23 Sep 08
Originally posted by Hand of HecateIf I was to make a guess based on the little I know about Paul, I would say that he did have a religious experience and that he did not invent it all for political reasons.
I would assert that Paul's 'conversion' was politically motivated. It can be easily demonstrated that his writings had significant politcal impact and that, ultimately, Paul wielded the sword of religion as a powerful politcal weapon.
Having said that, human psychology is very complicated and every person I have met who has had a religious experience, has acted on that experience in ways that involve a lot more than the experience itself. For example, a person who has just finished school, and has no clear career ahead may take such and experience as a start of a career in the Church.
I suspect that once established Paul did use his wittings for political impact (and would not deny it) - and that does not make him a fraud.
Here in South Africa, we have Desmond Tutu, who has a long history of wielding his position of prominence in religion as a political tool, but I wouldn't call him a fraud for doing so. I have no more reason to doubt his faith than any other theist.
Now politicians who make religious statements to gain support - those are the frauds - and I know a few of them.
23 Sep 08
Originally posted by Hand of Hecate"It can be easily demonstrated that his writings had significant political impact and that, ultimately, Paul wielded the sword of religion as a powerful political weapon."
The Apostle Paul is largely considered to have had a tremendous impact upon Chistianity. His writintings were prolific and profound with much of the New Testament being influenced by him.
However, there is no indication that Paul ever met Jesus before the latter's crucifixion. Paul asserted that his conversion was as a result of experiencing a vi ...[text shortened]... ct and that, ultimately, Paul wielded the sword of religion as a powerful politcal weapon.
Not so. Paul's writings are primarily addressed to the church, which is the "Body of Christ". They, Paul's epistles, contain that body of doctrine designed for, and to, the "Body of Christ".
What information in Paul's writings that speaks to the issues pertaining to secular governments are instructions for the "Body of Christ" and it's relationship with them.
In no wise can it be said that Paul had anything else in mind except the "Church" and it's function while still in the world.
Paul was not a politician. He was the Apostle to the gentiles, and nothing else.
However, I would be interested in how you can "easily demonstrate" otherwise.
24 Sep 08
Originally posted by WulebgrI didn't write it for you or for Nemesio.
If the entire post won't fit on my screen I won't read it unless something grabs my attention, something like a provocative thesis or a genuine insight. But, who learns to write so they can spill their seed in internet forums?
You both can ignore my writing because I'm not writing for the benefit of either of you.
24 Sep 08
Originally posted by josephwI would assert that the Church was a political entity itself. While nowhere near its peek of authority, the church played a critical role in local politics.
[b]"It can be easily demonstrated that his writings had significant political impact and that, ultimately, Paul wielded the sword of religion as a powerful political weapon."
Not so. Paul's writings are primarily addressed to the church, which is the "Body of Christ". They, Paul's epistles, contain that body of doctrine designed for, and to, the "Body ...[text shortened]...
However, I would be interested in how you can "easily demonstrate" otherwise.[/b]
24 Sep 08
to my knowledge, there was no church in pauls day, tho thier was a council of belivers, who meet quite a few times to discuss teaching, and the main one was going to be between paul and peter, sadly peter got sidelined by being killed in rome so pauls arguement went unchallenged, and that is why we have mainly pauls teachings and letters as a guide to living and learning about our saviour. the church as we know it came latter no shure when tho.
24 Sep 08
1 edit
Originally posted by Hand of HecateHow are you defining politics? After all, are we not all political creatures in some way? Name one product of human endeavour that is devoid of "political" interaction.
I would assert that the Church was a political entity itself. While nowhere near its peek of authority, the church played a critical role in local politics.
24 Sep 08
1 edit
Originally posted by Hand of HecateIn the Bible there is this tension between what is called the Bride and Wife of Christ and what is called Babylon the Harlot. This tension is seen particularly in the book of Revelation.
I would assert that the Church was a political entity itself. While nowhere near its peek of authority, the church played a critical role in local politics.
If you see the Church (the Bride and Wife i.e. Ephesians ch. 5, Rev. 21,22 ) as the political villian then what or who is the Harlot - Babylon (Rev. 13,17,18)?
