Were Jesus and the Baptist 'left wing' or 'right wing' ?

[eider]

You would find laws against murder, rape, theft, even civil laws in most settled societies as these problems are found universally. You did seem to forget to address this:
.

So you were wrong!.......... you wrote that:-

I would highly doubt much of the Mosaic Law is on the books.

So you've changed your mind about that............

[eider]

You might want to double check your reference, because Leviticus 15:11 says, "Anyone whom the one with the discharge touches without having rinsed his hands in water shall wash his clothes and bathe himself in water and be unclean until the evening." You're thinking of Deuteronomy 15:11, but that still doesn't say, "....and their God commanded that all people should be provided for, protected and secure!" The idea that the term "brother" refers to all people is a modern notion. When the Bible says "brother", it is referring to those who are literally related to you, either by family, creed, or nationality. So Deuteronomy is not referring to "all people" but specifically to one's immediate acquaintances, or more broadly to fellow Israelites.

As for claims that Jesus would have owned an AR-15 if they existed at the time, I don't recall ever saying anything of the kind. And I'm curious why you're taking the isolated incident of Jesus driving crooks out of the temple as being representative of his message as a whole, which you would know if you actually bothered to read Bible was focused on repentance from sins and reconciliation with God.

Yes..... that quote came from Deuteronomy 15:11, you are right, and in that verse it is God who is speaking in the first person. And he is COMMANDING you to pay out to the poor. You are also required to excuse debts where a pauper cannot pay, and much more.

Look, you can body-swerve your way out of your God's commands to suit your lifestyle, it doesn't matter to me how you adjust your religion, but if you think that your God or his son Jesus did not command you to look after all the poor then you're simply showing what your idea of Christianity is.

[eider]

Meh.... a lot of us actually have partnerships with Jewish organizations and entities.

Ha ha! So you invest with Goldmann-Sachs?

[eider]

As have I, but just like your good-self not in one sitting!

I did that in 1994........ never again!

But when I arrived at the gospels I was a little more comfortable with James-I' language, and as I read through G-John I was more able to sense how the style and expression of that book altered here-and-there, from place to place, (which I give credit to the translators for). I felt that G-John had been added to and edited....... a construct.

[eider]

After he declared that Christians don't believe that God is in everything I provide quotes from Colossians and Ephesians demonstrating the falseness of his assertion, to which he replied:

Oh! ...... Not Paul again....?!
I sometimes think that Paul is quoted more than Jesus, your God.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

You have yet to demonstrate that in 1st Corinthians 7 Paul is against "all passions" as opposed to just sexual desire, how 1st Corinthians 7 entails Paul is against general enjoyment of life, and how Paul admits to sexuality activity in Ephesians.

You seem to have a very difficult time viewing the text possibly due to bias against it.

I Corinthians 7 is deals with issues surrounding sex and marriage. Other epistles note Paul's urging for his followers to avoid the sins of the flesh [which do not automatically refer to sex]. You could read Romans 7 and 8 and also Galatians 5.

In his paper "Does the Christian have "Flesh" in Gal 5:13-26?" published in 1993 by the Journal of Evangelical Theological Studies Walter Bo Russell writes that in his opinion:

σάρξ and πνεûμα have become theological abbreviations in Paul’s argument that represent the two competing identities of the people of God in Galatia. The ‘flesh community’ [Judaizers] is a community identified with the Mosaic era and is therefore a community identified and characterised by a person bodily in his or her frailty and transitoriness and not indwelt by God’s Spirit. . . . By contrast the ‘Spirit community’ is a community identified and characterized by a person bodily aided and enabled by God’s presence and also bodily liberated from sin’s dominion, a person experiencing the full liberation of Jesus’ death and resurrection

[Cow Poke]

Ha ha! So you invest with Goldmann-Sachs?

Well, that's beside the point.
We actually have several Jewish ministries we support as a church, and I support as an individual.
In fact, I'll meet up with one of those Jewish friends in New Orleans next week.

[rogue06]

When did you last read the bible, from Genesis to Revelation?

I did that in 1994 as a lunch-time project..... bet you never did!

I've read it cover to cover twice (including the boring parts like the "begats"). The last time was a little over 20 years ago

[rogue06]

I did that in 1994........ never again!

In one sitting.

What you said was "a lunch-time project" so in a manner of about an hour.

Bulldust.

[Cow Poke]

Oh! ...... Not Paul again....?!
I sometimes think that Paul is quoted more than Jesus, your God.

Well, let's see... many of us call ourselves "New Testament Christians", and Paul wrote FAR MORE than Jesus wrote, so perhaps you're correct.

[Cow Poke]

In one sitting.

What you said was "a lunch-time project" so in a manner of about an hour.

Bulldust.

Yeah, I thought you missed that first time around.

[Diogenes]

I Corinthians 7 is deals with issues surrounding sex and marriage. Other epistles note Paul's urging for his followers to avoid the sins of the flesh [which do not automatically refer to sex]. You could read Romans 7 and 8 and also Galatians 5.

