What's With All These Clueless Christians?

sure. Do liberals fully support every word of scripture as being true?

 

And do those who do not know the difference between liberal and conservative live up to the name of this thread, clueless?

 

wrong question

>Are you saying that Paul's writings are less inspired than what Christ said

Wrong question. It is properly a question of which text interprets which text. Most Christians read their Bible backwards.

Reading the Bible front to back, in Deut we find statements defining the first 5 books as canon. The canondetermines the validity of that which chroologicaly (temporally) follows. More recent texts may comment on the canon or add additional material not covered by the canon but can't contridict the canon.

Does anything in Joshua thru the end of the OT contridict anything in Torah (canon). I think not. Do the Gospels contridict anything in the OT? I think not. Does Paul contridict anthing in the OT or anything in the Gospels? There's the rub.

Or if you don't like that approach, consider that the Gospels were al written later than anything written by Paul. If the Gospel writers agreed with Paul . . . would not the theology in the Gospels confirm Paul's theology?

Third approach:Acts. If Luke wrote Acts and if Luke was Paul's co-worker for many years I would expect that Acts would be more favorably slanted towards Paul. If Acts is how Luke treats his friends . . . . There is no such thing as an unbiased history. St John as much as admits this.

First, the OT comprises a stand alone re



Hyperdispensationalists, the worst, use Paul as the primary text, as canon.

 

Maybe we look at some of the sources you provide and say, no that is not a reliable source. Maybe we see events not as part of a giant scheme, as you do, but as human fallibility; individuals doing the best they can with the information they have and with the limited wisdom God has granted them.

Do a google search on any of the topics you get fired up about and you'll find reams of verbiage identical to yours. It's not enough that the net is chock full of people who agree with you, you insist that everyone here must agree or else they are 'clueless'.

How about the 'we disagree with your conclusions' camp.

 

I must assume, then, that you "temper" Pauls' words such as "Husbands, love your wives"..."Children, obey your parents"..."Unto the married, I command-- not I, but the Lord-- the wife must not forsake the husband (I Corinthians 7:10)"...
by the words of Christ, "He who follows after me and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple" (Luke 14:26).

Do you temper Paul's words, herein cited, by the words of Christ, herein cited? Yes or No?

 

Scripture must always be taken in context.

 

I didn't think you had the guts to answer Yes or No, Crabby, like I asked. I can conclude from your remark, though, that you think it does not always fit to "temper the words of Paul by the words of Christ;" that in this case you temper the words of Christ by the words of Paul.

 

Clueless

And you, my friend, are mixing apples and oranges trying to say the scriptures you are citing are speaking to the same situation. They are not and thus you are making the mistake of taking both out of context and trying to fit them into the same pigeonhole. You scholarship here is grossly lacking and if I, a layman, can see that ................. So you question is rather like the old one, "Have you stopped beating your wife, yes or no?":tonofbricks:

 

Personally, I don't think apples and oranges mixed together are too bad. But what you are contending now is simply an all-purpose escape route. What clearly does not go along with the principle you cited is 'not the same situation'; shur.

Let's try another case. Jesus said to "call no man on earth your father." Paul said in II Corinthians, in his 'boasting' chapters, that he was coming again and again it would cost them nothing, because a father [himself] supports his children, not vice versa. If Paul was claiming to be their spiritual father, how is that tempered by "calling no man your father?"

 

Clueless

Well, the two passages are not addressing the same subject in any manner. Following your example, taking scriptures out of context and trying to say they are addressing the same topic, is how some really strange ideas can be preached. So, not I am not taking an easy out. You are making an illogical comparison with two scripture that are addressing different topics. I really have little patience, especially with clergy, who are so intellectually dishonest.:tonofbricks:

 

Indeed, one may get some strange ideas comparing scriptures; but it was you who said Pauls' writings must be 'tempered' by the sayings Jesus. And now you are claiming both passages to which I referred are not talking about who is who's father? One of the biggest copouts I know of is to say "Out of context!" and think that says it, with not so as much as explaining how this is so.

And you weren't referring to me by that phony-baloney class title, "clergy," were you?

 

Clueless

To take one passage that is talking about faithfulness in marriage and another where Christ is talking of accepting his leadership unconditionally is to different topics. Your "Yes" or "No" question is misleading and is an attempt to force two subjects into one pigeonhole. To take passages talking about two different topics and attempt to force them into another subject is not intellectually honest and verges on heresy.

I do not know if you are clergy or not. But if you are you certainly should know better than to make an attempt as misrepesenting two topics as a third unified topic.

And, yes if a person has some problem, or difficulty in reconciling something Paul wrote with something Christ said, than I believe they should side with Christ until they can reconcile the difficulty. Is Christ or Paul the final authority?

:tonofbricks:

 

2Ti 3:16 - All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

 

Let's keep our heads here.

Paul clearly states (over and over in his letters) that he is a disciple/bondservant/minister of Jesus Christ. Since Jesus is his authority, why is it so hard to understand that everything Paul writes MUST be interpreted through the framework of Jesus' teachings.

All of Paul's letters are written to Christians (those who are already following the commands of Jesus), so he assumes that he is building upon that knowledge as he teaches. Yet today, many churches avoid Jesus' teachings and focus on Paul's teachings because Jesus is often difficult to understand in our culture. The result is that we built much of our doctrine on a misinterpretation of Paul's teaching because we don't already put into practice the teaching of Jesus.

 

That is really a dumb question. All Scripture is inspired, and is on equal footing, and in harmony. Your interpretation or opinion of any verse is irrelevent.

 

I started to bring up your point about churches/preachers avoiding the hard teachings of Jesus, but decided not to. You are right, of course. I have noticed here and in Christian chat rooms that fundamentalists quote Paul almost 100% of the time and very seldom quote Christ. Christ's teachings are very hard and thus they are ignored. If a preacher in the average church really preached the hard teachings of Christ he/she would be fired. :BangHead:

 

It is obvious you have no clue what gets preached in the average church.

 

Now is that a pot calling a kettle black, or what.

 

Well I guess my church is gonna be looing for a new preacher real soon.