I'm open to hearing lots of stuff I disagree with, it's just that if I have a lot of evidence otherwise I don't tend to move because I tend to share the evidence I have. Please speak your peace!
He taught when you do evil, evil comes into you and corrupts your soul. When you do good, good comes into you and brightens your soul and you brighten the world with it. He said the answer is the spark in you.
Why do you say that's contradictory to being all things to all men while remaining subject to Jesus's law?
Jesus said, "Let him who seeks continue seeking until he finds. When he finds, he will become troubled. When he becomes troubled, he will be astonished, and he will rule over the All.". Show me one place where Paul teaches any of these.
Seek, find, troubled, astonished, rule:
"To them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, eternal life" (Rom. 2:7).
"If ye then be risen with Christ, seek those things which are above, where Christ sitteth on the right hand of God" (Col. 3:1).
"But, when he was in Rome, he sought me out very diligently, and found me. The Lord grant unto him that he may find mercy of the Lord in that day: and in how many things he ministered unto me at Ephesus, thou knowest very well" (2 Tim. 1:17-18). Not perfect, but reflects the principle.
"We are troubled on every side, yet not distressed; we are perplexed, but not in despair" (2 Cor. 4:8).
"I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel" (Gal. 1:6). So Paul doesn't use this word much in this sense; but this is probably the most ambiguous word in this verse in Thomas.
"If we suffer, we shall also reign with him" (2 Tim. 2:12); this is probably the closest to the meaning of trouble and astonish.
So a quick check shows it's pretty close. Paul certainly doesn't say you won't find, be troubled, be astonished, or rule. Why would you see the disparity there? I don't want to be obtuse about it. Are you taking the Scriptures about "faith saves" and then assuming that nothing accompanies faith? Some theologians do that, but when Paul says faith saves he stresses all the holy living that accompanies faith too.
I showed you that Paul preaching faith in Jesus was the same as Jesus preaching it
No you didn't. Again here we have a strong disagreement.
Um, maybe you think "believe" and "have faith" are different? Jesus says to believe in him John 14:1, Paul says to believe in Jesus Rom. 3:26. Why do we have disagreement on this?
Why is belief more important than behavior?
Nobody teaches one is more important, they must accompany each other. Professing Christians who act like belief is more important are oversimplifying, and other Christians call that easy believism, greasy grace, and sloppy agape. If you believe, you behave, they always accompany each other. But if you believe like the thief, and have no opportunity to behave other than to do that very important work of confessing, you still get credit for believing and behaving, because you turned from your sins as Ezekiel says.
Why would a loving God send good people to hell just because they were born in the wrong culture and never heard of Jesus?
I answered that's not Christianity according to Rom. 1.
Why does there need to be a second coming if Jesus already accomplished his mission?
Why did Jesus say he would come back, Matt. 24:30? Same answer.
And why do we have to worship Jesus if salvation is supposed to be about God's grace, not about our actions?
I've pointed out that the word "worship" isn't applied to Jesus the same way it's applied to God the Father. The meaning of worship in most cases is the same kind of respect that created beings receive; in a couple cases the meaning of worship is indeed that which is due to God alone, but it is offered to God in Jesus. Here's my deep dive. It's not about "having to" worship Jesus, it's that people are so grateful that they give him a dozen kinds of ordinary respect, and worship God in him. They "get to" worship, it's a joy.
And the standard Christian answer to all these questions is miracle, mystery, and magic.
I apologize on behalf of standard Christians. Our bad. I will be happy to make it up to you.
What's the purpose of exploring Church doctrine. You're not going to convince me of anything that way.
I'm mostly avoiding doctrine and just sticking to interpretation of texts. I gave you two texts about "believing in Jesus", and I presume you see that the same words are talking about the same thing, that doesn't have to become a doctrinal rarefaction.
He who can understand the present, could understand the past.
The present is indeed always capable of interpreting the past (retconning), which is why we are sharing with each other in the present.
They should strive for Mosaic purity so much more that they realize it can't be done except supernaturally (as Jesus and gnostics both agree).
Again I disagree. A lot of Jesus's teachings go against Jewish religious authority.
Correct, and not against Mosaic purity. Jesus and Moses always agree, he proves it's the authorities that are the outliers.
And these Jewish priests teach people to follow the law, to follow the Sabbath, meaning do not work on Saturdays, to obey the law of Moses, to keep all the customs and traditions of the Jewish faith. But according to the Bible, Jesus says, "No, what's important is not following the letter of the law, but following the spirit of God. What matters is the condition of your heart, not whether you perform the correct rituals."
The first is accurate. Jesus said don't work on Sabbath. The second is not, IMHO. He said no letter of the law will depart until everything be fulfilled, Matt. 5. He did disagree with the leaders about what is work on Sabbath, and pointed out that in one sense the Father "works" on Sabbath, meaning that the leaders' view of what "work" is was suspect; but the leaders had added to Moses in a known way (Moses said no labor, the leaders said spitting is labor because it creates mud, that was a spurious, scrupulous addition). I pointed out that Jesus said follow both the letter of tithes and the spirit of mercy, Matt. 23:23. Jesus affirmed temple rituals and told people to follow them, such as cleansing after healing. So Jesus upheld purity, and among the Jews Paul upheld purity too. Do you see texts otherwise? I mean, Hezekiah said something like the last part, but he wasn't quoted on this.
