Calling out Badwater...

Well I ask this was the Apostle Paul in anyway affected by Roman or Jewish culture?
I agree however R.C. I need to look at Paul's teachings closer. (Which should be Christ teaching)




Manny

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
sorry like i got a zillion other things id rather be doing, and it was directed towards Manny, not to you or visted, or anyone else, if you please.

Yeah, well, unfortunately for you, you posted your comments in a public forum so you get what you get. Not only that, you barged into my conversation, if you please. If you're going to post inanity then I'm going to call you on it. If you want a private conversation with Manny then make it so.

It is typical that you would take a few verses of scripture, out of context, and apply your own generalization upon it. I am not surprised, however, for you are not the first and won't be the last to use scripture to buttress an unremarkable generalization.

The espistles (and not just of Paul) do have places of their own elaboration and agenda. They do have places where they do not align with the mission and message of Jesus. Of that there should be no question, but there is. All to often Christian belief is arrived at before biblical study. All to often what is read and taken to heart is what is already believed and arrived at, and what does not fit is discarded.

Ah, the measure of a true Christian! 😵

Originally posted by Badwater
Yeah, well, unfortunately for you, you posted your comments in a public forum so you get what you get. Not only that, you barged into my conversation, if you please. If you're going to post inanity then I'm going to call you on it. If you want a private conversation with Manny then make it so.

It is typical that you would take a few verses of scripture, nd arrived at, and what does not fit is discarded.

Ah, the measure of a true Christian! 😵

thankyou Manny, your post says it all! belief without reason is blind, and as Paul states, 'faith follows the thing heard', not the other way around! now that i have issued a public rebuke , hard as it was dear badwater, i know, i know, 'discipline is grievous to take', but be assured it yields righteous fruit, i cannot agree with this statement that there should be incongruity, for either Paul was inspired by the very same spirit or he was not, to say otherwise is to deny the divine!

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
thankyou Manny, your post says it all! belief without reason is blind, and as Paul states, 'faith follows the thing heard', not the other way around! now that i have issued a public rebuke , hard as it was dear badwater, i know, i know, 'discipline is grievous to take', but be assured it yields righteous fruit, i cannot agree with this statement th ...[text shortened]... was inspired by the very same spirit or he was not, to say otherwise is to deny the divine!

Paul is Paul and Jesus is Jesus. You may dream mightily and convince yourself of your 'faith' but it lessens the fact not one whit that the epistles that follow the Gospels do not always follow the same spirit, or word, as the message and ministry of Jesus, and often contradict it. I've never understood the human willingness to doggedly suspend all reason and lines of logic in order to preserve their fragile little belief system.

There is incongruity, and when you are repeatedly demonstrated of this fact and insist that it is not so, it does not erase the fact. Play the fool and be the expert, sir, but I see scant evidence through your pontificating that you actually know and understand the love that Jesus most easily demonstrates through his words and actions. It's so much easier to spout platitudes, is it not?

Originally posted by Badwater
Paul is Paul and Jesus is Jesus. You may dream mightily and convince yourself of your 'faith' but it lessens the fact not one whit that the epistles that follow the Gospels do not always follow the same spirit, or word, as the message and ministry of Jesus, and often contradict it. I've never understood the human willingness to doggedly suspend all reason a ...[text shortened]... onstrates through his words and actions. It's so much easier to spout platitudes, is it not?

it is a very simple matter, either Paul was inspired of God, or he was not! if he was inspired of God, then your statement his fully erroneous, and quite reminiscent of those who, in their ardour to dissect the bible and subject it to merely human reasoning, entirely miss this fact, and thus are unable to reconcile any,'supposed incongruity', for you have denied the divine element.

I shall state it again for clarity, either Paul was inspired of God or he was not, if he was, then your statement is fully erroneous! for bitter and sweet water cannot issue forth from the same source! thus it is not we who have suspended lines of logic nor reasoning, for this statement, that Paul was inspired is one without ambiguity, but you people who have 'suspended and denied', the divine element, and thus your reasoning's are also distorted! it is as when one looks at a cracked mirror, ones gets a distorted reflection.

what the love of Christ has to do with this i do not know, perhaps you are guilty of elevating one teaching above another, as a result of your inability to form a reconciliation of the two, who can tell?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
it is a very simple matter, either Paul was inspired of God, or he was not! if he was inspired of God, then your statement his fully erroneous, and quite reminiscent of those who, in their ardour to dissect the bible and subject it to merely human reasoning, entirely miss this fact, and thus are unable to reconcile any,'supposed incongruity', for yo ...[text shortened]... e another, as a result of your inability to form a reconciliation of the two, who can tell?

The subject has nothing to do with Paul's inspiration. Zero. Your premise is as faulty as your logic.

So what we have is two different creation stories, with two different creation sequences, with two different views of God, and two different writers.

And you, RB, have failed to demonstrate otherwise. I have not gotten into the different views of God, or the J and P sources, but I can. It's taught and widely accepted in all major seminaries - but I suppose you don't know about that. Do you?

Originally posted by Badwater
So what we have is two different creation stories, with two different creation sequences, with two different views of God, and two different writers.

And you, RB, have failed to demonstrate otherwise. I have not gotten into the different views of God, or the J and P sources, but I can. It's taught and widely accepted in all major seminaries - but I suppose you don't know about that. Do you?

Thanks, BW, for your willingness to respond. I said "forget it" because the whole thing came out of a particularly fragmented and fractured state. I always value your thoughts and the knowledge-background you bring to bear.

I'm also glad that the questions generated some good debate even (maybe especially!) without me.

All be well.