think that way but - I have run into it.
Christians who try to interpret Paul literally with no analysis of the context or intended scope of what he said come up with crazy (imo) rules such as “Women may teach male children up to a certain age only” - because Paul wrote “I do not permit a woman to teach or usurp authority over a man”. I suspect many Christian men who say they believe this live with the cognitive dissonance of knowing full well that their wives are smart and often give them good advice.
When people are constrained to believe that a letter a guy wrote to one church or even one individual 2,000 years ago is God’s commands to all Christians for all time, they find themselves forced into adopting a number of weird practices (again, imo). Practices that - imo - people wouldn’t give a second thought to if it wasn’t in the Bible.
Comment by: Julie Marie
44one thing that has always puzzled me about those who say women can’t have any authority over men is OT Judge Deborah. Uh…Judge over all Israel, not just women and boys under the age of 12…
To me, this contradiction demands Pauls statements be taken in the context of the situation and should not be applied universally.
I’ve been taught that the reason women should not have authority in church is that we are more easily deceived than men (as evidenced by satan deceiving Eve, not Adam). I’d agree I am more easily decieved than my husband. But I am less easily decieved than my father is. And Eliza is probably harder to deceive than the lot of us.
The unstated flip side to this line of thinking is this: Adam was the one who willfully sinned. Which is worse? Being tricked by a trickster, or willfull sin? Hmmm…if we were to paint all men by that same brush, we’d say men shouldn’t hold any position of authority because they are so willing to corrupt themselves.
So maybe we should start assessing ourselves realistically, acknowledging our individual strengths, and setting some sort of check system up to help us not get tripped up by our weaknesses.
Which makes much more sense to me than just throwing up our hands and admitting to utter depravity.
Comment by: Nutrideath
45But Helen, Paul’s writings are in the Bible. For all intents & purposes, that does carry more weight.
If you don’t believe those writings were inspired of God, then so be it. In that case, they’re just letters a guy wrote to one church around 2,000 years ago.
Either the Bible is the inspired Word of God, or its a pack of lies (because it claims to be the inspired Word of God).
If its the inspired Word of God, then either it is mostly intact, or it has been changed. And if God saw fit to write it to begin with why is it reasonable to believe that he would then allow it to be perverted as time went on? If he has the power to cause it to be written, does he somehow then not have the power to preserve it?
If you start picking & choosing which passages you will live by simply based on which passages you would like to live by, then what’s the use?
I think that most Christian organizations today don’t believe in the “inerrancy of the Bible” because they don’t want to believe it. There are certain passages they don’t like, or that they feel they’ll lose membership over, and so rather than teach what is plainly found in the Bible they water it down or ignore it.
I know from reading your previous post and others that you feel the scripture about women teaching to be unfair to women. Well, I’m male, so maybe you fee that I don’t or can’t relate to that. How about this:
I am not an apostle. Hmmm… I’d really like to be an apostle. They really had lots of responsibility, not to mention prominence in the congregation. Maybe I can hunt around in the Bible & find a scripture that I can show someone so they’ll believe I’m an apostle. Or even better, one that proves that I actually AM one. Plus, I guess I’d like to throw out all those scriptures that point away from my being one. They really don’t count much anyway, and people hardly ever read them.
See where this is heading? If we throw away the Bible, then we just have whatever we make up for ourselves. Even if we just start throwing out little pieces of the Bible, we’ve started down that path.
Why did Paul write that passage about women not being teachers in the congregation? You may as well ask why I’m not an apostle. In both cases, Jesus has the power & authority to make them happen. But it is not up to us to demand changes in the way Jesus set things up, it is up to Jesus.
Now you might say that Paul was writing that on his own, that Jesus never put any such constraints on women directly. But Paul claimed he was “a slave of Christ.” So there’s the rub - Was Paul acting on his own, or was he writing the words of Jesus, his Lord?
Another question for each of us, Would it matter to me?