24 Sep 08
Originally posted by stoker================================
to my knowledge, there was no church in pauls day, tho thier was a council of belivers, who meet quite a few times to discuss teaching, and the main one was going to be between paul and peter, sadly peter got sidelined by being killed in rome so pauls arguement went unchallenged, and that is why we have mainly pauls teachings and letters as a guide to living and learning about our saviour. the church as we know it came latter no shure when tho.
to my knowledge, there was no church in pauls day, tho thier was a council of belivers,
=========================================
Your knowledge is very deficient. The church of Christ started on the day of Pentacost.
And I suggest you read all the opening salutations to the letters of the Apostle Paul.
=======================================
who meet quite a few times to discuss teaching, and the main one was going to be between paul and peter, sadly peter got sidelined by being killed in rome so pauls arguement went unchallenged,
====================================
You don't have to feel sorry for Peter. As Jesus promised he used the two keys to open the door of the kingdom to the Jews and to the Gentiles.
Paul built on what God used Peter to do. The apostles coordinated and worked together, for the most part with and not against one another.
====================================
and that is why we have mainly pauls teachings and letters as a guide to living and learning about our saviour. the church as we know it came latter no shure when tho.
===========================================
How do you know the church? And who is the "we" that you speak of.
To some people the "church" is the Ku Klux Klan and to other people the "church" is Roman Catholicism.
So how do you know the church? I know the church as being a member of her - and organic spiritual body of Christ.
She began on the day of Pentacost when Paul was a young man. He persecuted the church so it was in existence in his day.
Then he became her apostle.
24 Sep 08
It is quite typical that people who oppose the Gospel of Christ would attack Paul.
Seemingly, their concern is that what Jesus did while physically walking on the earth only matters. But they discount what He continued to accomplish in resurrection through His disciples.
The real target is the continuation of the work of Christ after His resurrection and ascension. Paul is one who was fully functioning in the continuation of Christ's ministry from heaven.
Since the goal is to limit if not cut off the enfluence of Christ, those pioneering the way of living by His invisible resurrection presence become the target of thier criticisms.
Paul was very faithful. He showed the church too much about living by the invisible resurrection presence of Jesus - " ... the last Adam became a life giving Spirit." (1 Cor. 15:45)
He pioneered the experience of living by the Christ the life giving Spirit.
The enemies of Jesus hate this so they attack Paul.
24 Sep 08
Originally posted by Hand of HecateThat is true if and when one is referring to the outward manifestation of the church when it became sanctioned by local and national leaders of that day.
I would assert that the Church was a political entity itself. While nowhere near its peek of authority, the church played a critical role in local politics.
The thing is, is that the "Church" is an entity created by God, and as such is guided by, and headed up by Jesus Christ.
Since you obviously don't believe that God is responsible for the creation of and the administration of the "Church", you see it as an organisation made by man, which is ultimately influential in the affairs of secular society. You would be right. It is.
But when I speak of the church I am not referring to the visible church, which is a manifestation of religious activities, rites, and practises devised by man, baring those activities created by God for Israel.
There is a Church that is not visible, except for it's members.
25 Sep 08
Originally posted by josephwI gave up having invisible friends when I was 7.
That is true if and when one is referring to the outward manifestation of the church when it became sanctioned by local and national leaders of that day.
The thing is, is that the "Church" is an entity created by God, and as such is guided by, and headed up by Jesus Christ.
Since you obviously don't believe that God is responsible for the creation of ...[text shortened]... ated by God for Israel.
There is a Church that is not visible, except for it's members.
25 Sep 08
3 edits
Originally posted by jaywillIt was a literary pun. I'm sorry you missed the humor. Given your fluency with the niceties in
By all means encourage him/her to use and reuse that favorite analogy.
poetry, I should come to expect a little less from you in the cultural arena, I guess.
Nemesio
25 Sep 08
1 edit
Originally posted by jaywillEven when I disagree with particular posters (say more recently with Conrau K), I benefit from
I didn't write it for you or for Nemesio.
You both can ignore my writing because I'm not writing for the benefit of either of you.
reading what they write for the simple reason that it causes me to think, to reflect on my position
and refine it, or even to change.
Your posts are so convoluted that I have no choice but to ignore your writing simply because it
lacks coherency, both in form and in content. I'd love to benefit from your posts, but your
bizarre style (if it can so be called) interferes with any attempt to interpret your them.
In those particular moments when you manage to string together a few words that actually cohere
(or, in your case, coagulate), I'm going to respond. So, you can stop your whining about how
you 'don't care' about what I say, or that you didn't write it for me, or whatever. I'll take it
as a standing objection to any response that I have towards your blather.
Nemesio