Jesus is essentially rebelling against the authority of the Jewish priests.
I don't see that he ever rebels against their authority; he tells people to obey their rulings but not to mimic their behavior, Matt. 23:2-3. When he disagrees with them it's about questions where people are free to judge opinions, and they called him a rebel because he showed up when their opinions were sometimes foolish.
Nothing wrong with Paul going along with the system.
Then when Jesus goes along with Caesar's tax system, is he shilling for Rome too? Why is it okay when Jesus affirms Rome but not when Paul does? It seems they're both right, they both teach obedience insofar as conscience permits. If Jesus were poor and Paul rich, that shouldn't make a difference as to their message.
And the message he preached served Roman interests perfectly. It neutralized the most dangerous threat Rome faced. It turned potential rebels into peaceful citizens. It transformed a movement that could have ignited empire wide Jewish revolt into a religion of personal salvation that taught submission to earthly authority. Whether Paul was consciously working as an asset or whether he was unwitting tool, the result was the same.
This sounds speculative. Jesus already taught submission to earthly authority, both Jewish and Roman, as I showed. Paul didn't improve on that, he only spread the same message; granted that more efficient spread benefited Rome in some ways, but it also created many more who rejected Caesar worship, which was no benefit to them. But Jesus's preaching of paying Caesar was enough catalyst to "benefit of Rome" that the benefit had already begun. And of course Jesus successfully quelled rebellion for a long time, by taking all the blame for it on himself, literally.
So I still hear a narrative that someone has templated over historical facts that doesn't fit all of them very well. I appreciate your continuing despite my inability to make it click. Maybe there are things you don't like about the Biblical Jesus (or Paul) that you doubt are the real teachings? We can weigh these things according to probability, but that would need to be applied across the board so it might not have the effect desired. But to hear how obvious it is to you that Paul contradicted Jesus, and then not to see it in your statements when there are easy Biblical references otherwise, well, that approach hasn't yet carried the case for me. I appreciate you hearing my sincere questions.
Jesus mission was not to bring a Law, but to demonstrate it. He came to end the need for religion by showing the direct path to divine consciousness. He didn't die for your sins. He died to show sin is illusion. Death is illusion. Separation is illusion. He didn't perform miracles. He demonstrated natural laws that include consciousness as a creative force.
But, Jesus has a message, a message of three components wrapped into one package: recognition, authority and declaration. Jesus said you must know what you are, not believe. His message clearly says: you are a divine spark temporarily housed in a material body. You are not your fears. You are not your failures. You are not the story the world has told you about yourself. You carry the light of the Monad. You do not ask. You do not beg. You do not request. You speak as what you are. As a declaration of what is already true at the deepest level of existence. This is the revolution that Jesus started. This is the truth that has been hidden. This is the power that has always been ours.
On the other hand Paul's teachings are on belief: Faith in Jesus, Predestination (he argues that faith is a gift from God, not something self-generated), Conversion and Belief in the Resurrection.
maybe you think "believe" and "have faith" are different?
Maybe you misunderstood what I said. There were enormous consequences from what Paul did. He radically changed the meaning of faith and religion itself. Before Paul, faith meant lived experience. Faith meant your relationship with the divine that you cultivated through practice, through study, through ethical living. Faith was something you experienced directly. But Paul introduced a new concept. Faith became belief. Faith became accepting certain propositional claims. Jesus is the son of God. Jesus died for your sins. Jesus was resurrected. If you believe these things, you're saved. If you don't believe them, you're damned. This is radically different. This makes debate about theological positions not about lived spiritual experience. Paul also introduced a concept of miracles as explanatory devices. If something doesn't make logical sense, it's a miracle. How was Jesus born of a virgin? Miracle. How did Jesus walk on water? Miracle. How was Jesus resurrected? Miracle. The function of miracles in Paul's theology is to explain away contradictions and inconsistencies. Don't question the logical problems. Don't try to understand it rationally. Just accept it as miraculous. Another major innovation was elevating tradition above scripture. Paul's church, which eventually became the Catholic Church, taught that tradition, the teachings passed down through church authority is more important than the Bible itself. In fact, for most of Christian history, ordinary people were not allowed to read the Bible. The Bible was kept in Latin, which most people didn't understand. Only priests could read it and interpret it because the church taught that if ordinary people read the Bible, they might misinterpret it. They don't have the spiritual authority to understand it correctly. So religious truth comes not from direct study of sacred text but from submission to church authority. The church tells you what to believe and you believe it. That's faith.
among the Jews Paul upheld purity too. Do you see texts otherwise?
Like I said in my previous message Paul's mission was assimilation but not assimilation that destroys Jewish identity. To that extent I agree Paul upheld purity. But, all his innovations serve institutional power. So there 's no issue for Rome. They make religion about control, about hierarchy, about obedience to authority rather than about direct spiritual experience. Now, let me address another question you might have. If Paul was controversial, if there were people who saw through what he was doing, then who wrote the Acts of the Apostles, which presents such a positive picture of Paul? Great question. We don't know for certain who wrote Acts, but we do know that whoever wrote Acts also wrote the Gospel of Luke. They're written by the same author in the same style as part one and part two of a continuous narrative.