Thank you for conceding that "sins of the flesh [which do not automatically refer to sex]". This would entail that Ephesians 2:3 does not necessarily contradict Paul stating he was celibate in 1st Corinthians 7 as you state here (emphasis added):

One of the reasons that suggests Ephesians is not Pauline is the reference to himself in chapter two:

All of us also lived among them at one time, gratifying the cravings of our flesh^[a] and following its desires and thought

That conflicts somewhat with Paul's views on passion [he was against it] and his comments in I Corinthians 7 on his own celibacy ?virginity? as well as with his comments that he "blameless" “concerning the “righteousness of the law".

Nothing about Paul telling early Christians to avoid sins of the flesh necessities Paul was against humour or enjoyment of life in general. Paul uses pyroō twice it seems to indicated burning with emotion. The word homoiopathēs is used once it seems with a similar connation. The word paschō seems reserved for physical suffering, especially of Christ. Passion itself implies having an overwhelming sense of desire and Paul advises marriage specifically to avoid fornication. In 1 Corinthians 7:5 Paul even says for a husband and wife not to rob themselves of each other with the only corollary that they take a break sometimes with mutual consent specifically as to not fall into temptation. Paul gives a husband and wife the green light to enjoy sex within the bounds of the marriage.

In his paper "Does the Christian have "Flesh" in Gal 5:13-26?" published in 1993 by the Journal of Evangelical Theological Studies Walter Bo Russell writes that in his opinion:

[box]σάρξ and πνεûμα have become theological abbreviations in Paul’s argument that represent the two competing identities of the people of God in Galatia. The ‘flesh community’ [Judaizers] is a community identified with the Mosaic era and is therefore a community identified and characterised by a person bodily in his or her frailty and transitoriness and not indwelt by God’s Spirit. . . . By contrast the ‘Spirit community’ is a community identified and characterized by a person bodily aided and enabled by God’s presence and also bodily liberated from sin’s dominion, a person experiencing the full liberation of Jesus’ death and resurrection[/box

And? That's rather uncontroversial and immaterial to the context of you trying to paint Paul as hypocritical prig.

[rogue06]

Yeah, I thought you missed that first time around.

I suspect that eider found one of those Classic Bible Comics and thinks he read the Bible.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Thank you for conceding that "sins of the flesh [which do not automatically refer to sex]". This would entail that Ephesians 2:3 does not necessarily contradict Paul stating he was celibate in 1st Corinthians 7 as you state here (emphasis added):





Nothing about Paul telling early Christians to avoid sins of the flesh necessities Paul was against humour or enjoyment of life in general. Paul uses pyroō twice it seems to indicated burning with emotion. The word homoiopathēs is used once it seems with a similar connation. The word paschō seems reserved for physical suffering, especially of Christ. Passion itself implies having an overwhelming sense of desire and Paul advises marriage specifically to avoid fornication. In 1 Corinthians 7:5 Paul even says for a husband and wife not to rob themselves of each other with the only corollary that they take a break sometimes with mutual consent specifically as to not fall into temptation. Paul gives a husband and wife the green light to enjoy sex within the bounds of the marriage.



And? That's rather uncontroversial and immaterial to the context of you trying to paint Paul as hypocritical prig.

I do not think Paul was a hypocritical prig but he had no time for the passions, perhaps he had had some contact with ideas found among the Stoics. Certainly from his writings he viewed sex as something that, ideally, should be avoided.

However, given that he believed the Parousia was imminent his views on all matters to do with "the flesh" were [in his thinking] understandable. For Paul there were far more important issues [so he believed] to be addressed than those of the physical world.

[Diogenes]

I do not think Paul was a hypocritical prig but he had no time for the passions,

You stated:

One of the reasons that suggests Ephesians is not Pauline is the reference to himself in chapter two:

All of us also lived among them at one time, gratifying the cravings of our flesh^[a] and following its desires and thought

That conflicts somewhat with Paul's views on passion [he was against it] and his comments in I Corinthians 7 on his own celibacy ?virginity?

So Paul is no longer is in conflict regarding his own celibacy as you don't think he was hypocritical.

Seeing as you call people prig who maintain attitudes that certainly are not as restrictive as believing that it is expedient, profitable, wholesome for a man to not "touch" a woman, I find it hard to believe you don't consider Paul a prig.

perhaps he had had some contact with ideas found among the Stoics.

Very likely.

Certainly from his writings he viewed sex as something that, ideally, should be avoided.

Seeing as Paul's focus regards avoiding sin, that would include sexual sin. Paul by no means proscribed sex or even proscribed the enjoyment of sex between a husband or wife. He even states a married couple should not rob themselves of sex per se.

However, given that he believed the Parousia was imminent his views on all matters to do with "the flesh" were [in his thinking] understandable. For Paul there were far more important issues [so he believed] to be addressed than those of the physical world.

His focus on Parousia likely engendered his view that avoid sex was expedient, profitable, wholesome and that sex would be a distraction of the imminent coming of Parousia. If you think the afterlife is nigh, your focus would be on being your best behavior, so to speak. If you're non-Christians, especially a non-theist who held to metaphysical naturalism and consequentialism, and believed the end was nigh, you could easily rationalise doing something you would otherwise not even remotely consider.