Exactly. Paul was giving specific advise to specific people in a specific time period. This advice is not God's instructions. This advise is not a pathway to salvation. Jesus alone offered that.
Bravo. That said, even for his time/place, Paul had his own agenda / own concept of what was best for entire city-states of believers in mind when composing his letters. A fun compare and contrast on a love/preachiness continuum would be letters from John the Evangelist. I've no time for such a thing today. I'm halfway out the dizzle as it is. Anyone have a Bible handy?
Like what? "Step off of my nuts" (KJV) and "Get thee to an opthamologist"? Other than that, the deal in Acts 9 is "Paul's going to take my (God's) message to the Gentiles". Doesn't say anything about him making up a whole new set of Mitzvos (and yes, knowing that Paul was a Pharisee, I used that word deliberately) for those pagans. It talks about the message of Christ -- those nasty "love one another" bits that get overlooked in the race to see who may sleep with whom without getting a visit from a stray lightening bolt.
--- what are you on about? do you have any sense of what Paul did in Arabia for umpteen weeks? count camels and needles' eyes, or something more akin to processing the revelation(s) given to him by Jesus. how about his visit to "the third heaven". you think he got a glimpse into something more heady than harps and cherubim? i know it's dangerous to speculate, but when Paul says, "not I, but the Lord", (1 Cor. 7:10), it would mean to most people that he is privy to direct communication with/from God, and what he says has the authority of God's word. he, a couple of verses later, makes the distinction, saying "I, not the Lord", which makes clear that he is willing to differentiate between what is his personal point of view and what has been dictated to him. and about the "who may sleep with whom" part: the OT is pretty clear on this subject. Jesus didn't tell us that the OT is null and void, did he?
Actually, he did. Jesus gives one path to salvation, and it's nowhere to be found in the OT. Practically speaking for a Christian, the Old Testament is useless.
There are plenty of Old Testament Christians. They are running our country. They are all about Vengeful Dieties, not turning the other cheek. Damn them all. These are the kind of people who would put a needle through the eye of a camel.
--- what about his statement that he did not come to destroy the law but to fulfil it? and his statement "till heaven and earth pass (away), not one iota or point of the law shall pass (away)"? but salvation is found in faith: witness Hebrews 11.
It's been like a decade or longer since I was in church, but I do remember a part of the scriptures where Jesus approaches a young man and tests his faith. The young man answers that he has kept the commandments and the law since he was a young child... Jesus anwered, "I am the law." I always considered the O.T. to be nothing more than a history book and the teachings in the N.T. to be the part we are supose to base our lives on... not that I'm doing that at the moment... but that is how I interpret it.
My opinion. It's our God given right, isn't it? If you reread it, you will see I said "I always considered the OT a history book"... that's a comment obviously based on opinion. Besides what makes you think it isn't like a history book? It's about the past isn't it? That's the great thing about religion. What works for me, works for me... it doesn't have to work for you... ya know? I was raised in a very strict Southern Baptist environment... Most (keep in mind I didn't say ALL) were so judgemental, narrow-minded and had this moral superiority complex going own that they couldn't reach people because they'd have to drag them over their own religious ego. It was quite sad, acutally. They were missing the forest for the trees. I will never take the Bible, religion or God quite so literally. What I will do is love people and accept them for who they are be them atheist, homosexual, white, black, brown, yellow, Cathloic, Presbyterian, Baptist, etc. I may not always agree with them, but I can respect them for who they are and know that it isn't my place to make them into something else. I think if we do nothing more than pattern our lives after Jesus and deal with people the way he did... we will have lead a good life indeed. That is why I choose to concentrate more on the N.T. Does that answer your question? I have a tendency to ramble, but hopefully the answer is in there somewhere!! =)
LOL! Good one! Yeesh...I guess I'm going to have to look it up, eh? If I can't find it online...I'll look for the scripture later as soon as I find what i did with my Bible. I'm at work now (I work two full time jobs)... I will find it, but it may take a while.
Right. I recall there is a letter of Paul in the Bible in which he advices men not to get married. Then he qualifies it by saying that it is his personal advice, not a command from the Lord. Based on that, I think even people who believe the Bible to be God's inspired word, have to realize that much that is said there is the opinion of the human author, based on his own experiences, personal and cultural. Paul himself says it clearly.
--- i think i would take issue with your notion that "much" is personal opinion, but certainly "some" is.
What Paul is saying here is that if one has fully dedicated their life to The Great Commission, spreading the Good News to all the world, there may not be time for a marriage. But he goes on to cite examples of men who HAVE been married (Barnabas for one) and did great work. In his conclusion he leaves the judgement up to the individual. He obviously is not speaking as God-inspired but he in accordance with canonical Scripture. What he is doing here is 2-part; affirming the premier importance of the Commission and at the same time, the importance of the sacred vow of marriage. In the Jewish tradition of the time, marriage was important, however, there were very pious Jews, the Quram community, for example, which took a vow of celibacy to affirm their faith, and were highly respected for it.
You're a real stickler aren't you? Not "much" room for personal opinion and thinking outside the box. No matter how much "some" people would like for religion and politics...and life for that matter, to be black and white, everything is much more comparative to a world of gray. While I hold a few convictions quite tightly, I mostly hold loosely to the fine details because there is a lot of room for interpretation and opinion. We could all be very wrong. That is why I don't take the Bible quite so literally... it's been interpreted from one language to another, several times over by many different people... Lots of room for getting it not so right. I think the Bible is a good guideline as to how we should live... you could do worst than pattern you life after the scriptures!
Your last phrase is spot on!!! As to the idea that much has been lost in translations, etc., I would suggest you read Noah Elliot's post toward the end of the Judas gospel thread. He hit that one out of the park.
--- i take it that word choice is a matter of choice and of no small importance, so that makes me a stickler. Jesus was a stickler, too, in his own way. he only did what his Father told him, no more, no less.
Jesus : Paul :: Old Major : Napoleon EDIT - Hey, I live my life by the Scriptures. Just last week, I stoned a guy to death for eating a cheeseburger.
I believe he's referring to the prohibition against mixing dairy and meat, which I think is from Leviticus. There's no scriptural basis for stoning someone who doesn't fast on Fridays during lent.