Acts is very poor Paul. It presents Paul in the most sympathetic light possible. It shows him as a heroic figure persecuted by Jews, protected by Romans, spreading the faith despite hardships. Now, why would someone write this? Because at this time, there were many people, especially Jewish Christians, who hated Paul. They believed Paul had corrupted the teachings of Jesus. They believe Paul was a traitor who had sold out to Rome.
Jesus already taught submission to earthly authority, both Jewish and Roman
Jesus taught the exact opposite of submission to any authority. Earthly or otherwise. Like I said before, Paul takes Jesus’s message of spiritual autonomy from the Monad and reconstructs it as a message of spiritual submission... a slave of sorts. Let me put this in other words, and I'm going to use a strong word just to highlight the intent, Paul hijacks Jesus's message. Paul took Jesus's message of spiritual autonomy and reconstructed it as a message of spiritual submission. Jesus says “listen to my words”, Paul says “believe me of who Jesus is”.
Later the Roman Empire's adoption of Christianity under Constantine wasn't the triumph of spiritual truth over paganism that Church teaches today. It was the hijacking of a liberation movement and its transformation into a control system. Constantine needed a version of Christianity that would support imperial authority, not undermine it. The Gnostic teachings with their emphasis on individual direct experience and their rejection of external religious authority were completely incompatible with maintaining an empire built on hierarchy and control. The Council of Nicaea in 325 CE wasn't really about establishing the correct doctrine. It was about eliminating any version of Christianity that could make people spiritually independent.
A mystical Christianity teaching direct access to divine power was dangerous. It had to be replaced with submission, with waiting, with placing all power in priests and institutions. The Gospel of Thomas was rejected because it taught the kingdom is within you. The Gospel of Philip was rejected because it taught techniques for transformation. These were not rejected for being false. They were rejected for being too practical, too liberating.
But to hear how obvious it is to you that Paul contradicted Jesus, and then not to see it in your statements
I have never said Paul contradicted Jesus. He is too cleaver to do that. In this reply I used the word hijacked, and I think you can clearly see this in my statements. You are free to disagree with me. But, whether you agree with my interpretation or not, you should at least see that the official narrative has significant problems. Yet, I have a feeling you're going to say "I don't see any problems.".
Jesus mission was not to bring a Law, but to demonstrate it.
Okay, to fulfill what was already brought, yes.
He came to end the need for religion by showing the direct path to divine consciousness.
James 1:26-27 promoted true religion. Jesus contrasted that with vain religion (vain worship), Matt. 15:9, Mark 7:7. The word itself is neutral. I think what Jesus ended is more rightly called legalism.
He didn't die for your sins.
When 1 Cor. 15:3 says "I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures", scholars are agreed that "received" means an oral creed "Christ died for our sins" was circulating formally among the apostles 2-5 years after the resurrection. 1 Peter 2:24 has it, "His own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed." There are several theological theories on the meaning, but in addition to nullifying sin he certainly also removed sin from us, bearing the illusion away. These distinctions sound semantic.
He didn't perform miracles. He demonstrated natural laws that include consciousness as a creative force.
Yeah, mostly, because the meaning of miracle has changed. The Bible calls them miracles in the sense of "unexplained". When people know the natural laws he used, they become more "explained", more commonplace and less wondrous. So both he and we perform the unexplained in our eras.
Jesus said you must know what you are, not believe.
I showed you John 14:1 and I don't know your thoughts on it. When Jesus speaks of knowing yourself it's in more of a negative sense, Luke 9:55, but it doesn't contradict the much greater emphasis he places on knowing him, John 17:3 etc. Why would knowing yourself contradict Jesus's statement to believe in God and in himself?
His message clearly says: you are a divine spark temporarily housed in a material body.
Calling it a "spark" isn't clear at all; he obviously taught on the "image" of God in man, Matt. 22:20 ff. He constantly affirmed the covenant reliance on the resurrection of the body and on the difference between this age and the coming age, and those two traditions balanced the temporal and the everlasting. Yes, 2 Peter 1:13-14 speaks of putting off this tabernacle without speaking of what is to come, but I acknowledged the mystery by pointing out that there may not be a conflict between the Christian tradition of general resurrection and the power to manifest as spiritual instead of material-pragmatic. So framing the message this way doesn't seem the "clearest" form.
You are not your fears. You are not your failures. You are not the story the world has told you about yourself. You carry the light of the Monad. You do not ask. You do not beg. You do not request. You speak as what you are. As a declaration of what is already true at the deepest level of existence. This is the revolution that Jesus started. This is the truth that has been hidden. This is the power that has always been ours.
Okay.
On the other hand Paul's teachings are on belief: Faith in Jesus, Predestination (he argues that faith is a gift from God, not something self-generated), Conversion and Belief in the Resurrection.
Jesus taught faith (believing) in himself. The apostles taught predestination, Acts 4:28, in accord with the tradition saying all is foreknown and determined and yet free will is given. Now, you make a distinction between faith being a gift (not the literal language of Eph. 2 though) and faith being something one does, but those are two sides of the same coin. You can't have faith without believing, and you can't have faith without the gift of God being involved (none come unless the Father draws them, John 6:44). So the two always manifest together, implying they are the same thing. Jesus taught conversion, Matt. 18:3, and he taught that he was the resurrection, John 11:25. So I see that if you think that believing and being given faith are contradictory, you'd have a problem, but why would they be contradictory? Whatever man does, God is doing the work of ensuring man does it.