If that passage was directly from Jesus, would it matter to you Helen?
Comment by: Nutrideath
46Julie Marie wrote:
Actually, both Adam & Eve sinned wilfully. Eve was only tricked into believing what Satan told her about the outcome. She knew she was disobeying the command of God and did so willfully, but she believed what Satan told her - that she would “be like God, knowing good & bad.” She let her desire for the things promised by Satan outweigh her love for God.
Adam evidently was not tricked by Satans lies. He evidently let his love for Eve outweigh his love for God.
Now, how all that relates to teaching in the congregation, I’m not sure.
Comment by: Helen M.
47Nutrideath wrote:
…that I get to do what I like?
Actually, it’s a lot of fun and very freeing once one gets used to it.
I completely agree. Nutrideath did you read this article I just had published in the local newspaper? Why I Don’t go to Church Anymore
I’m not making any demands.
Ummmmm…yes, because then Jesus would be Paul. I like Jesus because he’s Jesus. If he was Paul I’d like him the same as I like Paul.
Jesus was decent to women as best I can tell. Certainly ahead of his time, so I am told, in doing things like talking to the Samaritan woman.
Comment by: Julie Marie
48I hear this from both As and Cs. I think it is a false dichotomy. It does not have to be 100% correct about everything or utterly lacking in value.
This either/or mentality seems especially pervasive in our culture today. It stops conversation and blocks progress. Why is it unreasonable to think God allowed man to do what man would do with his Word as time went on? God has allowed us to desecrate the Earth, every bit as much his creation as man, and he even allows us to wreak havoc on each other.
I haven’t studied the Bible as extensively as you have, Nutrideath. But it makes alot more sense to me to view it as the written account of God working with his people through history, with the understanding that God meets us where we are and works to bring us to an understanding of him and his plan. The NT for me is especially important as it records when God came to us in the flesh, to show us what he meant, to teach us, to clear up our misunderstandings and our perversions of his intent. But it is still written in the context of the culture of the time, by men who were living through the trials and tribulations of Roman persecution, trying to promote a radical new way of living. the Bible wasn’t created in a pristine vacuum free from the clutter of everyday life.
Comment by: Julie Marie
49one more comment: I think it is almost impossible for modern Americans to put themselves in the frame of mind the men who wrote the Bible had. We don’t know persecution, not really. Yes, we have injustice. But we are allowed to speak out against it. No one in America needs to fear crucifixion. We certainly won’t be fed to any lions for the amusement of the powers that be. Even as a woman, I have rights that the common Jew didn’t have back in those times. If someone harrasses me, I can call 911 and help will come. My son and I can walk alone in the evenings in our neighborhood and not fear roving bandits. the tax man may take too much, but he doesn’t demand an extra donkey from me just because he thinks he can get away with it. The level of security and justice in my world, as an ordinary citizen of no influence or power, was unknown in Biblical times.
Comment by: Nutrideath
50Ok Helen, I shouldn’t have used the word “demands.” What I meant was that Jesus set up the Christian organization in the way that he saw fit. After all, it is his to manage.
So, if he ever gets a wild hair & decides to make me a new apostle, he has the authority to do so. If he wants to change things so that women teach in the congregation, he could do that too.
But I think you sidestepped my last question, probably because I wasn’t clear. What I meant to say was, If Jesus himself was recorded in the Bible as having made the decree about women not teaching in the congregation, would it rankle you as much? Would you accept it if it came directly from Jesus?
“Freedom” feels good. So does eating nothing but junk food - at first. But eventually it catches up to us. What promise was it that Satan tricked Eve with? It was the promise that she would have her eyes opened, that she would become like God, knowing good & bad. If you boil all that down, he was promising her “Freedom” from Gods rulership. Satan is still selling the same lie. The question is, will you fall for it like Eve did? Do you believe the lie of “Freedom”?
