Now he STARTED the church, how could he be called a heretic?
Thought the book read: Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church?


His power in the community could well be his oration skills.
Which, long before Jesus or Paul showed up, was demonstrated to be a profoundly bad thing.  Gorgias, Plato, somewhere around 380 BCE.

They are rare now, even with mass media, how much more dynamic would it have been 2000yrs ago...
Mass media has made such skills more rare, not less.  2000 years ago it was the ONLY way to get your idea across. 
You'd have managed better
If you'd had it planned
Now why'd you choose such a backward time
And such a strange land?
If you'd come today
You could have reached a whole nation
Isreal in 4 BC
Had no mass communication

Quote from: cynthialee on November 13, 2011, 04:21:33 PM
Well obviously you are convinced of your scholarly supieriority in this matter.

it really has nothing to do with "scholarly superiority." I've spent over 10 years studying the Bible and other religious related matter in an academic setting (and another 10 years Pastoring...both from a conservative point of view and a progressive point of view, so, I will just know a little bit more about it. When I see websites of people who profess something that is contrary or contradicts certain issues then I will say something about it . It has nothing whatsoever to do with you.

My studies are no different than a Medical professional studying medicine for over 10 years or a Law professional studying law for over 10 years.

And like any other profession, there are always tons more to learn and no one will be fully learned in any profession of their passions.

Reading those websites where the writers had some very large mistakes and holes in their arguments is like a Doctor in bio chemistry reading websites on how the Government found the cure of cancer but it is hiding it for whatever nefarious purposes. A M.D. will point out the flaws in their arguments. I am simply doing the same thing on another topic.

It's just very difficult to label Paul as a heretic based on writings that were used as a foundational keystone on the theological development of the church. I am in no way saying Paul must be right; what I am saying is, it is incorrect to label him as a heretic.

However, it is also a fact that who is a heretic to one person is a shining light to another. People like Justin the Marytr, Marcion, Galileo, Martin Luther, etc, has all been labeled as a heretic by some and enlightened leaders to others. In regards to Paul, he could be labeled as a heretic by the Judaic faith but he was not a heretic to the Christian faith.

And yes, Paul was tasked with the persecution of very early church leaders (during and very shortly after the death of Christ) but Matthew was also a Tax Collector for the Roman State. God has a unique way of changing the hearts of even the most despised people to become a light in the darkest of places.

As a Christian believer and as a Wiccan, I always found this to be a great attribute for a God. Very admirable.

Bingo,
* In regards to Paul, he could be labelled as a heretic by the Judaic faith but he was not a heretic to the Christian faith. *

Now, unless we would like to redefine the meaning of the word "heretic" Annah put the situation in a pithy sentence. Thank you.

An interesting diversion to the OP, now we may get back to this "Thesis Proposal on 1 Corinthians 6:9"?

Sorry, just curious. Really am.

...
Axelle

Quote from: Annah on November 13, 2011, 04:08:54 PM

Romans 16:3-4: Greet Prisca and Aquila, who work with me in Christ Jesus, and who risked their necks for my life, to whom not only I give thanks, but also all the churches of the Gentiles. Noticed how Paul mentioned Prisca (Or Priscilla) first before her husband. This hardly ever happened in a formal letter of that time. Matter of fact, it will be another 1800 years before others placed the wife before the husband....and even today you see people placing the husband before the man. Prisca and Aquila co pastored the Church of Roman where Phoebe was the deacon. Odd that Paul would give so much praise to the Church of Rome during his greetings with the church mostly led by women if he felt a woman's place is to be quiet...don't you think?

Not to be a persnickity wench but this is exactly what I'm talking about.  Modern concepts of feminism had no bearing whatsoever in this text nor in his choice to put Prisca before her husband.   It wasn't a "political statement"  for all we know the guy could have been screwing her and fell into habit.


Also just because Paul mentions a few women doesn't mean he has a general respect for women across the board.  I would think you especially would know that.