He radically changed the meaning of faith and religion itself.
Still looking.
Before Paul, faith meant lived experience. Faith meant your relationship with the divine that you cultivated through practice, through study, through ethical living. Faith was something you experienced directly.
Faith is tied to that but isn't precisely synonymous. Lately this might be called "faith walk" or "working faith". James 2:18 says we show faith by what we do, so they are different. Yet he emphasizes faith always accompanies this relationship and experience.
But Paul introduced a new concept. Faith became belief. Faith became accepting certain propositional claims. Jesus is the son of God. Jesus died for your sins. Jesus was resurrected. If you believe these things, you're saved. If you don't believe them, you're damned. This is radically different. This makes debate about theological positions not about lived spiritual experience.
"Pistis" is translated both faith and belief. Now, I agree with the criticism that faith is more than propositional trust but involves personal trust in the individual; James 2:19-20 agrees too. And I agree with the idea that it shouldn't be oversimplified, although 1 John gives several simple tests distinguishing saved from damned that are very propositional. But these tests work because they rightly reflect whether the person has the whole relationship or not. What we've corrupted that into is the idea that saying the words is a free ticket and lifestyle is irrelevant, but in the culture your words would be proven by your lifestyle. And Paul didn't change that, it came much later. Debate about theological position isn't very effective (unless it distinguishes the god one believes in from another); experience in Christ's body is indeed everything. But that's why I'm working with you experientially (even as I present texts to you as I experience them).
So on this point, I agree there is a difference between propositional faith and the personal faith Jesus taught, but taking everything Paul said he is not teaching mere propositional faith in Eph. 2 and should not be taken as if he is.
Paul also introduced a concept of miracles as explanatory devices. If something doesn't make logical sense, it's a miracle. How was Jesus born of a virgin? Miracle. How did Jesus walk on water? Miracle. How was Jesus resurrected? Miracle. The function of miracles in Paul's theology is to explain away contradictions and inconsistencies. Don't question the logical problems. Don't try to understand it rationally. Just accept it as miraculous.
Well, the disciples accepted "miracles" in the sense "unexplained", throughout the gospels and indeed as a mark of Jesus's character in secular sources. Obviously some things happen that we don't have explanation for, and even good scientists admit that despite the fullness of the known laws of physics. It would be silly to say Jesus did nothing unexplained because we've found all the explanations, or worse to say it's because Jesus couldn't possibly have used deeper laws we haven't explained yet. It's unclear what you're going for. If you're saying any account of Jesus doing something inexplicable is spurious, that would mean we should talk about whether we understand all the laws of the world or whether there are still unknowns. But if Jesus did rise from the dead bodily, then there's no problem in saying so and calling it a miracle, and raising people from the dead bodily ourselves.
Another major innovation was elevating tradition above scripture. Paul's church, which eventually became the Catholic Church, taught that tradition, the teachings passed down through church authority is more important than the Bible itself.
The Bible was still open canon then. Peter and Jude followed the same rules by which their Hebrew Bible was approved, saying that new Scriptures might arise that were equal to the old; only John was able to discern when the canon closed. Thus if it was passed down from authority (as the OT was) and accepted by many generations of believers, it became a Scriptural teaching; if it didn't, like the Didache (which is very good teaching), it was treated as secondary and often forgotten. Paul rejects mere human tradition, Col. 2:8, like Mark 7:13, but I see he also affirms received tradition, 2 Thess. 2:15, 3:6. But this word, which means "received" or "delivered", also refers to what Jesus received from the Father to share with us, Matt. 11:27, 25:14. I don't see anything about tradition transcending the Bible. After creeds were formed, an impression could be taken that they were regarded as more important than Biblical texts, but good churches affirm they are merely summaries of the inspired Bible. So this sounds like a criticism of medieval Christianity, not of Paul.
In fact, for most of Christian history, ordinary people were not allowed to read the Bible. The Bible was kept in Latin, which most people didn't understand. Only priests could read it and interpret it because the church taught that if ordinary people read the Bible, they might misinterpret it. They don't have the spiritual authority to understand it correctly.
That was a major medieval error, but hardly "most of Christian history" because the disuse of Latin only crept in maybe about the 8th or 9th century, and vernacular Bibles were published from maybe the 12th century on. That really has little to do with Paul.
So religious truth comes not from direct study of sacred text but from submission to church authority. The church tells you what to believe and you believe it. That's faith.
Do you submit to what direct study of sacred text reveals? I've cited much sacred text. We all have personal duty to interpret rightly. But, as with math, the same text gives the same core answers to everyone. If you doubt the view of the majority, you stand on your conscience while also seeking whether a miscommunication or semantic difference might solve the disharmony. Again, the Reformation happened because the medieval church abused the personal duty to interpret (i.e. prohibiting personal interpretation), but the other direction of abuse (i.e. wrong interpretation) is also a problem.
But, all his innovations serve institutional power. So there 's no issue for Rome. They make religion about control, about hierarchy, about obedience to authority rather than about direct spiritual experience.
Reformers have always agreed that institutional power and hierarchy are easily corrupted and need regular auditing.
Because at this time, there were many people, especially Jewish Christians, who hated Paul. They believed Paul had corrupted the teachings of Jesus. They believe Paul was a traitor who had sold out to Rome.
