Archive for nglreturns.myfreeforum.org Nglreturns is a forum to discuss religion, philosophy, ethics etc...

NGLReturns Daily Quiz - Play here!
 



       nglreturns.myfreeforum.org Forum Index -> All faiths and none
Farmer Geddon

1 Corinthians 13:

Quote:
11 When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put the ways of childhood behind me.



I was just spraffing away with others on facebook, about the child and childish things aspect of the 'passage' - like should it be taken allegorically?

Is the word ‘child’ a metaphor for ‘society’?

Is the expression ‘childish things’ a metaphor for ‘Christianity’?

Then someone piped-up with "the 'child' and 'childish things' of that passage is supposed to be a metaphor about the OT law".

So I re-read/reinterpreted it with his implication:

"When I was a Jew, I talked like a Jew, I thought like a Jew, I reasoned like a Jew. When I became a man, I put the ways of Jews behind me".


Surely Not??
bnabernard

in that way it would be the letter or the spirit, a child would obey the letter while the adult would understand the spirit.

So back to an old favorite of mine then   a man picking up sticks on the sabbath should be stoned to death, however that is the letter, anyone want to give the spirit of that law, and a clue lies in none casting the first stone.

bernard (hug)
Jim

Although it is Paul at his poetical best, and a marvellous dissertation on the supremacy of love, 1 Cor 13 should be read in the context of chapters 12 and 14.
Farmer Geddon

Nice swerve Jim.. Is this chapter under discussion about Love, or Charity?

No.

Is it about the interpretation of the "child" and "Childish things"?

Yes.

What my postulation is, is thus: Can this passage be read as antisemitic?
Jim

I've read a few commwenteries on 1 Cor 13 - none of them suggest this is anything more than it seems. Paul - the Jew - is alluding to the completion of the journey he sees now through a 'clouded mirror'. Nothing more, as far as I'm concerned. The whole text is simply put between the chapters aforementioned to wean the Corinthians away from their obsession with the charismata, and return them to the imperative of love above and beyond which Jesus set them.
I think you read too much into that particular verse.
Farmer Geddon

Again you misread the opening premise... or was I too, like, allegorical for you?

Let me put it in common parlance:


Was Paul having a major pop at the Jews, because he was a Greek?
JamesJah

Were they less childish in those days than they are now?

Were they man enough to stand up to opposition to preaching the Good News?
Jim

Eh?
Paul, a 'Pharisee of the Pharisees' as he describes himself, was hardly over Hellenised. No-one who studied under Gamaliel, as Paul did, could ever be accused of that!
bnabernard

Regards Saul/Paul whatever he was he was a good politician who managed the word to his own benefit, and the fact that he came a cropper in the end is no testimonie as anyone seeking out their own egotistic agenda would fall on the sword rather than loose face.

Elbowed by the disciples whom he eventualy took precedent over in the gentile/jew/christian movement he becomes a herald of his own making subsidised by those who saw a good thing in the making.

Lets face it, the devil was never going to lay down and give up, turn a disadvantage to an advantage thats the rule and the now what rules.

bernard (hug)
Farmer Geddon

Eh?

Paul was a Jew.... I thought he was a Turkey, who had knew a shit-load of Greek, but a smattering of Hebrew kinda bloke?



If he was this so-called "Pharisee of Pharisees", why did he diss his fellow Jews?

Oh - and to add; I think you will find it was the bloke who wrote, what we know as the "Acts of the apostles", who claimed that.

I don't recall Paul himself actually saying so!!


Do you think this interpretation of child and Childish things is a reference to the Jews Jim?
JamesJah

One thing about the good guy bad guy syndrome, is that they are both bad regardless of how nice they sound. Today we need to accept what the scriptures teach, there is no cherry picking, that is how all false religions got started by teaching their own opinion, on what is edible, of God’s word, and what is not.

