Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The conflict and ambiguity arises from the false concept of God fostered by the OT and retained in trying to understand Christ's otherwise unambiguous life, death and teachings. When you start with the wrong understanding of God and His motives . . . you can't possibly reach correct conclusions from His Son's teachings and example. But the worst flaw in Christianity today is the focus on specific and detailed beliefs as the focus of faith. The ONLY faith necessary is the faith that Christ is the Son of God and He revealed the true nature of God by His life, death and teachings and the Good News is God is Love. Our only task is to Love God and each other because Christ saved us all from our weaknesses (sins).
Amen!
About the first part of your statement...that is a very interesting subject, and one that I need to learn a lot more about.
However...a lot of the OT needs to be taken quite literally, and considered the "inspired word of God" if we are to take seriously the Prophecies that predicted and described the Messiah's arrival and mission.
We are presented with the same problem then, as in the NT, as far as which concepts of the OT to consider correct, and which concepts are incorrect. Please enlighten me, if you could, on this one!
Actually, 1 Peter is now universally accepted as canon. There was a time in history when it wasn't...as well as James, at one point.
Universally? By whom? I mean it is obviously considered canon by the orthodox and traditional fundamentalist denominations, but the critical scholarship is what counts and not the fantasies of the church based on silly superstitions.
Quote:
Now, I am not doubting you at all...so forgive me for asking, but where in 1 Peter is Paul mentioned in a good light? I just want to know...so I can have my facts straight!
Excuse me, I was mistaken ... it was 2nd peter not 1st peter.
Quote:
There is also evidence that Luke copies from Mark...but that's for another debate.
And it is even more evident that Mathew copies from Mark. Though it is my opinion that Luke is the truest of all the gospels.
Quote:
And there is also some reason (considerable reason) to doubt that Luke actually did write Acts. I think it's time that people stop saying that if we take out Acts...that we take out Luke, and vice versa...because when you really look into it, many scholars don't feel that way.
It matters not if Luke wrote acts if Paul is deemed a false apostle because Luke was his disciple ...
Quote:
As far as what would be left of the New Testament...probably most of it.
Okay a list of the new testament letters ...
Mathew Luke
Mark
John acts Epistle to the Romans
First Epistle to the Corinthians
Second Epistle to the Corinthians
Epistle to the Galatians
Epistle to the Ephesians
Epistle to the Philippians
Epistle to the Colossians
First Epistle to the Thessalonians
Second Epistle to the Thessalonians
Epistle to Philemon
First Epistle to Timothy
Second Epistle to Timothy
Epistle to Titus Epistle of James
First Epistle of Peter(for arguments sake) Second Epistle of Peter
First Epistle of John
Second Epistle of John
Third Epistle of John Epistle of Jude
Revelations
So take out all the Books above that are bolded and what you have left is ...
Mathew
Mark
John
First Epistle of Peter(for arguments sake)
First Epistle of John
Second Epistle of John
Third Epistle of John
revelations
That's hardly most of the new testament left after you pluck out all the works of Paul and Luke and the pseudepigraphal letters ta' boot ...
Last edited by Ironmaw1776; 08-26-2011 at 07:59 PM..
Universally? By whom? I mean it is obviously considered canon by the orthodox and traditional fundamentalist denominations, but the critical scholarship is what counts and not the fantasies of the church based on silly superstitions.
Excuse me, I was mistaken ... it was 2nd peter not 1st peter.
And it is even more evident that Mathew copies from Mark. Though it is my opinion that Luke is the truest of all the gospels.
It matters not if Luke wrote acts if Paul is deemed a false apostle because Luke was his disciple ...
Okay a list of the new testament letters ...
Mathew Luke
Mark
John acts Epistle to the Romans First Epistle to the Corinthians Second Epistle to the Corinthians Epistle to the Galatians Epistle to the Ephesians Epistle to the Philippians Epistle to the Colossians First Epistle to the Thessalonians Second Epistle to the Thessalonians Epistle to Philemon First Epistle to Timothy Second Epistle to Timothy Epistle to Titus Epistle of James
First Epistle of Peter(for arguments sake) Second Epistle of Peter
First Epistle of John
Second Epistle of John
Third Epistle of John Epistle of Jude
Revelations
So take out all the Books above that are bolded and what you have left is ...
Mathew
Mark
John
First Epistle of Peter(for arguments sake)
First Epistle of John
Second Epistle of John
Third Epistle of John
revelations
That's hardly most of the new testament left after you pluck out all the works of Paul and Luke and the pseudepigraphal letters ta' boot ...