Comment by: Nutrideath
51Helen,
To continue: You know I feel that most organizations that call themselves “Christian” are no such thing. Matt. 13:24-30 is a prophetic illustration (of the wheat & the weeds) that Jesus gave that warned that counterfeit Christians would sneak into the congregation & pervert the true teachings. I believe that is what has happened.
The reason I bring that up is because I get the feeling you are judging God on the merits of these counterfeit organizations. You wrote:
According to the false teachings of “Christianity” I see completely where you’re coming from. But, IMO, your church taught many lies. Don’t judge God on the basis of them.
Comment by: Helen M.
52Exactly.
Rather than what Nutrideath wrote, I would say: “Either the Bible is entirely the Word of God, or it isn’t - which means some of it is not true, including the few lines which indicate it’s the Word of God, and the rest may be true.
Comment by: Eliza
53Nutrideath, I’ve been puzzling over how much I find I disagree with your comparing “bad” human behavior to animal behavior. I think what it comes down to is this: your breakdown of human vs. animalistic seems to me, perhaps not surprisingly, reminiscent of the spirit vs. flesh dichotomy, but I’m not at all inclined to grant humans the automatic high ground of being “spirit” and say that all flesh is animalistic & thus not human.
You wrote:
We are on opposite poles on this. I do think we are animals, biologically, although I agree that we have many unique characteristics, most notably our cognitive abilities.
I don’t see non-display of love as “animalistic” - maybe “mechanical” or “robotic”, but not animalistic. Animals can behave towards each other, and towards humans, in ways that we interpret at love, particularly dogs and other animals (esp mammals) we keep as pets. Others, especially lower animals, don’t exhibit this behavior (in any way we recognize) - but we don’t expect it of those animals.
This is sociopathic behavior, and I’m not aware of any direct correlation in the animal kingdom. Agreed, animals don’t have a human, moral sense of right and wrong - other primates might come somewhat closest but not close; lower animals have no such sense as far as we know. However, consider what lengths animals will go to to protect their young (grizzly bears, grouse, the whole range). Is that just animal instinct? (You can say yes, but I’d argue that some of that is operating in we humans too.) Also consider that those animals which modern humans are most likely to come into contact with, pets, can be taught with rewards and punishments - not to understand right and wrong, but to behave according to the explicit expectations of its trainer. So the type of sociopathic behavior you’re describing actually seems fairly uniquely human to me.
Again, “kill, or maim, or rape at will…” - that sounds like the worst of human behavior, but not literally animal behavior. Most predator animals kill only when they need to eat or protect themselves or their clan. I’m only aware of rape as having been described in (I think) a few observed examples among primates, not (I think) among other animals. So when we see animals doing things that are “bad”, it’s usually because they feel the need to protect themselves or their clan, or because they’re hungry.
I don’t agree. Uncouth, uncivilized behavior, yes. But not literally animal-instead-of-human behavior.
Now, that I really have trouble seeing. If it’s someone you cannot stand, at least in adulthood, it’s usually because of communication interactions that rubbed you the wrong way. (Kids might have more reason to dislike someone on physical grounds, e.g. a bully). Our communications, and the nuances therein and our ability to cogitate on them, are much more highly developed than any other animal. So this seems like an especially human-originated area for discord, to me.
Comment by: Helen M.
54Nutrideath wrote:
No, you were clear. My answer is the same: I like Jesus because he’s Jesus. If you change what he did or said he wouldn’t be Jesus.
We’re back to sin again. You are asserting that ‘freedom’ is a sin. But even Paul does not say that. In the Bible, Paul and Jesus agree that freedom is a good thing:
Nutrideath, I probably won’t be able to respond again for a week.
Eliza, I agree that wilful harm seems more human than animalistic (ironically). But to me this is a complex issue: I believe that ‘wilful’ harm is often done by desperate people, who are backed into a corner emotionally and are not aware they have any other choice. So, in fact, they are acting out that need to protect themselves/to survive. Which is animalistic. We misinterpret it if we call it a ‘choice’ because the person was too desperate to see they had other options.