2 Corinthians 11:12-20
Now what I am doing I will still do, that I may cut off the pretext from those who are wanting a pretext for being found equal to us in the office of which they boast. For such men are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into apostles of Christ. And no wonder, for Satan himself keeps transforming himself into an angel of light. It is therefore nothing great if his ministers also keep transforming themselves into ministers of righteousness. But their end shall be according to their works.

So where is the Kingdom that Jesus promised?
Farmer Geddon

Sorry Jim..

I take it back; Paul claims he was a "Hebrew of the Hebrews" in his letter to the church he started in Philippoi.. oh look - it's also in Turkey?

TBF - it should also be noted that; the more I read of Paul's existing letters to the churches he founded, the more I see where the bloke who wrote Luke and the acts got the influence for his stories!!
JamesJah

So where is the Kingdom that Jesus promised?
Farmer Geddon

..emmm

Can I hazard a guess?


Inside the head of believers of the 'Christ'?
bnabernard

Farmer Geddon wrote:
..emmm

Can I hazard a guess?


Inside the head of believers of the 'Christ'?


Would that restrict it to 144,000, one has to wonder why a rod of iron might be needed, and one might wonder in the light of shepherders who are the sheep, sheep who follow sheep can come to a sticky end less there is a shepherd to lead the way, so one might ask how many shepherders to how many sheep.

bernard (hug)
Farmer Geddon

Jim wrote:
Eh?
Paul, a 'Pharisee of the Pharisees' as he describes himself, was hardly over Hellenised. No-one who studied under Gamaliel, as Paul did, could ever be accused of that!


Sorry. Again.. this "fact" comes from the guy who read the letters from 'Paul' that were in circulation at the time and decided that because Paul was around at the same time of Gamaliel he must have been one of his disciples..

A well known Greek story-telling technique; create a hero and mythologise the story.. cummon - surely that must even be obvious to you?

Ask yourself where did Paul come from?

Where did Gammy teach?

In what conceivable way could Paul be a disciple of Gammy?

Does Paul, in his letters, mention Gammy?

As I have already hinted at - the 'works' of the writer of luke and/or acts hold no persuasion over me, as they were written decades after the death of Saul/Paul; whoever wrote these stories was a master manipulator of Greek story-telling.

Not as much as the stories in john - I mean, whoever wrote those stories was just the original Mentalist..

Much respect to whoever it was!!
Jim

No, I don't.
AQnd, BTW, the author of Acts; in all probability Luke, was contemporary with Paul,James and John. He would have been aware of just exactly which school/seder of Judaism Saul studied with.
JamesJah

Farmer Geddon wrote:
..emmm

Can I hazard a guess?


Inside the head of believers of the 'Christ'?


Most religions say hart.

I think you will find Jesus said it was a kingdom of the heavens.

The Revelation revels that it comes down to mankind, how will one know it has come down if it is something from heaven?
Jim

er...
I think you'll find is that what Jesus ACTUALLY said, James, was:
"The Kingdom of God is within you and amongst you."
I don't really want to argue with Him...
Farmer Geddon

PMSL Jim..

Sorry I know I shouldn't but: WTF?

Quote:
the author of Acts; in all probability Luke, was contemporary with Paul,James and John. He would have been aware of just exactly which school/seder of Judaism Saul studied with.


OK, maybe several hundred years ago, in more dark ages, you would have been allowed to make such ridiculous claims - but sadly we live in more enlightened times..

OK I concede that the letters of Saul/Paul that are included in the Christian Bible were written 20 - 30 years after the execution of Jesus by the Romans..

But even you have to admit that the evidence also shows the author of "Luke" and/or "Acts" was written 20 -30 years after Paul/Saul died..

The author of Acts/Luke is unlikely to have actually known Paul/Saul but got his inspiration from the letters by Paul/Saul that he read.. which is why they keep changing from 3rd person to '1st person' at crucial points..

.. and where he expanded his interpretation of what Paul was teaching to create a very Greek story..  lest it has escaped your limited attention span; all of the NT was written in Common Greek, in the Greek style of story telling..