Yes, and those who did believed the same of the other apostles, and treated them the same.
Jesus taught the exact opposite of submission to any authority.
Why did he say to honor everything that comes from Moses's seat, and everything belonging to Caesar?
Paul takes Jesus’s message of spiritual autonomy from the Monad and reconstructs it as a message of spiritual submission.
Autonomy means law unto oneself. Jesus and Paul taught we are judged by a law external to oneself. We have managerial (limited) autonomy in the sense of responsibility, and, when we take the law into our own hands rather than uphold the external we've received, that's where our responsibility and limited autonomy fails as a result of the total autonomy of the Monad. Once again you're getting this word "autonomy" that isn't in the text, and I don't know why you speak as if your words not in the text are better summaries than the text itself.
Jesus says “listen to my words”, Paul says “believe me of who Jesus is”.
Paul appeals to Jesus's words just as other apostles do. They all experienced Jesus's words and invite others to experience them, initially mediated by them as teachers until we are mature enough to experience them immediately for ourselves. Paul said, "Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ" (1 Cor. 11:1), meaning that when he fails to follow Christ we are not to follow him (Gal. 1:8). Paul never says "believe me" (though he might affirm that Isaiah 52 says "believe me"). Why do you say this?
Later the Roman Empire's adoption of Christianity under Constantine wasn't the triumph of spiritual truth over paganism that Church teaches today. It was the hijacking of a liberation movement and its transformation into a control system. Constantine needed a version of Christianity that would support imperial authority, not undermine it.
Okay.
The Gnostic teachings with their emphasis on individual direct experience and their rejection of external religious authority were completely incompatible with maintaining an empire built on hierarchy and control. The Council of Nicaea in 325 CE wasn't really about establishing the correct doctrine. It was about eliminating any version of Christianity that could make people spiritually independent.
Gnosticism had essentially disappeared before then; it had migrated into Montanism, Ebionitism, and other more sustainable systems. These forms did persist after Nicea and were not persecuted over experience or conscientious disagreement with other authorities; the only deprecation was over teaching a different Jesus or different gospel, but disagreements between churches were routinely hammered out by focus on unity (until the bishop of Rome started the idea of demanding submission, which was some time after Nicea). Nicea didn't "eliminate" any version of Christianity except by deprecating Arianism, which survived for centuries in western Europe anyway. Yes, independence was lost over time, I agree with you in mourning that, but that's why we had a Reformation. It's not related to Paul.
The Gospel of Thomas was rejected because it taught the kingdom is within you.
They weren't rejected, they just never rose to become Scripture. The "kingdom within" was accepted as gospel.
the official narrative has significant problems
I agree. What it doesn't show is how to correct the narrative or how blaming Paul does any good. The whole true narrative can be shown without any reference to Paul, because people were already showing the whole true narrative before Paul came.
u/InevitableDot, continuation:
I'm open to hearing lots of stuff I disagree with, it's just that if I have a lot of evidence otherwise I don't tend to move because I tend to share the evidence I have. Please speak your peace!
Why do you say that's contradictory to being all things to all men while remaining subject to Jesus's law?
Seek, find, troubled, astonished, rule:
"To them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, eternal life" (Rom. 2:7).
"If ye then be risen with Christ, seek those things which are above, where Christ sitteth on the right hand of God" (Col. 3:1).
"But, when he was in Rome, he sought me out very diligently, and found me. The Lord grant unto him that he may find mercy of the Lord in that day: and in how many things he ministered unto me at Ephesus, thou knowest very well" (2 Tim. 1:17-18). Not perfect, but reflects the principle.
"We are troubled on every side, yet not distressed; we are perplexed, but not in despair" (2 Cor. 4:8).
"I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel" (Gal. 1:6). So Paul doesn't use this word much in this sense; but this is probably the most ambiguous word in this verse in Thomas.
"If we suffer, we shall also reign with him" (2 Tim. 2:12); this is probably the closest to the meaning of trouble and astonish.
So a quick check shows it's pretty close. Paul certainly doesn't say you won't find, be troubled, be astonished, or rule. Why would you see the disparity there? I don't want to be obtuse about it. Are you taking the Scriptures about "faith saves" and then assuming that nothing accompanies faith? Some theologians do that, but when Paul says faith saves he stresses all the holy living that accompanies faith too.
Um, maybe you think "believe" and "have faith" are different? Jesus says to believe in him John 14:1, Paul says to believe in Jesus Rom. 3:26. Why do we have disagreement on this?
Nobody teaches one is more important, they must accompany each other. Professing Christians who act like belief is more important are oversimplifying, and other Christians call that easy believism, greasy grace, and sloppy agape. If you believe, you behave, they always accompany each other. But if you believe like the thief, and have no opportunity to behave other than to do that very important work of confessing, you still get credit for believing and behaving, because you turned from your sins as Ezekiel says.
I answered that's not Christianity according to Rom. 1.
Why did Jesus say he would come back, Matt. 24:30? Same answer.
I've pointed out that the word "worship" isn't applied to Jesus the same way it's applied to God the Father. The meaning of worship in most cases is the same kind of respect that created beings receive; in a couple cases the meaning of worship is indeed that which is due to God alone, but it is offered to God in Jesus. Here's my deep dive. It's not about "having to" worship Jesus, it's that people are so grateful that they give him a dozen kinds of ordinary respect, and worship God in him. They "get to" worship, it's a joy.
