How Did Paul Get Christianity so Horribly Wrong?

[Cow Poke]

OK, I'm gonna take a stab at this... let's work through it.

Been thinking on this pretty hard, and thinking about the way I think about it, too.


I think what happens is that I expand the meaning of "pacifist" to include "passive-ist".... and when somebody talks about how pacifist Jesus was, it's like, to me, the "sissification of Jesus".
He was a man - and a man of authority. When he fashioned a whip and drove the moneychangers out of the temple - that obviously was not pacifist. If he was teaching pacifism, He blew it by being a hypocrite to his own teachings. We know He wasn't a hypocrite. (At least, I hope we know that)

Let's look at the definition (or one of them) of pacifism -- the belief that any violence, including war, is unjustifiable under any circumstances, and that all disputes should be settled by peaceful means.

Now, looking at other definitions of pacifism, it exclusively addresses war or violence, and doesn't mention "all disputes being settled by peaceful means".

I think when pacifism is used on Tweb, most people (I'm guessing) intend that first part. I tend to look at that last part and include it in the meaning. In the case of the moneychangers, that wasn't a very peaceful means.

I also think that this attempt to make Jesus such a pacifist is an excuse to be a "do nothing Christian". Just being honest here. Jesus used action verbs - go, make, teach... and He said things like "you suppose I bring peace, but, no... division..."

Paul was obviously more militant than that, causing revivals or riots or both where he went. He was confrontational. He told Titus to be confrontational when he went to Crete. He wasn't just about sitting writing stuff - he got up and did stuff.

So, maybe the disconnect is my extended version of the definition of pacifism.

[seanD]

So Romans 13 is "historically wrong" because Sean doesn't like it?

Sean, do you do that with the rest of the bible? Just decide what parts you like and accept, and what parts you don't like and reject?

I'll address this just this one time since it's getting off topic. In post #6, you agreed that the nazis made up the government of Germany. However, your solution for that problem was that the nazis were an evil regime. So you unwittingly admitted that Paul's statement can't be taken as literal face value for all governments by making the nazi government an exception to what Paul said. IOW, sometimes there are in fact evil governments that do wrong, contrary to what Paul said, and you clearly recognize that problem. Also, what constitutes a "good" government is often subjective. Look at the stark differences between right and left politics in western society as just one example. Moreover, unless you want to admit the origins of America is a spiritually illegitimate nation for violating what Paul said, then history shows that Paul's statement is not applicable to reality just based on how America was formed.

[Sparko]

I'll address this just this one time since it's getting off topic. In post #6, you agreed that the nazis made up the government of Germany. However, your solution for that problem was that the nazis were an evil regime. So you unwittingly admitted that Paul's statement can't be taken as literal face value for all governments by making the nazi government an exception to what Paul said. IOW, sometimes there are in fact evil governments that do wrong, contrary to what Paul said, and you clearly recognize that problem. Also, what constitutes a "good" government is often subjective. Look at the stark differences between right and left politics in western society as just one example. Moreover, unless you want to admit the origins of America is a spiritually illegitimate nation for violating what Paul said, then history shows that Paul's statement is not applicable to reality just based on how America was formed.

Paul never said all authorities put into place by God were good. If the authorities are evil, they are abusing the powers God gave them. Like the Nazi's. Going around murdering its own citizens and trying to take over the world is an abuse of the authority given to them by God. They certainly are not God's servants, are they?

[seanD]

Paul never said all authorities put into place by God were good. If the authorities are evil, they are abusing the powers God gave them. Like the Nazi's. Going around murdering its own citizens and trying to take over the world is an abuse of the authority given to them by God. They certainly are not God's servants, are they?

At the time Paul wrote that, the Roman empire was the empire of the world and Nero was emperor lol. Seriously, sparko, give it up dude.

[Sparko]

At the time Paul wrote that, the Roman empire was the empire of the world and Nero was emperor lol. Seriously, sparko, give it up dude.

so again, you decide what parts of scripture to accept and what parts to reject? Is that it?

[seanD]

so again, you decide what parts of scripture to accept and what parts to reject? Is that it?

As you did as well.

[Sparko]

As you did in also.

No. You did. You are saying that either Paul didn't write Romans 13, or that he was wrong when he wrote it.