My father used the word ->-bleeped-<- my entire childhood and had absolutely no respect for minorities in general.    But  his carpool mate and best friend at work was a black man.  He also was really good friends with an Asian guy.   But those two were "different."

Just in the same way his general view of minorities was one of disrespect with a few exceptions.   And in my own personal observations,  when a person does have bigoted or sexist attitudes,  the exception that breaks the rule for them is usually heaped with praise and respect because they surprised the bigot.   In fact I know quite a few homophobic women who think that homosexuals will burn in hell and believe that gay men are basically pedophiles.   Yet these women absolutely adore their gay hair dressers and recommend them to everyone.


When someone is writing the rules as they take it to be that God meant it,  and they truly believe in God,  you can bet that they will make their views clear.   We don't need to break out the shoe box and go through their letters to friends to decode their real feelings.  And whether or not Paul personally may have felt differently, his words did lead to women being oppressed with justification first.


Which brings us to this

Quote from: Annah on November 13, 2011, 06:57:24 PM

And yes, Paul was tasked with the persecution of very early church leaders (during and very shortly after the death of Christ) but Matthew was also a Tax Collector for the Roman State. God has a unique way of changing the hearts of even the most despised people to become a light in the darkest of places.

As a Christian believer and as a Wiccan, I always found this to be a great attribute for a God. Very admirable.

Also the typical seminarian answer.   When cornered with facts just whip out your "GOD HAS HIS REASONS" coupon and try to redeem it to circumvent the issue at hand.

LOL   

I'm just teasing but you sure are rustling those old hackles of mine from seminary.   LOL



   The only people I ever take seriously as Biblical scholars are the ones who have actually read it in Greek and Hebrew.   If you haven't read it  in one of those languages yer just playing.

I however have NOT.   I'm lazy git.  But for the rest of you out there,   when someone purports to be a Biblical Scholar and have not learned Greek or Hebrew to read it,  they ain't.

Not directing this at Annah,  I'm assuming you have.   

Just following the thread without need for searching for it

Quote from: CatherineSarah on November 13, 2011, 07:38:09 AM
Thank you Sarah (such a nice name too), Please excuse me for going off topic, and displaying some open wounds. But this is just soooooo typical of main stream religion displaying their PROFOUND insecurities and inadequacies, plus their meager attempt at crowd control. It's no wonder the 'flock' are leaving, or have in fact, left in droves. This form of crowd control is so archaic, it beggars belief.

Paul, in Romans, tells us we are all, saints. Try rocking up to your local RC church with that one in tow and see how far you get.

I'll go back to my corner now. The thread can resume its normal broadcast programme.

Be safe, well and happy
Lotsa luv
Catherine

Thank you Catherine,

It's been along strange trip. God never meant us to be part of the "Borg Collective" so to speak. God did give us boundaries but within those boundaries is more freedom then we could ever imagine. When i was much younger before going off to school my mom tells of me of what i was like and she kept telling me i was a lot like Tigger from Winnie the Pooh. Somewhere along the line that person got lost or placed in a box. The thing i am learning is that God made me,Sarah Michelle, to be a hyper bouncy person that sees life through eyes of wonder, and to be the type of friend that sticks through even the worst of times. I have found that God seems to be so much closer when to me when i have been at a Third Day or Casting Crowns concert, or when  I listen to music where I can just let go and be me as opposed to when i go to a very ritualized church setting.  As an example the old hymns do not speak to me the same way that they do for my mom. Just because God wants me to be that way does not ever give me the right to tell someone else that they are wrong if it is within God's boundaries for all. I am never to place the limitations that God has placed on me and me alone on someone else.

Quote from: mixie on November 13, 2011, 11:32:57 PM
   The only people I ever take seriously as Biblical scholars are the ones who have actually read it in Greek and Hebrew.   If you haven't read it  in one of those languages yer just playing.

I however have NOT.   I'm lazy git.  But for the rest of you out there,   when someone purports to be a Biblical Scholar and have not learned Greek or Hebrew to read it,  they ain't.

