Did Christianity lose its way?

[rogue06]

The only claims that Paul needed..... the rest he could ignore.....?

Make up your mind. One day you're prattling on about how Paul "ever [sic] mentioned the words and actions of Jesus" and the next you admit that was a load of codswallop but whine there should have been more.

Why?

These letters had very specific purposes. Something multiple posters have informed you of.

The fact that you think a typo is good reason to show a deranged smiley, this tells me so much about you.

It never ceases to amuse how you worry so much more about the tone of a post rather than its content. I imagine you're the sort who would let someone call you everything but a child of God -- as long as they were smiling as they said it.

[tabibito]

Sojourned...?
What grounds to mention what Jesus said or did? Only that Paul thought Jesus was a God, maybe?

As you have pointed out, Paul had no personal experience of Jesus as Christ - nor did most of his audience. His experiences with Jesus start after the ascension. The gospels record the memoirs of those who did know the man.

Gospel simply means 'good news'........ so you don't think that Paul was presenting any good news to folks?

The building is maybe a white house or the White House. Number 10 is maybe a street number, or 10 Downing St. When the topic refers to matters Christian, "Gospel" has a contextual application. Paul's letters do not present his gospel, but they are essentially meaningless without the gospel as a foundation.

The congregations already knew all that........ why bother?

They had a habit of forgetting the important stuff it seems. For day to day living, history is not overly important, and while Paul had experience with the ascended Jesus restored to godhood, he did not share in the experiences of the founding apostles. Paul's gospel is grounded in his own experience, and his letters do not present his gospel. Paul's letters focused on the relevance of "the kingdom to come" to the day to day lives of believers. The gospels of the other apostles and evangelists ground their records in the experiences of the authors - so the component of personal perspective comes into play.

I have no idea what any of that meant.

Less time spent scoffing at "sojourned," more time spent paying attention to the content of Hebrews, would have eliminated your difficulty. Hebrews 2:9, Hebrews 2:17 for starters.

[eider]

Paul was concerned with teaching them about salvation and how to live. They already knew about Jesus' life and actions.

Didn't the congregations already know about salvation?

Many of them lived it. And they had the other disciples. Nobody ever claimed that Paul was intimate with Jesus during his life. In fact, Paul started out as a Pharisee and hunted down Christians after Jesus' crucifixion. So why would he write about what Jesus said during his lifetime?

Because he believed that Jesus was a God? Wouldn't that be good reason to write about his words and actions in life?

What you are doing is called "special pleading" - it's a logical fallacy and a weak attempt to exclude any evidence that you don't like in order to keep believing your own biased view.

As soon as folks use terms such as 'special pleading' and 'logical fallacy' I know they have actually got nothing to offer as an answer.
You mentioned 'biased views'....... are any of your own views biased, possibly?

At your mention of Hebrews I read through it. I didn't read anything that the Jewish congregations wouldn't already have known. They were already Christians.

[eider]

The Last Supper, crucifixion and Resurrection of Jesus are all actions of His.

Literally the most important ones.

The only claims that Paul needed..... the rest he could ignore.....?

But do go on, and tell us again how Paul "ever [sic] mentioned the words and actions of Jesus"

The fact that you think a typo is good reason to show a deranged smiley, this tells me so much about you.

[eider]

Paul never knew the Jesus who sojourned among people. What grounds would he have to bear witness to what other people experienced? The gospels and Paul's letters are different genres. Paul's letters are focussed on the here and now of the time of his writing.

Sojourned...?
What grounds to mention what Jesus said or did? Only that Paul thought Jesus was a God, maybe?

By Paul? Probably. When he finally did meet the Roman congregations, they had a fair idea of what his teachings involved. Even so, he was not presenting the gospel to them.

Gospel simply means 'good news'........ so you don't think that Paul was presenting any good news to folks?

He spent a reasonable amount of time explaining who Jesus is, and what Jesus was to make possible and was making possible in his own time, both for himself and for his audience: topics far more relevant to the audience than what happened before they had ever heard of Christ.

The congregations already knew all that........ why bother?

The majestic, restored to the throne Jesus, yes; the self humbled, made lesser than the angels, no different from his brothers Jesus ... not so much.

I have no idea what any of that meant.

[Sparko]

In his letters Paul raises Jesus up to be the son of God, but with no reference to his words and actions in life. That's not talking about the Jesus that the boatman of Gennesaret knew nor the Jesus that I believe was a very real person..