This is another thing that bothers me about the whole concept of sin. If someone has no choice, how can you call what they did a sin?
Yet that’s exactly what the doctrine of total depravity - which comes from Paul - does. “You couldn’t not do it yet you’re going to hell for doing it”. How that is fair is beyond me.
Comment by: Doreen
55Some may say they were predestined to sin.
Otherwise, there wouldn’t be much of a story to tell, would there?
Similar to how some may say Judas was predestined to betray Christ.
Comment by: Doreen
56A book recommendation since Eliza asked. Not specific to Paul.
“Women’s Bible Commentary” by Newsome & Ringe
The book is by women scholars who explain each book and provide comments on sections that have particular revelance to women. You do not need to be in seminary or have ever read the Bible to get a lot out of it. Most of the articles are only a few pages.
I also recommend access to a good study Bible (AKA, a Bible with commentary). I use The New Interpreter’s Study Bible (NRSV) by Abingdon but there are others.
When reading, remember these are the interpretations of these particular scholars. Your mileage may vary. Don’t use near electricity. All those other caveats. As a further warning, what I recommend will almost always be considered (in a world that must label), liberal theologically.
I respectfully disagree with others who view the following in a negative light. I would welcome a continued conversation via private email.
There is a lot of contradiction in the Bible. Take the Gospels. Were Joseph & Mary married when Jesus was born? It depends on which Gospel you read. Further, there is much confusion, even among Christians, about what is in the Bible and what is not. What were the names of the 3 wise men? NOT IN THE BIBLE. Of course, some contradictions and confusions are more serious than others; I’m using simple examples. A more serious example: the whole faith vs. works argument (Paul vs. James).
Not to mention, there were about 30 gospels and only 4 made it into the Bible!
A bit about Paul and women.
Head coverings. In the day, there was a tremendous gap between the haves and the have-nots. (Sound familiar?) If every woman had her hair up under a head covering, every woman looked similar. If women were allowed to wear their hair how they wished, one could easily tell the rich from the poor. Only the rich would have the means to hire workers to style their hair, while the poor women would be known by their simple hairdos. Paul was against anything that separated people.
About women being silent in the churches. Remember Paul is RESPONDING to a letter that most likely told him women were gossiping during church! Some believe this was written later, not by Paul; others believe Paul believed this (some because he had issues with his own sexuality), and still others think that Paul meant simply that women should not disrupt worship service by talking among themselves.
The latter interpretation may be supported by Paul’s other writings. For example, concerning marital relations, Paul’s view may be termed progressive. Paul states “each spouse has authority over the other.” “For the wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does; likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does” (1 Cor 7:4). Paul also wrote in 1 Cor 11:12, “For just as woman came from man, so man comes through woman: but all things come from God.” In writing that unmarried women should remain unmarried, “Paul thus opens wide the door to social independence for those women gifted with celibacy.” Paul provides options in saying that both marriage and a celibate life are holy.
Sadly, women were more involved in higher positions in the church in Paul’s time than they are in many denominations now. And in some denominations now, it is not an option for a woman to remain single and celibate; marriage and procreation is demanded.
For a look at the origins of Christianity from both a Jewish and a Christian perspective, see “The Message and the Kingdom” by Horsley & Silberman. It is not difficult to read; subtitled “How Jesus and Paul Ignited a Revolution and Transformed the Ancient World.”
For a historical (i.e., factual) look at the History of Christianity, see Gonzalez’ “The Story of Christianity” Vol. 1 and 2. This set is AWESOME. You learn how & why the various denominations formed. Volume 2 picks up at the Reformation.
I always welcome email conversations if anyone is so inclined (damannion at yahoo.com).
Comment by: Eliza
57Doreen,
Thank you for the book recommendations! These look great, and broad in scope. I’ll definitely pursue them. Again, thanks!