Christianity's relationship with paganism

Post Reply New Topic

A lot of things. Can't name them all off the top of my head right now but basically Paul was one of the earliest hijackers of Christianity other than Constantine.

I have heard detailed arguments along that line, but I am not convinced Paul was actually doing as accused. Just as evidenced at Mars Hill, Paul was an opportunist ... and I think that has led to much misunderstanding.

Anyone who boasts that he is all things to all people is not to be trusted. Saul was a self-hating Jew and a knave.

ruveyn

I do not think Shaul was actually "boasting" in the way some people might think when he said whatever he said along that line. I think he was more like a self-aware role player often greatly misunderstood ...

Maybe an Aspie, eh?!

It's evidenced in much of the theology of Catholicism and the parts of Christianity that would then break off from there. Paul almost always seems to be in higher regard and respect than most other writers in the bible and he played a large part in emphasizing certain laws and rewriting others.

Paul was also the only Roman writer.

Odd how those Romans kept on co-opting and redefining Christianity for their own means. But then again, the Romans did the same with the Greek religion and gods so it's not like there's no precedent there.

Or maybe a self-hating Jewish neurotic.

On old archeologist thossle,
found an amazing fossile
from the way it was bent
and the knot at the end
'twas the penis of Paul the Apostle.


ruveyn

Fair enough.

Last edited by kxmode on 27 Aug 2010, 10:55 am, edited 1 time in total.

I will admit to a chuckle at your poem ...

Since all Paul's writings can be found not only in the Old Testament but also in the teachings of Jesus and His disciples, I'm of the opinion that Paul didn't hijack Christianity. If Paul's writings were different from the teachings of the other disciples who had spent three years with Jesus, the disciples surely would have said something. But the disciples didn't.

In fact, Peter actually says that although Paul's writings "contain some things that are hard to understand," they are nevertheless like the "other Scriptures." And so, by the words of both the Old and New Testaments, I believe that it is quite easy to conclude that just the opposite of a hijacking had taken place.

Since all Paul's writings can be found not only in the Old Testament but also in the teachings of Jesus and His disciples, I'm of the opinion that Paul didn't hijack Christianity. If Paul's writings were different from the teachings of the other disciples who had spent three years with Jesus, the disciples surely would have said something. But the disciples didn't.

[/quote]


Peter told Paul something like this:; Schmuck! Faith without works is dead.

ruveyn

That was actually Jesus' younger brother, James. I suspect there had been something of a personality clash between James, who had been chosen by lot to replace his brother, and Paul, the new upstart. In the end, even James came to the conclusion of, "I will show you my faith by showing you my works." Paul never said loving you neighbor and living an upright life wasn't important, just that salvation is in God's hands, not ours.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

Well said, Kraichgauer. Something else that's really important is the context of both statements. When Paul says "faith, not works," Paul is referencing SPECIFICALLY the works of THE Law, to include all Jewish customs. The idea is that it would not necessarily be in the best interests of the Gentiles to try to "become Jews" first. The reasoning was that Jesus was a Jew, therefore everyone had to become Jews first before becoming Christians. Certain aspects of becoming a Jew would be painful (like circumcision for grown men, for instance). I believe it was Paul that advocated for a "circumcision of the heart" as of primary importance to God. The Prophets, I think maybe it was Isaiah, make a distinction between those who are circumcised in the flesh alone, but their hearts are impure. Paul is saying that doing the works of the Law is insufficient for salvation; faith alone in Christ can save, nothing more or less.

James, on the other hand, was not talking about works of the Law. James was referring to a change of mind and heart through repentance. I think of it this way: God made us each in His image. Therefore, if we are changed and have become new creations in Christ, we will want to depart from our old ways and treat others as we would want to be treated. We love our neighbors as ourselves because we love God, and from our love for God and through His love for us, we freely do good "works." It is written "you will know them by their works," and James said "faith without works is dead." The point here is that anyone who calls himself by Christ's name, a Christian, but does not act Christ-like towards others, then very likely his faith is not genuine ("dead") and he is not truly known to God. Someone who claims to be a Christian but does not act Christ-like is not a true Christian.

Now, before someone starts screaming "ad hoc" about what a true Christian is or how one may know if one is saved, you have to think about what a Christian really is. Quite simply: Has one actually put all of his faith in Christ? If faith is something that can be taken back, it is not really faith because it's not a total commitment. An unwavering commitment to Christ in total submission cannot be reversed. If it IS something that can be reversed, it is not genuine.

Therefore if someone claims to have faith and certainty of their destiny, and yet they do not act Christ-like, they are PROBABLY not actual believers. They MAY be... But their behavior casts a shadow of doubt onto the way in which someone else might now them as a believer or an unbeliever. They are very likely not. On the other hand, someone how does good things, treats other people well, quotes the Bible even, and lives very much like Christ did but does NOT have the kind of faith and personal relationship with Christ and God that is desired of him (that of having faith), that person is NOT saved because his motivations do not come from the Holy Spirit but from his self-centered desires. That person may behave better than most Christians, at least by human standards, but he is not one with Christ. So yes, the Bible indicates (James and Paul) that these statements are very broad general statements but DO give us some insight as to how 1) Christians may recognize each other and 2) how Gentiles are to relate to the Law.

... and those "works" are clearly written out in "the law".



You might not have meant how that sounds, but "Christ" is not anybody's name.



Not me. My faith is in our Father in the heavens, the one and only Saviour.



Not that this really matters, but that makes no sense. Faith is faith no matter what someone might do with it.



I do not know how to dissect the psychology of all that, but it seems you and I might have heard the same preacher and his mind-numbing rhetoric a time or two! Once it had actually begun, my own transformation could not have been stopped unless I absolutely insisted ... but yes, any dog is free to return to his own vomit.

All talk about who is presently "saved" and who is not is silly. Salvation awaits those who endure to the end.

Thank you everyone for hijacking this topic then running it off a cliff.

I am beginning to realize that online forums aren't the best place to have discussions of this sort because everyone is out to one-up one another. I spent four hours doing research into the subject before posting my findings. Four hours. I was hoping someone might find the research I gleamed beneficial.

Sorry dude... I do tend to get fired up. I'm tempted to respond note-for-note to leejosepho's statements, but perhaps it's better to let that one die in favor of actually answering the OT.

It's too late right now for me to honestly respond, but I'll certainly give it a real go tomorrow.

He was an evil neurotic man who hated normal sexual relations between men and women. He hijacked Christianity as a reform movement for (then) Pharasaic Judaism and helped to turn it into a Gentile cluster-f*ck.; The rest is history.

ruveyn