Yes, universally was probably too strong a word. But I think the "critical scholarship" does by and large accept 1 Peter as canon as well.
Actually I misconstrued what you meant at first by "if you were to go down this road." I assumed you were just talking about those books you listed, and yes...it would not be most of the New Testament, if we take out all of Paul's epistles as well. But I wouldn't be concerned with how much of the New Testament was left...as long as Christ's message was still clear. Less is more sometimes.
I do want to reiterate my official position. My aim isn't to try and discredit Paul without reason...but only to really put him to the test...for myself, and anyone else who is interested. I could easily do a complete turnaround on my views on Paul if someone could lay my concerns to rest. I am not interested in Paul bashing, and I am not wanting to be stubborn or have unneccessary arguments! I also don't want to cause dischord here...so I am going to withhold any other statements regarding him from public posts.
I may have further questions on Paul however, as I continue re-reading all of his epistles. I may want to write privately to some of you to ask about these...but I will ask permission first of course. I may even change my mind at some point and begin to defend him.
A lot of my concerns have to do with the Book of Acts. So if we can refrain from saying that Luke's Gospel automatically has to go if Acts goes...we can, for the moment accept Paul's epistles, but see them in a bit of a different light. What I am saying, is that I am more suspicious of Acts than I am of Paul. That might not seem to make sense to some of you, but please bear with me..because I am still in the process of researching all of that!
And for the record, I love the Gospel according to Luke. I always have!
As far as my question to MysticPhD regarding the OT...I think I may start a new thread on that, as it is a different topic completely!
Yes, universally was probably too strong a word. But I think the "critical scholarship" does by and large accept 1 Peter as canon as well.
Actually I misconstrued what you meant at first by "if you were to go down this road." I assumed you were just talking about those books you listed, and yes...it would not be most of the New Testament, if we take out all of Paul's epistles as well. But I wouldn't be concerned with how much of the New Testament was left...as long as Christ's message was still clear. Less is more sometimes.
I do want to reiterate my official position. My aim isn't to try and discredit Paul without reason...but only to really put him to the test...for myself, and anyone else who is interested. I could easily do a complete turnaround on my views on Paul if someone could lay my concerns to rest. I am not interested in Paul bashing, and I am not wanting to be stubborn or have unneccessary arguments! I also don't want to cause dischord here...so I am going to withhold any other statements regarding him from public posts.
I may have further questions on Paul however, as I continue re-reading all of his epistles. I may want to write privately to some of you to ask about these...but I will ask permission first of course. I may even change my mind at some point and begin to defend him.
A lot of my concerns have to do with the Book of Acts. So if we can refrain from saying that Luke's Gospel automatically has to go if Acts goes...we can, for the moment accept Paul's epistles, but see them in a bit of a different light. What I am saying, is that I am more suspicious of Acts than I am of Paul. That might not seem to make sense to some of you, but please bear with me..because I am still in the process of researching all of that!
And for the record, I love the Gospel according to Luke. I always have!
As far as my question to MysticPhD regarding the OT...I think I may start a new thread on that, as it is a different topic completely!
I think you should read his epistles again for certain. Don't forget it was Paul who delineated the fruits of the spirit ... So judge him by the fruits of his words. I understand the legalists would love to see Paul stripped of his status and his books stripped from the canon, but i certainly don't think that anyone would benefit from it, other than maybe those who would like to enslave the believers under the condemnation of the law.
In all honesty it is the words of Paul along with the words of Christ that compel me to believe. His words more than any of the other words in the new testament. And even the gospel of Mathew gives me reason to question its validity, though i am convinced Luke and mark to be close to authentic.
I probably would not be a Christian right now if it were not for the words of Paul. Christ said many things, but so much of what he said was parabolic, and can be easily interpreted in many different ways. Paul was more concise, and though i do not agree with him on everything, i believe the spirit of his writings to be the most genuine of the new testament outside the gospels.
And Paul had more to lose by professing Christ ... He had much more to lose in fact as he himself was at one time a pharisee and likely a member of the Sanhedrin. And he spoke more against observation of the law than any other ... That is very telling if you ask me.
Last edited by Ironmaw1776; 08-27-2011 at 06:13 PM..
Surely if Paul was a false apostle Peter and the boys would have exposed him to be one, yet never do we see this in any of their writings and their writings came AFTER Pauls.
I think you should read his epistles again for certain. Don't forget it was Paul who delineated the fruits of the spirit ... So judge him by the fruits of his words. I understand the legalists would love to see Paul stripped of his status and his books stripped from the canon, but i certainly don't think that anyone would benefit from it, other than maybe those who would like to enslave the believers under the condemnation of the law.