Not directing this at Annah,  I'm assuming you have.   

Yes. Unfortunately lol. 3 years of Hebrew and 3 years of Greek. I'm not at the point where I can instantly translate as I am reading it but I am getting there lol. I can do a mean Bar/Bat Mitzah!!

My mom took some pics of Pompeii and one of those pics had graffiti etched into the stone. She asked me what it meant and it read "Reusius took a ->-bleeped-<- here." Mom told me she took the pic at the old rediscovered bathhouse and that picture was at the latrine. So, my Koine Greek is paying off!!!

Annah,

Just a quick question for you. Do you find that often with Paul's writings it is like we are given the answers but we do not have the questions that were asked? Is it also possible that Paul was not thinking that his letters would have been saved, so in some cases he is addressing things that were unique to that church and were not meant to be a be all and end all doctrine for all time?

For example Paul goes into one of his letters about men and long hair and it's not natural for men to have long hair. Yet Paul being a Pharisee would know about the Nazerites (Samson was one) who were NOT to cut their
hair. He would also have heard or seen John the Baptist who also most likely did NOT cut his hair. So then the is question is what is Paul really saying on this?

Quote from: SarahM777 on November 13, 2011, 07:13:32 AM
Hi Axelle,

If you don't mind could you please tell me what YMMV stands for? I am not up on all the acronims.

Your Methods May Vary

Love
Catherine

Quote from: Annah on November 14, 2011, 07:50:35 AM
Yes. Unfortunately lol. 3 years of Hebrew and 3 years of Greek. I'm not at the point where I can instantly translate as I am reading it but I am getting there lol. I can do a mean Bar/Bat Mitzah!!

My mom took some pics of Pompeii and one of those pics had graffiti etched into the stone. She asked me what it meant and it read "Reusius took a ->-bleeped-<- here." Mom told me she took the pic at the old rediscovered bathhouse and that picture was at the latrine. So, my Koine Greek is paying off!!!

My husband is Greek and I've been married for 12 years and all I know how to say is "I want Coffee"  LOL  I thought I'd learn Greek but wanted to learn Hebrew first because I was focusing on OT  THAT lasted about a month. LOL

Kudos to you.   

YMMV = Literally means "Your mileage may vary" but is often used in forum talk meaning
that your results or opinion will vary.

And as always --- YMMV :-)

Axelle

Catherine and Axelle,

Thank you for taking the time for answering.

Sarah 

Quote from: SarahM777 on November 14, 2011, 08:35:49 AM
Annah,

Just a quick question for you. Do you find that often with Paul's writings it is like we are given the answers but we do not have the questions that were asked? Is it also possible that Paul was not thinking that his letters would have been saved, so in some cases he is addressing things that were unique to that church and were not meant to be a be all and end all doctrine for all time?

For example Paul goes into one of his letters about men and long hair and it's not natural for men to have long hair. Yet Paul being a Pharisee would know about the Nazerites (Samson was one) who were NOT to cut their
hair. He would also have heard or seen John the Baptist who also most likely did NOT cut his hair. So then the is question is what is Paul really saying on this?

I would have thought that most people would not think that their writings would last, and in Paul's time it would have been the norm, as word of mouth was the means of communication. Possibly this is a reason why the bible stories are so odd, is that people are remembering verbal hand downs, which we know are totally inaccurate and subject to unintentional change.

I may (as usual) be totally wrong but letters imply a response rather than a statement. So if the concept or translation of letters is correct, Paul's thoughts were a response rather than a dissertation.

Annah, is there information that Paul's letters were letters or a more broad public statement.  I'll also demonstrate my complete idiocy, Who were the letters written too? The Corinthians, but to whom? Is that known?

Cindy

Setting aside scholarly teaching and going on faith the word says that Jesus told people that they must be willing to hate their lives in this world and be willing to forsake everything for Him.
One's pride would be among this.
Such as the disciples being beaten and counting it joy to be worthy of suffering shame for the name of the Lord.