The only Aramiac, you know the language Jesus knew, as far as I can recall comes from the Death Scene in Matthew, where whoever wrote that gospel claimed that it was Jesus' tongue!!
Farmer Geddon

Jim wrote:
er...
I think you'll find is that what Jesus ACTUALLY said, James, was:
"The Kingdom of God is within you and amongst you."
I don't really want to argue with Him...


Duhhh!!

I think you will will find that most people only think this is what 'Jesus' may have said.. in fact - I know you will find that most people don't believe that these are the "actual" words of 'Jesus'; but what the writer wanted him to say...

It's not my fault you are in the minority...  (see what I did there)?
JamesJah

If no one knows where the kingdom is how can they be a part of something they have no knowledge of?

John the Baptist pointed his disciples towards the king of that kingdom, and it was he that was among them

Matthew 3:2
saying: “REPENT, for the kingdom of the heavens has drawn near.

Then Jesus spoke in the same manner.

Matthew 4:17
From that time on Jesus commenced preaching and saying: “Repent, you people, for the kingdom of the heavens has drawn near.

The disciples were told to do the same.

Matthew 10:7
As you go, preach, saying, ‘The kingdom of the heavens has drawn near.’

Now does this sound a bit more like God’s kingdom?

Revelation 21:2-4
I saw also the holy city, New Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God and prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. With that I heard a loud voice from the throne say: “Look! The tent of God is with mankind, and he will reside with them, and they will be his peoples. And God himself will be with them. And he will wipe out every tear from their eyes, and death will be no more, neither will mourning nor outcry nor pain be anymore. The former things have passed away.

Now how do you know the when and where of this matter?
Farmer Geddon

All very good JJ, but I was asking; did Paul/Saul, when writing his epistle to his church in Corinth. (Oh look, once again in Turkey)! Was he dissing his "fellow" Jews, in a coded manner?

I never really gave much attention to this oft-quoted passage about being a child and then when mature discarded childish things, until an evangelical claimed it was about Paul discarding his Judaism..

I was just wondering if this was a 'universal' claim?
Farmer Geddon

I have to ask; apparently "Luke" wrote his guff 20-30 years after the death of Paul, Paul wrote his stuff 20-30 years after the execution of Jesus..

Paul Admits he never knew his Christ figure, so its a safe bet that whoever wrote Luke/Acts didn't know Paul, or any of the apostles he claims to write about, and just made shit up?

The Boyg

Farmer Geddon wrote:
I have to ask; apparently "Luke" wrote his guff 20-30 years after the death of Paul, Paul wrote his stuff 20-30 years after the execution of Jesus..

Paul Admits he never knew his Christ figure, so its a safe bet that whoever wrote Luke/Acts didn't know Paul, or any of the apostles he claims to write about, and just made shit up?


I don't see how this:
Quote:
Paul Admits he never knew his Christ figure

(i.e. Paul not being an apostle of Jesus prior to Ascension)

automatically leads to this:
Quote:
so its a safe bet that whoever wrote Luke/Acts didn't know Paul, or any of the apostles he claims to write about, and just made shit up?
Farmer Geddon

Hey.. multi.. Gellious.. named one...


OK lets break it down..

Paul/Saul/whatever..  tells us he never knew Jesus in his Letters- in fact I'm struggling to remember if he even mentions meeting his apparition in the letters, or whither it was something written about him after his death?

I know there is something vague written in 1 Corry 15, which may allude to have him possibly meeting someone called Jesus, but which may have been added by an over enthusiastic scribe decades later.. see that's the problem we have.. we can't be sure who wrote what in the misnamed "Gospels".

Basically - all of what we know about Saul/Paul was made up 20-30 years after his death by the chap who wrote stuff claimed by the church to be "Luke"... We donno who wrote it, but the later church decided to name them, for authenticity, but ultimately a lie, which gives us a huge scope of time-frame in which the stories were created and then worked upon..