The Roman Empire at the time was actually one of the most civilized and fair empires around, despite Nero. Nero was a evil and insane emperor who the Empire itself revolted against. Nero was evil and was not one of God's servants. He abused the authority he had and paid the price.

[Christianbookworm]

Do some research and figure out that at the time Romans was written, the Roman Empire wasn't trying to kill Christians and was still fairly okay as ancient governments went. God's standard trumps the government. If the government commands something that goes against God's standards, we should obey God rather than man.

[Sam]

OK, I'm gonna take a stab at this... let's work through it.

Been thinking on this pretty hard, and thinking about the way I think about it, too.


I think what happens is that I expand the meaning of "pacifist" to include "passive-ist".... and when somebody talks about how pacifist Jesus was, it's like, to me, the "sissification of Jesus".
He was a man - and a man of authority. When he fashioned a whip and drove the moneychangers out of the temple - that obviously was not pacifist. If he was teaching pacifism, He blew it by being a hypocrite to his own teachings. We know He wasn't a hypocrite. (At least, I hope we know that)

Let's look at the definition (or one of them) of pacifism -- the belief that any violence, including war, is unjustifiable under any circumstances, and that all disputes should be settled by peaceful means.

Now, looking at other definitions of pacifism, it exclusively addresses war or violence, and doesn't mention "all disputes being settled by peaceful means".

I think when pacifism is used on Tweb, most people (I'm guessing) intend that first part. I tend to look at that last part and include it in the meaning. In the case of the moneychangers, that wasn't a very peaceful means.

I also think that this attempt to make Jesus such a pacifist is an excuse to be a "do nothing Christian". Just being honest here. Jesus used action verbs - go, make, teach... and He said things like "you suppose I bring peace, but, no... division..."

Paul was obviously more militant than that, causing revivals or riots or both where he went. He was confrontational. He told Titus to be confrontational when he went to Crete. He wasn't just about sitting writing stuff - he got up and did stuff.

So, maybe the disconnect is my extended version of the definition of pacifism.

This is not the definition of pacifism frequently used by theologians who advocate a pacifist approach or look at Jesus' teachings as pacifist. If you've got it handy, read John Howard Yoder's "Politics of Jesus" — Yoder did not see Jesus advocating a "do-nothing" approach ... in fact, he saw Jesus as taking the harder path of implementing a "power under" politic.

If you don't have it handy, send me a PM with an e-mail address and I'll get you a copy from Amazon. If you're looking to develop an understanding of how Christian pacifists (well, Mennonites, anyhow) think on the issue, Yoder is still (I believe) the seminal work of the last 50 years.

[KingsGambit]

Paul wasn't using typology; his belief in Genesis is what he understood about the historical origins of mankind and thus applied it to his theology. Hey, if you're willing to admit Paul was wrong about his understanding of the origin of man and death, more power to you. In fact, I can respect that more than trying to weasel out of it and argue Paul didn't mean what he clearly did mean. If you can keep your faith intact with that glaring theological problem staring you in the face, then hey brother, you got faith of steel and I salute you. But I don't think even you could honestly put that problem on par with the problem of Romans 13 with a straight face.

So you're saying that my view is that Paul was simply wrong. Even if this was my view, how is that any different from your view?

Also, CBW is correct; at the time Romans was written there was no widespread persecution of Christians. Compare the early chapters of Revelation for Scripture written during an actual time of persecution (this isn't controversial even under a futurist view) The approach to empire is very different.

[seanD]

So you're saying that my view is that Paul was simply wrong. Even if this was my view, how is that any different from your view?

You really can't be that stupid KG. Read post #12 again and there's your answer.

[KingsGambit]

You really can't be that stupid KG. Read post #12 again and there's your answer.

As I said, that's the nature for typology. I'm curious why you don't think Paul's use of Adam constitutes typology.

[Darth Executor]

even evil like the Nazi's

Current western governments are more evil than the Nazis and Christians submit to them just fine.

[Darth Executor]

As I said, that's the nature for typology. I'm curious why you don't think Paul's use of Adam constitutes typology.

I think he's saying that you think Paul was wrong on an issue essential to faith while he thinks Paul is wrong on a side-issue.

[KingsGambit]

I think he's saying that you think Paul was wrong on an issue essential to faith while he thinks Paul is wrong on a side-issue.

It seems so but it's an ad hoc characterization since I still maintain everything Romans teaches is spiritually true, whereas he doesn't.