With this in mind those who follow by faith can see where Samson would have been willing to follow the Lord and judge Israel having to bear the shame of long hair like a woman.

Isaiah was commanded to walk naked and barefoot for three years. Those who try to follow by faith tend to just believe that he was smart enough not to question God and just do as commanded. Later the Lord would say that his servant Isaiah was a type and shadow of what the Lord would allow to come upon those who are rebellious.

The word also says Jesus suffered the shame of the cross and the humiliation of those who would mock Him.
Paul wrote that he felt he wasn't even worthy of his position as he persecuted the saints and held the raiment of those who killed Stephen.

Jeremiah was in prison and suffered even being cast into a pit of mire.

Ezekiel was a member of the children of captivity. A slave.

According to scripture Peter suffered the rebuke of the Lord when Jesus referred to him as satan and later the rebuke of Paul who said he was living wrong according to the faith. It appears he took each in stride even giving honour unto Paul in his letter.

Noah the preacher of righteousness preached about 500 years and had no converts. While this showed that church size doesn't matter it also shows he suffered shame for 500 years or so.

Lot was ridiculed when he announced that Sodom would be destroyed and his sons in law should gather with him.

To the natural mind many of these things make no sense but they all agree that those who followed the Lord led lives most people wouldn't want to live.

Abraham for example was commanded to offer his son unto God. While this is a type and shadow of the Lord raising Jesus it would have been murder had he done it.
Imagine the shame of following God to the point where you feel the Lord told you something that went against the law (of the land) and would probably risk having your spouse think you are crazy and by today's standards ask for a divorce.
Which may very well be what some transgenders do face. Seeking to have the body altered to match the mind and live contrary to popular teaching.

At any rate that is how I see the topic of being willing to suffer shame for the Lord.
I won't debate it. It's just what I believe.

Quote from: Cindy James on November 16, 2011, 01:56:12 AM
I would have thought that most people would not think that their writings would last, and in Paul's time it would have been the norm, as word of mouth was the means of communication. Possibly this is a reason why the bible stories are so odd, is that people are remembering verbal hand downs, which we know are totally inaccurate and subject to unintentional change.

I may (as usual) be totally wrong but letters imply a response rather than a statement. So if the concept or translation of letters is correct, Paul's thoughts were a response rather than a dissertation.

Annah, is there information that Paul's letters were letters or a more broad public statement.  I'll also demonstrate my complete idiocy, Who were the letters written too? The Corinthians, but to whom? Is that known?

Cindy

Yes. Paul had absolutely no idea that these personal letters to specific people of specific churches would last so long. He did not even have a clue that his letters would end up as religious canon either. It's like you writing a comprehensive email to a new business owner to give them advice on starting a business because you have successful experience in that area and then your email is being circulated for two thousand years and it becomes Business Dogma.

His letters were very specific. For example, 1st and 2nd Corinthians were written to the church of Corinth. The second letter was him writing bacl to the church telling them how disappointed he was that they lost their focus.

His other letters were written specifically to other people to...and some of his letters were not written by him at all.

Annah,

Just a quick thought. Let's say Paul was alive today and was dealing with three churches one in New York City one in Wheaton Il and one in the Ozarks, is it not also possible that Paul was addressing some cultural issues? Would his letter to one be the same as it would be to the other two?  It would seem to me that even though they may have some of the same problems, each would have still have problems unique to where they are at.

How much of what think is true is filtered through our traditions and culture? Just looking at one thing that i can relate to as i was there when the debates about modern Christian music were going around. If it even had a slight rock beat to it you were not suppose to listen to it as it was from the Devil. Yet if you go back on even the old hymns many were written to bar tunes. They also were at one time new music that spoke to the people at that time. But if the music that is still at this time is truly traditional why is the music played on an organ and was not written before 1500 AD? If it is truly the only spiritual way why are we not still singing to rams horns,lyres and harps? And why are we not singing in Hebrew,Aramaic and Greek?  I am just using this as an example as it is something that has been looked at through tradition and culture and not that God ever said it was wrong.