I like dialogue. When I was an actor monologues were cool but dialogue and timing made you a better actor! Prayer is like that if it is not just a one way street and so today I want to be sure to share some BLOG comments from Triology3. I will not identify the blogger but it is clear that this person adheres to the Gnostics and Marcion.
“Some teachers of Christianity began to separate the wrath of the God in the Old Testament with the loving God of the New Testament. In 110 AD Marcion began a campaign and a Canon that sought to discredit Old Testament Theology by publishing a canon of merely the book of Luke and only ten letters.”
Blogger: Paul’s letters are a campaign “to discredit Old Testament Theology” whether they are packed with a gospel or not, and no matter how many of them there are. Are you suggesting that Paul is a literary figure created by Marcion in the mid-second century for this purpose and that the Marcionites composed the Pauline Corpus? Because that would explain why nobody knew squat about Paul until Marcion.
PE: Thanks for your comments. I am obviously in the middle of this series- so I will try to comment on both Paul and the history of the church and how the Bible became what it is- in the coming days. I will say this- Paul is one of the easiest writers to take out of context based on what church he was writing to. Please make sure that you are reading Paul’s qualifiers and that when you quote his letters and critique his thought- put it in historical, biblical, and audience context. Thanks for reading.
Blogger: Paul says in Romans 2 “not the hearers of the Law but the doers shall be justified” but in Romans 3 “by the works of the Law shall no flesh be justified.” Contradiction.
Paul says in Galatians 5 that circumcision is a sacrament that makes you a “debtor to do the whole law” and that “if you get circumcized, Christ can profit you nothing.” Only, of course, to contradict it a few verses later and say “in Christ neither circumcision nor uncircumcision matters.” Further, in Romans 4 rather than a sacrament that makes you a “debtor to do the whole law” as in Galatians 5, circumcision is now a “seal of the righteousness of faith.” He just can’t make up his mind.
And in Galatians in one place “the law is not of faith” — yeah right. The Law is the basis of all Jewish and Christian faith. Besides that, when Hosea says “the just shall live by his faith” he obviously does not mean justification by faith alone, but rather, the just will live out his faith, that is, the just will keep the law. There is no other possible meaning to what Hosea is saying — he certainly doesn’t mean justification by faith alone in Jesus’ death.
Further, in Matthew Jesus tells Peter that “flesh and blood has not revealed this to you” when Peter confessed Jesus as Christ. But in John, it is revealed to Peter by his “flesh and blood” brother at the very beginning of the gospel, when his brother (not Jesus) calls him to be a disciple saying “we have found the Christ.” And in John, of course, Jesus makes all his disciples by the Jordan river BEFORE JB is cast in prison, whereas in the synoptics he makes them all by the Sea of Galilee AFTER JB is cast in prison. And in John, he doesn’t actually call any of them, they just sort of join, either at JB’s direction or each others — whereas in the synoptics he calls them ‘follow me and I will make you fishers of men.’
Inerrant? Infallible? Really?
“Paul is one of the easiest writers to take out of context based on what church he was writing to”
Does it matter what church he was writing to? Whether writing to Galatia or Rome, circumcision is still circumcision. Is circumcision in Rome a “seal of righteousness by faith” but in Galatia a sacrament that makes you a “debtor to do the whole law” and “Christ profit you nothing”? This weasly excuse doesn’t work. Besides, Paul claims in Corinthians to teach the same thing in all the churches–yet we find when we actually read his letters that he does not. To Rome his views on the Law are quite different than to Galatians. Viewing Paul as an inspired writer is an exercise in credulity.
I don’t have to make excuses for Paul.
It’s like the food issue that Peter had. If by eating it causes your brother to sin than don’t eat it. It is all about motive, what your heart is telling you. Jesus himself said that he didn’t come to “abolish the law” but he did clarify the law.
This is mince meat theology you are addressing and your “beef” is with Symantec baiting. I think that is exactly the problem here your are overemphasizing legalism (like a Pharisee), trying to catch Paul in a Gotcha moment- but it is a very thinly disguised attempt at justifying the works “that didn’t make the Bible.”
As for “weasly excuses” I will say this- For Romans versus Jews, or Corinthians, or Ephesians for that matter, there are different issues for each and different religious practices and none. The idea here is that religion is nothing compared to relational thinking and doing. “Do you love the Lord God with all your heart, soul and mind?” Or do you love the law? “Do you love your neighbor as you love yourself?” Or do call the neighborhood association because they didn’t shovel their walk? See what I mean… Paul is saying it matters if that is what validates your relationship with God. And it doesn’t matter- if it stands in the way of your relationship with God. To me that is God inspired.
Folks, I share this only to say that iron does sharpen iron and the blogger made me think and get back into the motive for Paul’s epistles and why they are indeed “God breathed.” Have a great weekend and keep talking to God and one another.