Think of it as an ancient screenplay - where stories are created and developed, then the actors are cast to bring life to said story..

In fact, go back further to the original books the screenplays are based on.. most of them have captured the notions of many, who anticipate, and are ultimately disappointed, that the screen version doesn't live up to their expectations..

That is the Gospel Jesus for me..  He doesn't live up to the Pauline Hero/Christ that I see in his letters!!
The Boyg

Farmer Geddon wrote:
Hey.. multi.. Gellious.. named one...


OK lets break it down..

Paul/Saul/whatever..  tells us he never knew Jesus in his Letters- in fact I'm struggling to remember if he even mentions meeting his apparition in the letters, or whither it was something written about him after his death?

I know there is something vague written in 1 Corry 15, which may allude to have him possibly meeting someone called Jesus, but which may have been added by an over enthusiastic scribe decades later.. see that's the problem we have.. we can't be sure who wrote what in the misnamed "Gospels".

Basically - all of what we know about Saul/Paul was made up 20-30 years after his death by the chap who wrote stuff claimed by the church to be "Luke"... We donno who wrote it, but the later church decided to name them, for authenticity, but ultimately a lie, which gives us a huge scope of time-frame in which the stories were created and then worked upon..

Think of it as an ancient screenplay - where stories are created and developed, then the actors are cast to bring life to said story..

In fact, go back further to the original books the screenplays are based on.. most of them have captured the notions of many, who anticipate, and are ultimately disappointed, that the screen version doesn't live up to their expectations..

That is the Gospel Jesus for me..  He doesn't live up to the Pauline Hero/Christ that I see in his letters!!


I'm following your thesis, but I just don't see how you can claim with certainty that:
Quote:
its a safe bet that whoever wrote Luke/Acts didn't know Paul, or any of the apostles he claims to write about, and just made shit up?
bnabernard

Lets face it, eight rightious people survive one of the biggest ever catastrophese the world had/has ever seen because they knew GOD and served Him yet shit happened. and false understanding took it's place.

So in a little corner twelve people get an insight and no shit happens,    yup you have to   especialy when the leading players in the long run turn out to be, not the twelve, but independent thinkers who write their own cv's.

I guess it's a good time to keep seeking rather than get complacent.

Where did the likes of Saulo/Paul, Luke, and theire followers get there ideas, and what happened to the ideas taught the disciples of the son, the ones who had their minds opened, the sas of the son.

bernard (hug)
Farmer Geddon

What do you mean my 'Thesis' Meta/whatevwer Gillious?

Ohh gotcha now..

You mean the fact that Paul never claims to have met Jesus, and the Fact that .. the.. bloke.. blokes/whoever, who wrote what we call Luke and/or Stuff included in the so-called "Gospels" never knew Jesus either.. but claimed to have met Saul/Paul.. who never met Jesus, but might have known someone who claimed to have known someone, who might have known someone, who met Paul- who never met Jesus, but who might have argued with his brother[s] that apparently he never had, because..  Mary never had sex?


Look the loop goes round, and round, and round, and round, and round, and round, and round, and round, and round, and round, and round, and round, and round, and round, and round, and round, and round, and round, and round, and round, and round, and round, and round, and round, and round, and round, and round, and round, and round, and round, and round, and round, and round, and round, and round, and round, and round, and round, and round, and round, and round, and round, and round, and round, and round, and round, and round, and round, and round, and round, and round, and round, and round, and round, and round, and round, and round, and round, and round, and round, and round, and round, and round, and round, and round, and round, and round, and round, and round, and round, and round, and round, and round, and round, and round, and round, and round, and round, and round, and round, and round, and round.

In the end the only ones who care are the Cafflicks, because they have more to lose..



We plebs don't care, because the cafflicks/conservatives are doing the job for us?
JamesJah

Most of them did not know how long it would be to the setting up of the kingdom and just how precarious their situation was with the impending destruction of Jerusalem, in 70CE.