I apologize on behalf of standard Christians. Our bad. I will be happy to make it up to you.
I'm mostly avoiding doctrine and just sticking to interpretation of texts. I gave you two texts about "believing in Jesus", and I presume you see that the same words are talking about the same thing, that doesn't have to become a doctrinal rarefaction.
The present is indeed always capable of interpreting the past (retconning), which is why we are sharing with each other in the present.
Correct, and not against Mosaic purity. Jesus and Moses always agree, he proves it's the authorities that are the outliers.
The first is accurate. Jesus said don't work on Sabbath. The second is not, IMHO. He said no letter of the law will depart until everything be fulfilled, Matt. 5. He did disagree with the leaders about what is work on Sabbath, and pointed out that in one sense the Father "works" on Sabbath, meaning that the leaders' view of what "work" is was suspect; but the leaders had added to Moses in a known way (Moses said no labor, the leaders said spitting is labor because it creates mud, that was a spurious, scrupulous addition). I pointed out that Jesus said follow both the letter of tithes and the spirit of mercy, Matt. 23:23. Jesus affirmed temple rituals and told people to follow them, such as cleansing after healing. So Jesus upheld purity, and among the Jews Paul upheld purity too. Do you see texts otherwise? I mean, Hezekiah said something like the last part, but he wasn't quoted on this.
I don't see that he ever rebels against their authority; he tells people to obey their rulings but not to mimic their behavior, Matt. 23:2-3. When he disagrees with them it's about questions where people are free to judge opinions, and they called him a rebel because he showed up when their opinions were sometimes foolish.
Then when Jesus goes along with Caesar's tax system, is he shilling for Rome too? Why is it okay when Jesus affirms Rome but not when Paul does? It seems they're both right, they both teach obedience insofar as conscience permits. If Jesus were poor and Paul rich, that shouldn't make a difference as to their message.
This sounds speculative. Jesus already taught submission to earthly authority, both Jewish and Roman, as I showed. Paul didn't improve on that, he only spread the same message; granted that more efficient spread benefited Rome in some ways, but it also created many more who rejected Caesar worship, which was no benefit to them. But Jesus's preaching of paying Caesar was enough catalyst to "benefit of Rome" that the benefit had already begun. And of course Jesus successfully quelled rebellion for a long time, by taking all the blame for it on himself, literally.
So I still hear a narrative that someone has templated over historical facts that doesn't fit all of them very well. I appreciate your continuing despite my inability to make it click. Maybe there are things you don't like about the Biblical Jesus (or Paul) that you doubt are the real teachings? We can weigh these things according to probability, but that would need to be applied across the board so it might not have the effect desired. But to hear how obvious it is to you that Paul contradicted Jesus, and then not to see it in your statements when there are easy Biblical references otherwise, well, that approach hasn't yet carried the case for me. I appreciate you hearing my sincere questions.
Jesus mission was not to bring a Law, but to demonstrate it. He came to end the need for religion by showing the direct path to divine consciousness. He didn't die for your sins. He died to show sin is illusion. Death is illusion. Separation is illusion. He didn't perform miracles. He demonstrated natural laws that include consciousness as a creative force.
But, Jesus has a message, a message of three components wrapped into one package: recognition, authority and declaration. Jesus said you must know what you are, not believe. His message clearly says: you are a divine spark temporarily housed in a material body. You are not your fears. You are not your failures. You are not the story the world has told you about yourself. You carry the light of the Monad. You do not ask. You do not beg. You do not request. You speak as what you are. As a declaration of what is already true at the deepest level of existence. This is the revolution that Jesus started. This is the truth that has been hidden. This is the power that has always been ours.
On the other hand Paul's teachings are on belief: Faith in Jesus, Predestination (he argues that faith is a gift from God, not something self-generated), Conversion and Belief in the Resurrection.
Maybe you misunderstood what I said. There were enormous consequences from what Paul did. He radically changed the meaning of faith and religion itself. Before Paul, faith meant lived experience. Faith meant your relationship with the divine that you cultivated through practice, through study, through ethical living. Faith was something you experienced directly. But Paul introduced a new concept. Faith became belief. Faith became accepting certain propositional claims. Jesus is the son of God. Jesus died for your sins. Jesus was resurrected. If you believe these things, you're saved. If you don't believe them, you're damned. This is radically different. This makes debate about theological positions not about lived spiritual experience. Paul also introduced a concept of miracles as explanatory devices. If something doesn't make logical sense, it's a miracle. How was Jesus born of a virgin? Miracle. How did Jesus walk on water? Miracle. How was Jesus resurrected? Miracle. The function of miracles in Paul's theology is to explain away contradictions and inconsistencies. Don't question the logical problems. Don't try to understand it rationally. Just accept it as miraculous. Another major innovation was elevating tradition above scripture. Paul's church, which eventually became the Catholic Church, taught that tradition, the teachings passed down through church authority is more important than the Bible itself. In fact, for most of Christian history, ordinary people were not allowed to read the Bible. The Bible was kept in Latin, which most people didn't understand. Only priests could read it and interpret it because the church taught that if ordinary people read the Bible, they might misinterpret it. They don't have the spiritual authority to understand it correctly. So religious truth comes not from direct study of sacred text but from submission to church authority. The church tells you what to believe and you believe it. That's faith.