In all honesty it is the words of Paul along with the words of Christ that compel me to believe. His words more than any of the other words in the new testament. And even the gospel of Mathew gives me reason to question its validity, though i am convinced Luke and mark to be close to authentic.
I probably would not be a Christian right now if it were not for the words of Paul. Christ said many things, but so much of what he said was parabolic, and can be easily interpreted in many different ways. Paul was more concise, and though i do not agree with him on everything, i believe the spirit of his writings to be the most genuine of the new testament outside the gospels.
And Paul had more to lose by professing Christ ... He had much more to lose in fact as he himself was at one time a pharisee and likely a member of the Sanhedrin. And he spoke more against observation of the law than any other ... That is very telling if you ask me.
Thanks brother! I appreciate your perspectives very much!!
I have recently started having some questions about Matthew also, but nothing I want to get into just yet. I also love Luke and Mark.
Surely if Paul was a false apostle Peter and the boys would have exposed him to be one, yet never do we see this in any of their writings and their writings came AFTER Pauls.
Yes, I think a lot of the writings actually came after Pauls..and even probably 2 or 3 of the Gospels, and John for sure did.
I do think there are references in several books that could be construed as trying to warn about Paul..but actually I'm less concerned with that now in my studies, than on other issues. I do really like a lot of the things Paul said, despite my questions about him.
Thanks brother! I appreciate your perspectives very much!!
I have recently started having some questions about Matthew also, but nothing I want to get into just yet. I also love Luke and Mark.
Just a little parenthesis before coming back to Paul; I'm sorry to say that "loving Mark" is a big statement in the light of the very little original content which is only 3% and a very contradicted ending. Here is a nice lecture on those two subjects: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synoptic_Gospels http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_16
Now back to the main subject, while re-reading Paul this week it hit me... a false prophet can certainly be recognized by his false prophecies, right? Let me bring your attention to 1 Thessalonians. First Paul writes the introduction which reads as follow:
Thessalonians 1:1 Paul, Silas and Timothy, To the church of the Thessalonians in God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ: Grace and peace to you.
Ok, in a clear statement Paul says he, Silas and Timothy are writing to the church of Thessalonians. Clear and easy to understand.
Next, in 1 Thessalonians 4: 13-18 13 Brothers and sisters, we do not want you to be uninformed about those who sleep in death, so that you do not grieve like the rest of mankind, who have no hope. 14 For we believe that Jesus died and rose again, and so we believe that God will bring with Jesus those who have fallen asleep in him. 15 According to the Lord’s word, we tell you that we who are still alive, who are left until the coming of the Lord, will certainly not precede those who have fallen asleep. 16 For the Lord himself will come down from heaven, with a loud command, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet call of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first. 17 After that, we who are still alive and are left will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And so we will be with the Lord forever. 18 Therefore encourage one another with these words.
To help you understand the magnitude of these words I bolded them. Paul clearly say WE According to the Lord's word. So this is a clear prophecy. Now whose WE. Again by reading it, it is quite clear We represent Paul, Silas, Timothy and the Brothers and Sisters of the church of The Thessalonians. So, by saying we who are still alive involves the FACT that some of them will be alive at the Parousia or else this becomes a false prophecy. If I was there at that time, heard those words, saw every member of my church dying as well as Paul, Silas and Timothy and I was the last one standing and about to die, I would understand that Paul lied, that his prophecy was untrue as WE are now all dead!!!
Matthew 11:15 He who has ears, let him hear.
Just a little parenthesis before coming back to Paul; I'm sorry to say that "loving Mark" is a big statement in the light of the very little original content which is only 3% and a very contradicted ending. Here is a nice lecture on those two subjects: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synoptic_Gospels http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_16
I was in fact already aware of the 16 lines in Mark that were apparently added. (I am actually currently reading the book "Misquoting Jesus" just so I can better understand the history). It doesn't stop me from appreciating the rest of that book. It might have in fact been the first Gospel written..(as the link to the article you posted shows) and Matthew and Luke may have in fact copied from Mark...and so the 3% is not really indiciative of ORIGINAL CONTENT as you have implied, but rather UNIQUE CONTENT, which is what that page actually says. They are two totally different things. Saying it has only 3% of ORIGINAL CONTENT implies that Mark copied from the other Gospels...when in fact it was most likely the other way around!
"We who are still alive" means you, me, and every other believer that is 'still alive' when Christ comes to claim His people.
Mark 13:33 Be on guard! Be alert! You do not know when that time will come.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I also don't want to cause dischord here...so I am going to withhold any other statements regarding him from public posts. 
The false Prophecy...