Most had not worked out how long Gentile rule would be allowed to be in the ascendancy, even today’s Christians were not keeping on the watch for Christ being crowned or given his authority to rule, most seem to think there would be a blaze of light in the sky as he came in the clouds and all they had to do was wait and say look did we not do good things and it would be their passport to the inner sanctum.

Matthew 7:21-23
Not everyone saying to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter into the kingdom of the heavens, but the one doing the will of my Father who is in the heavens will. Many will say to me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and expel demons in your name, and perform many powerful works in your name?’ And yet then I will confess to them: I never knew you! Get away from me, you workers of lawlessness.


Shame the kingdom set up is a bit more complicated than that. Matthew 24  plus Revelation’s
Farmer Geddon

Cheers James J..

At least when you go off topic you do it with flair!!



But what I'm hoping for is a decent response from the 'Universals'.

The literalistic/more evangelical believers; who claim that Corry 1: 13 means that Paul, as a unskilled believer, may have followed 'childish' ways, but when he grew up; he rejected those "childish ways" - which might possibly be a reference to his/their own antisemitism...

Do the universals disagree?

Just probing??
bnabernard

Basicaly Saul/Paul was saying he had the brief and everybody else didn't, unless he said they did.
What else after after all he had seen the light .


bernard (hug)
JamesJah

Was he not saying some of us need to grow up but have not quite made it yet?
Jim

bna;
You're on the right track there, I think.
    "when I was a child, I talked like a child, I tought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put the childish things behind me." (NIV)

I think that, with maturity (i.e. the discovery of the new life in Christ  ) Paul tries to show, just as he does in the following quote from 2 Corinthians, that as Christians, we see things in a new light.

    "Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has gone, the new has come. "
(2 Cor 5:17 NIV)
bnabernard

Yup, the oly problem comes in with the authority of Saul/Paul.

By giving authority to him and others that had no contact, false prophetts are born, a flood gate is opened.

bernard (hug)
Jim

I know your stance on Paul; however I don't share it.
I see nothing in the Pauline epistles, nor indeed those of Peter, James, Jude, John et al that detract from, or in any way negate, the teachings of Jesus, grounded as they were in the existing Old Testament.
JamesJah

Too many wanted the adoration of those around them and started to lead persons after themselves, ending up with names like Pontifex Maximus.

Acts 20:30
From among you yourselves men will rise and speak twisted things to draw away the disciples after themselves.
Jim

James; Agreed.
'Pontifex maximus' has no business being a title of any Christian; it was, after all, adaopted by Augustus when he became imperator.
bnabernard

Jim wrote:
I know your stance on Paul; however I don't share it.
I see nothing in the Pauline epistles, nor indeed those of Peter, James, Jude, John et al that detract from, or in any way negate, the teachings of Jesus, grounded as they were in the existing Old Testament.


My own answer to that would be  'you are not allowed to to'  it's part of the veil and untill the veil is pulled, field oversown etc etc,

I'll give you an oversown field where the tarres grow alongside the wheat, and I will call it the New Testemant.

bernard (hug)
Jim

The trouble you have there, bna, is that, should you reject the Pauline epistles in particular, you would be duty bound to reject the Gospels also, since the Pauline letters - or some of them - predate Mark's Gospel - the  acknowledged earlist account by between 10 and 25 years, dependant on your source for the provenance of Mark's Gospel.
bnabernard

Jim wrote:
The trouble you have there, bna, is that, should you reject the Pauline epistles in particular, you would be duty bound to reject the Gospels also, since the Pauline letters - or some of them - predate Mark's Gospel - the  acknowledged earlist account by between 10 and 25 years, dependant on your source for the provenance of Mark's Gospel.