Like I said in my previous message Paul's mission was assimilation but not assimilation that destroys Jewish identity. To that extent I agree Paul upheld purity. But, all his innovations serve institutional power. So there 's no issue for Rome. They make religion about control, about hierarchy, about obedience to authority rather than about direct spiritual experience. Now, let me address another question you might have. If Paul was controversial, if there were people who saw through what he was doing, then who wrote the Acts of the Apostles, which presents such a positive picture of Paul? Great question. We don't know for certain who wrote Acts, but we do know that whoever wrote Acts also wrote the Gospel of Luke. They're written by the same author in the same style as part one and part two of a continuous narrative.
Acts is very poor Paul. It presents Paul in the most sympathetic light possible. It shows him as a heroic figure persecuted by Jews, protected by Romans, spreading the faith despite hardships. Now, why would someone write this? Because at this time, there were many people, especially Jewish Christians, who hated Paul. They believed Paul had corrupted the teachings of Jesus. They believe Paul was a traitor who had sold out to Rome.
Jesus taught the exact opposite of submission to any authority. Earthly or otherwise. Like I said before, Paul takes Jesus’s message of spiritual autonomy from the Monad and reconstructs it as a message of spiritual submission... a slave of sorts. Let me put this in other words, and I'm going to use a strong word just to highlight the intent, Paul hijacks Jesus's message. Paul took Jesus's message of spiritual autonomy and reconstructed it as a message of spiritual submission. Jesus says “listen to my words”, Paul says “believe me of who Jesus is”.
Later the Roman Empire's adoption of Christianity under Constantine wasn't the triumph of spiritual truth over paganism that Church teaches today. It was the hijacking of a liberation movement and its transformation into a control system. Constantine needed a version of Christianity that would support imperial authority, not undermine it. The Gnostic teachings with their emphasis on individual direct experience and their rejection of external religious authority were completely incompatible with maintaining an empire built on hierarchy and control. The Council of Nicaea in 325 CE wasn't really about establishing the correct doctrine. It was about eliminating any version of Christianity that could make people spiritually independent.
A mystical Christianity teaching direct access to divine power was dangerous. It had to be replaced with submission, with waiting, with placing all power in priests and institutions. The Gospel of Thomas was rejected because it taught the kingdom is within you. The Gospel of Philip was rejected because it taught techniques for transformation. These were not rejected for being false. They were rejected for being too practical, too liberating.
I have never said Paul contradicted Jesus. He is too cleaver to do that. In this reply I used the word hijacked, and I think you can clearly see this in my statements. You are free to disagree with me. But, whether you agree with my interpretation or not, you should at least see that the official narrative has significant problems. Yet, I have a feeling you're going to say "I don't see any problems.".
Okay, to fulfill what was already brought, yes.
James 1:26-27 promoted true religion. Jesus contrasted that with vain religion (vain worship), Matt. 15:9, Mark 7:7. The word itself is neutral. I think what Jesus ended is more rightly called legalism.
When 1 Cor. 15:3 says "I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures", scholars are agreed that "received" means an oral creed "Christ died for our sins" was circulating formally among the apostles 2-5 years after the resurrection. 1 Peter 2:24 has it, "His own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed." There are several theological theories on the meaning, but in addition to nullifying sin he certainly also removed sin from us, bearing the illusion away. These distinctions sound semantic.
Yeah, mostly, because the meaning of miracle has changed. The Bible calls them miracles in the sense of "unexplained". When people know the natural laws he used, they become more "explained", more commonplace and less wondrous. So both he and we perform the unexplained in our eras.
I showed you John 14:1 and I don't know your thoughts on it. When Jesus speaks of knowing yourself it's in more of a negative sense, Luke 9:55, but it doesn't contradict the much greater emphasis he places on knowing him, John 17:3 etc. Why would knowing yourself contradict Jesus's statement to believe in God and in himself?
Calling it a "spark" isn't clear at all; he obviously taught on the "image" of God in man, Matt. 22:20 ff. He constantly affirmed the covenant reliance on the resurrection of the body and on the difference between this age and the coming age, and those two traditions balanced the temporal and the everlasting. Yes, 2 Peter 1:13-14 speaks of putting off this tabernacle without speaking of what is to come, but I acknowledged the mystery by pointing out that there may not be a conflict between the Christian tradition of general resurrection and the power to manifest as spiritual instead of material-pragmatic. So framing the message this way doesn't seem the "clearest" form.
Okay.
Jesus taught faith (believing) in himself. The apostles taught predestination, Acts 4:28, in accord with the tradition saying all is foreknown and determined and yet free will is given. Now, you make a distinction between faith being a gift (not the literal language of Eph. 2 though) and faith being something one does, but those are two sides of the same coin. You can't have faith without believing, and you can't have faith without the gift of God being involved (none come unless the Father draws them, John 6:44). So the two always manifest together, implying they are the same thing. Jesus taught conversion, Matt. 18:3, and he taught that he was the resurrection, John 11:25. So I see that if you think that believing and being given faith are contradictory, you'd have a problem, but why would they be contradictory? Whatever man does, God is doing the work of ensuring man does it.
Still looking.
