What would Christianity look like without Paul's writings?

by AK - Jeff 107 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  AllTimeJeff

  Distortion of things "hard to understand"--which apparently is nothing new, since Peter had to address the very same problem "back then".

  BTS, and others,

  Based on the above quote, which "logic" I am well acquainted with, I feel I must ask the question right in front of my nose: Is there another possibility?

  I know that Christians defend ad nauseam the bible, and understandably so, as it serves as the basis, their Constitution if you will, as hodge podged as it is.

  Still, the fact remains that men wrote these letters, men translated these letters, men preserved them, and there is very real evidence that they were "tweaked" if not outright changed through the centuries as various religio/political views came and changed with them.

  So why do we still attribute what man wrote, translated, and preserved, to "god"?

  Christians usually say that all other holy books (excluding the bible) are from man, and are happy to point out why. Yet when the same claim and logical premise is given concerning why the bible is lacking in its claim as being from god, then the complaints come.

  I don't say that to be argumentative. As BTS has brought out, this is not a new problem. I think though, that the answer is the simple one: Instead of trying to play mental "Twister" to get these weird discombobulated writings to seem..... seamless, why not just admit what th evidence says, that the bible is hard to understand because it is a papered over attempt at creating a religion, and a god from the minds of men.

  God, if he is as the bible describes, has always seemed able to talk, teach, and destroy when the mood hit. I think if there is one thing I will take from the bible, it is to wait for him to decide to act again.

  Will it be too late for me then? Too late for what? I already gave up most of my young adult life, I don't intend on giving it to anymore invisible people with a big ego, a big mouth, and not much else to show for it.
• 

  AK - Jeff

  So why do we still attribute what man wrote, translated, and preserved, to "god"?

  Spot on, ATJ.

  Further, what if those writings could be shown to be 'hole-y', as in 'full of holes' ? They can, and have been shown to be, on many levels.

  Take one poster's insistence on the biblical standard of sexual mores - that fornication has always been disapproved by God in the Bible. Has it? Many of our OT heroes were fornicators on a massive level - according to NT standards at least. Concubines were little more than mistresses kept for the sexual needs of the rich man who 'owned' them, weren't they? Several men of old - respected, sometimes referenced by Jesus or Paul, were reported to have had taken harlots. David was a fornicator. The examples are many.

  These men were hardly taken to the city center and stoned. Most felt no shame whatsoever. Occasionally someone was purportedly punished by God for his actions - David being the preeminent example. Did Jesus establish a 'new standard' of morals? I'm not sure as I read his words - or what is reported as his words. Paul was clearly 'anti-fornication', it seemed to be the focus of his mission. Some have suggested that Paul may have been either homosexual, or at least not interested [eunuch perhaps?] in normal Jewish fashion in the matter.

  I dare say - that by playing biblical doctrine hop-scotch, I could make a very solid case in favor of fornication. All I have to do is bypass the portions that condemn such a course of action. Which is precisely what Christian religions do to achieve the 'principle' they want to use as a whip of control.

  Does this mean that I approve personally of 'fornication'? No I don't make such judgement. I neither believe that the Bible is absolutely condemnatory of that action either. I do believe that Paul was opposed to fornication. Which forms the basis of this discussion.

  Pauline Philosophy is opposed to fornication. Though I find little evidence to support that Christianity would be without Paul's writings as foundation.