By the way.......... didn't the congregations of Rome not already believe that Jesus was the majestic Son of God? Was this letter the first communication about this to those people?
No! And since Paul repeats these communications over and over it's just a shame that he didn't think to mention any of the wonderful things that Jesus did in life. Your previous defenses that Paul would not bother to tell the followers about the life of Jesus because they already knew it all in detail doesn't float......... Paul repeats the majesty of Jesus endlessly.

Paul was concerned with teaching them about salvation and how to live. They already knew about Jesus' life and actions. Many of them lived it. And they had the other disciples. Nobody ever claimed that Paul was intimate with Jesus during his life. In fact, Paul started out as a Pharisee and hunted down Christians after Jesus' crucifixion. So why would he write about what Jesus said during his lifetime?


What you are doing is called "special pleading" - it's a logical fallacy and a weak attempt to exclude any evidence that you don't like in order to keep believing your own biased view.

[Mountain Man]

He likely read Hebrews in the same way he reads the posts addressed to him. Skimmed with eyes glazed over.

Sort of like this:

[rogue06]

You claim to have read Hebrews, so how did you miss this:

Scripture Verse: Hebrews 10

For if we go on sinning deliberately after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a fearful expectation of judgment, and a fury of fire that will consume the adversaries. Anyone who has set aside the law of Moses dies without mercy on the evidence of two or three witnesses. How much worse punishment, do you think, will be deserved by the one who has trampled underfoot the Son of God, and has profaned the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has outraged the Spirit of grace? For we know him who said, “Vengeance is mine; I will repay.” And again, “The Lord will judge his people.” It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.

© Copyright Original Source

He likely read Hebrews in the same way he reads the posts addressed to him. Skimmed with eyes glazed over.

[tabibito]

It is human nature to strive to comprehend what is incomprehensible.

That's pretty much the rationale for doing science, right enough.

[rogue06]

Yet you all still try do to so.

It is human nature to strive to comprehend what is incomprehensible.

[rogue06]

I've never once forgotten to make mention of Paul's references to the last meal, he needed that to underpin the communion 'body and blood' ceremony.

So you and I both know that Paul ever mentioned the words and actions of Jesus.

The Last Supper, crucifixion and Resurrection of Jesus are all actions of His.

Literally the most important ones.

But do go on, and tell us again how Paul "ever [sic] mentioned the words and actions of Jesus"

[Mountain Man]

Reads like a manual for lawless anarchy. Whatever you do, you'll be ok 'cos you believe you will be ok......?

You claim to have read Hebrews, so how did you miss this:

Scripture Verse: Hebrews 10

For if we go on sinning deliberately after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a fearful expectation of judgment, and a fury of fire that will consume the adversaries. Anyone who has set aside the law of Moses dies without mercy on the evidence of two or three witnesses. How much worse punishment, do you think, will be deserved by the one who has trampled underfoot the Son of God, and has profaned the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has outraged the Spirit of grace? For we know him who said, “Vengeance is mine; I will repay.” And again, “The Lord will judge his people.” It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.

© Copyright Original Source

[tabibito]

In his letters Paul raises Jesus up to be the son of God, but with no reference to his words and actions in life. That's not talking about the Jesus that the boatman of Gennesaret knew nor the Jesus that I believe was a very real person.

Paul never knew the Jesus who sojourned among people. What grounds would he have to bear witness to what other people experienced? The gospels and Paul's letters are different genres. Paul's letters are focussed on the here and now of the time of his writing.

Was this letter the first communication about this to those people?

By Paul? Probably. When he finally did meet the Roman congregations, they had a fair idea of what his teachings involved. Even so, he was not presenting the gospel to them.

No! And since Paul repeats these communications over and over it's just a shame that he didn't think to mention any of the wonderful things that Jesus did in life.

He spent a reasonable amount of time explaining who Jesus is, and what Jesus was to make possible and was making possible in his own time, both for himself and for his audience: topics far more relevant to the audience than what happened before they had ever heard of Christ.

Your previous defenses that Paul would not bother to tell the followers about the life of Jesus because they already knew it all in detail doesn't float......... Paul repeats the majesty of Jesus endlessly.

The majestic, restored to the throne Jesus, yes; the self humbled, made lesser than the angels, no different from his brothers Jesus ... not so much.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

I fail to see how my comments could be so interpreted.



A name I'm not familiar with, but it seems unlikely to be relevant.



Certainly. All possible outcomes, but not necessarily which of them will be actualised. This god who knows the future in every precise detail, from the time of creation or before, was unknown to the Biblical authors.

My comments were deliberately less than serious, given that this nonsense is all so inconsequential.

I sometimes wonder who is going to start a thread discussing how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. It is that level of trivia

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

I don't think it's possible for us to understand how a timeless being perceives and interacts with our temporal universe, .

Yet you all still try do to so.