Faith is tied to that but isn't precisely synonymous. Lately this might be called "faith walk" or "working faith". James 2:18 says we show faith by what we do, so they are different. Yet he emphasizes faith always accompanies this relationship and experience.
"Pistis" is translated both faith and belief. Now, I agree with the criticism that faith is more than propositional trust but involves personal trust in the individual; James 2:19-20 agrees too. And I agree with the idea that it shouldn't be oversimplified, although 1 John gives several simple tests distinguishing saved from damned that are very propositional. But these tests work because they rightly reflect whether the person has the whole relationship or not. What we've corrupted that into is the idea that saying the words is a free ticket and lifestyle is irrelevant, but in the culture your words would be proven by your lifestyle. And Paul didn't change that, it came much later. Debate about theological position isn't very effective (unless it distinguishes the god one believes in from another); experience in Christ's body is indeed everything. But that's why I'm working with you experientially (even as I present texts to you as I experience them).
So on this point, I agree there is a difference between propositional faith and the personal faith Jesus taught, but taking everything Paul said he is not teaching mere propositional faith in Eph. 2 and should not be taken as if he is.
Well, the disciples accepted "miracles" in the sense "unexplained", throughout the gospels and indeed as a mark of Jesus's character in secular sources. Obviously some things happen that we don't have explanation for, and even good scientists admit that despite the fullness of the known laws of physics. It would be silly to say Jesus did nothing unexplained because we've found all the explanations, or worse to say it's because Jesus couldn't possibly have used deeper laws we haven't explained yet. It's unclear what you're going for. If you're saying any account of Jesus doing something inexplicable is spurious, that would mean we should talk about whether we understand all the laws of the world or whether there are still unknowns. But if Jesus did rise from the dead bodily, then there's no problem in saying so and calling it a miracle, and raising people from the dead bodily ourselves.
The Bible was still open canon then. Peter and Jude followed the same rules by which their Hebrew Bible was approved, saying that new Scriptures might arise that were equal to the old; only John was able to discern when the canon closed. Thus if it was passed down from authority (as the OT was) and accepted by many generations of believers, it became a Scriptural teaching; if it didn't, like the Didache (which is very good teaching), it was treated as secondary and often forgotten. Paul rejects mere human tradition, Col. 2:8, like Mark 7:13, but I see he also affirms received tradition, 2 Thess. 2:15, 3:6. But this word, which means "received" or "delivered", also refers to what Jesus received from the Father to share with us, Matt. 11:27, 25:14. I don't see anything about tradition transcending the Bible. After creeds were formed, an impression could be taken that they were regarded as more important than Biblical texts, but good churches affirm they are merely summaries of the inspired Bible. So this sounds like a criticism of medieval Christianity, not of Paul.
That was a major medieval error, but hardly "most of Christian history" because the disuse of Latin only crept in maybe about the 8th or 9th century, and vernacular Bibles were published from maybe the 12th century on. That really has little to do with Paul.
Do you submit to what direct study of sacred text reveals? I've cited much sacred text. We all have personal duty to interpret rightly. But, as with math, the same text gives the same core answers to everyone. If you doubt the view of the majority, you stand on your conscience while also seeking whether a miscommunication or semantic difference might solve the disharmony. Again, the Reformation happened because the medieval church abused the personal duty to interpret (i.e. prohibiting personal interpretation), but the other direction of abuse (i.e. wrong interpretation) is also a problem.
Reformers have always agreed that institutional power and hierarchy are easily corrupted and need regular auditing.
Yes, and those who did believed the same of the other apostles, and treated them the same.
Why did he say to honor everything that comes from Moses's seat, and everything belonging to Caesar?
Autonomy means law unto oneself. Jesus and Paul taught we are judged by a law external to oneself. We have managerial (limited) autonomy in the sense of responsibility, and, when we take the law into our own hands rather than uphold the external we've received, that's where our responsibility and limited autonomy fails as a result of the total autonomy of the Monad. Once again you're getting this word "autonomy" that isn't in the text, and I don't know why you speak as if your words not in the text are better summaries than the text itself.
Paul appeals to Jesus's words just as other apostles do. They all experienced Jesus's words and invite others to experience them, initially mediated by them as teachers until we are mature enough to experience them immediately for ourselves. Paul said, "Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ" (1 Cor. 11:1), meaning that when he fails to follow Christ we are not to follow him (Gal. 1:8). Paul never says "believe me" (though he might affirm that Isaiah 52 says "believe me"). Why do you say this?
Okay.
Gnosticism had essentially disappeared before then; it had migrated into Montanism, Ebionitism, and other more sustainable systems. These forms did persist after Nicea and were not persecuted over experience or conscientious disagreement with other authorities; the only deprecation was over teaching a different Jesus or different gospel, but disagreements between churches were routinely hammered out by focus on unity (until the bishop of Rome started the idea of demanding submission, which was some time after Nicea). Nicea didn't "eliminate" any version of Christianity except by deprecating Arianism, which survived for centuries in western Europe anyway. Yes, independence was lost over time, I agree with you in mourning that, but that's why we had a Reformation. It's not related to Paul.
They weren't rejected, they just never rose to become Scripture. The "kingdom within" was accepted as gospel.
I agree. What it doesn't show is how to correct the narrative or how blaming Paul does any good. The whole true narrative can be shown without any reference to Paul, because people were already showing the whole true narrative before Paul came.