  Jeff
• 

  XJW4EVR

  All-Time Jeff,

  Conclusions without evidence are assertions. Your post is full of them. If you have some evidence please supply it.
• 

  allelsefails

  The history channell has an interesting quote running that I have always agreed with - "If Paul knew what would be done with his letters he would have been much more careful." Paul makes NO CLAIM to being inspired in his writings. In fact the only NT writing that claims inspiration is Revelation. Further only a few parts of the Bible claim inspiration - Moses with the Law and instructions for release of Jews from Egypt, Various prophets, Revelation. That's it. Anything more than that is added after the fact - "I think that was inspired". If we just take the writers at their word the bible becomes a good starting point for our relationship with God. Paul, Peter, James, Jude, Letters of John give us insight into early Christian thinking. Matt. Mark Luke Give an interesting account of what people remembered of Jesus' teachings. John is nutty and written very late, but reflects one accepted version in the early church of Christology. NONE claim inspiration and someone 100 - 200 years later saying it was inspired is silly. I hope nothing I have written is determined to be Inspired 100 years after I die (which was done to Paul).
• 

  AK - Jeff

  Conclusions without evidence are assertions.

  Kinda like the Christians that put 'Holy' on the Bible and claimed it 'God breathed' without any evidence, or even claims thoughout much of it?

  Now, that was one huge assertion! And it has affected billions of lives. ATJ's assertions, if proven to be such, will have very little if any longterm affects on mankind. Those who inserted Paul's writings, and labeled them 'holy' and 'inspired' shaped Christianity forever, positively and/or negatively, based on your viewpoint, time in history, etc.

  At least we don't have the Church with powers of execution any longer - like they did during the Crusades. Now, that was some effect of assertions, eh? I imagine those tortured to death would have much rather endured the ones made here in open, free debate.

  Jeff
• 

  awildflower

  allelsefails, good point!.........wf
• 

  donuthole

  @allelsefails

  I see that quite a bit where it is suggested that Paul didn't think his writings were inspired. He may not come right out and say, "my writings are inspired", but is there any doubt that he felt that he speaking the Word of God? He really believed the message he preached wasn't received from any man but from God. In fact, in his letters he is careful to note when his expressions are his own and not from Heaven.
• 

  PSacramento

  I am not sure why there are some issues with Paul, other than some of his doctrine teaching being very cutomized to his audience of the time.

  At its core, it is based on Love, Hope and Faith in Jesus Christ as our Saviour and sole mediator between us and God.

  Sure he has some issues with women, widows, concerns about devote people marrying and such, which is typical of someone that viewed the end of times as close at hand. and someone brought up with strict teeachings and such.

  I agree that if one was to focus on the spiritual elements of Paul's teachings, there would be less "issues" with Christianity, but at the same time Paul makes it clear ( or resanably so) how vital a personal relationship is with God through Jesus, how crucial Love is and how eternal God and Jesus's love for us is.
• 

  awildflower

  Still sounds like a lot of todays religious leaders.........wf
• 

  XJW4EVR

  Kinda like the Christians that put 'Holy' on the Bible and claimed it 'God breathed' without any evidence, or even claims thoughout much of it?

  In the view of many who have come before us, and the many that will come after us, there is more than enough external evidence from archeology and statistical probablity to give the books of the Bible creedence as a reliable guide for ancient history. When a person cuples these two elements with the internal evidence from the manuscripts and fulfilled prophecy a person can come to the conclusion that the books we call the BIble are inspired.

  Now, that was one huge assertion! And it has affected billions of lives. ATJ's assertions, if proven to be such, will have very little if any longterm affects on mankind. Those who inserted Paul's writings, and labeled them 'holy' and 'inspired' shaped Christianity forever, positively and/or negatively, based on your viewpoint, time in history, etc.

  This is true. However, I am not looking at ATJ's musings as lifechanging. I am simply asking how he came to those conclusions. Now you assert that Paul's writings were inserted into the Bible. What evidence do you have that leads you to that conclusion?

  At least we don't have the Church with powers of execution any longer - like they did during the Crusades. Now, that was some effect of assertions, eh? I imagine those tortured to death would have much rather endured the ones made here in open, free debate.

  I am not sure to what you are referrering to, the Crusades or the Inquisition, for your statement seems to have jumbled both into one big ball. However, would you agree that those who took a leading role in these travesties were not following the teachings of Jesus, Paul, Peter or John?