What I should do is reject anything that is going to lead me up the wrong garden path, or in the case of wheat and tarres, will not deliver the bread.

bernard (hug)
Jim

Yet since the Gospels, Pauline, Petrine and James' letters were in circulation at around the same time, and almost universally acknowledged by the churches in the early-mid second centuries as scripture, how can you dismiss the theology of one in favour of the other?
It was through the impetus of the Pauline strand of theology, after all, that the church spread most strongly amongst the non-Jewish communities.
bnabernard

Jim wrote:
Yet since the Gospels, Pauline, Petrine and James' letters were in circulation at around the same time, and almost universally acknowledged by the churches in the early-mid second centuries as scripture, how can you dismiss the theology of one in favour of the other?
It was through the impetus of the Pauline strand of theology, after all, that the church spread most strongly amongst the non-Jewish communities.


This underlined is testimonie in itself.

bernard (hug)
Jim

So you would reject the entire New Testament canon, then?
bnabernard

Jim wrote:
So you would reject the entire New Testament canon, then?


Allow the weeds to grow with the wheat untill the time of harvest, then gather up the weeds and burn them, not burn the whole field on account of the weeds.

So what then should I do but learn to recognise the subtle difference between the weeds and the wheat before the harvest.

Of course I could say that you can't get both sweet and bitter water from the same fountain which would leave me to make another discision, what does it mean this conflict of meaning.
Under the reasoning I would have to come to understand, what does God plant and what does a false god plant, and to do that I would have to look at 'purpose' and discern who is served. I need to find the source so that one crop is cropped for wheat, and sweet water is drank.
Cut down the tarres and burn them, and dam up the supply of bitter water that pollutes the well.

bernard (hug)
Powwow

Luke had this to say
"And in the same house remain, eating and drinking such things as they give: for the labourer is worthy of his hire. Go not from house to house."   Luke 10:7
Paul writes
"For the SCRIPTURE saith, thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn. And the Labourer is worthy of his reward."   1 Timothy 5:18

This is what Peter had to say about Paul and Paul's writings
"And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even AS OUR BELOVED BROTHER PAUL also according to the WISDOM GIVEN UNTO HIM HATH WRITTEN UNTO YOU;
As also in ALL HIS EPISTLES, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things HARD TO BE UNDERSTOOD, WHICH THEY THAT ARE UNLEARNED WREST, AS THEY DO ALSO THE OTHER SCRIPTURES, UNTO THEIR OWN DESTRUCTION."   2 Peter 3:15, 16
bnabernard

Peter and his sarcasm, you have to hand it to him.

bernard (hug)
Powwow

"Peter and his sarcasm, you have to hand it to him." said the weed.
Farmer Geddon

Lexi..  I don't recall starting this idea in the bear pit...

Gonna do something about it?


ETA Yes this is a test...

JamesJah

 know what milk looks like??????????
Lexilogio

Farmer Geddon wrote:
Lexi..  I don't recall starting this idea in the bear pit...

Gonna do something about it?


ETA Yes this is a test...



It's not in the Bear Pit?

It's in All Faiths and None - and hasn't, to my knowledge, been moved.
JamesJah

Some one is so punchy that they thinks they are in the Bear pit.
Farmer Geddon

I rest my case....


Must have something to do with the sauce?
Farmer Geddon

Anyroad...


What are the childish things that Paul asks his Church in Corinth to renounce 1 corry 13:

Quote:
8 Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away. 9 For we know in part and we prophesy in part, 10 but when completeness comes, what is in part disappears. 11 When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put the ways of childhood behind me. 12 For now we see only a reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.


Am I wrong about Paul denying his so-called Jewish Heritage and claiming a new God?
JamesJah

The law was a tutor leading to the Christ, when the Christ had arrived there was no longer any need for the law which the Jew was bound to until he accepted the gift god could give them freedom of the children of God by virtue of the shed blood of his son.

Did the Jews accept Christ and live by faith or did they stay with the weak and beggarly things of the law?
Farmer Geddon

Awww JJ - I feel kinda let down here..

Was Jesus a Jew?

Of course he was.


Was his apostles also Jewish?

Of course they were.


At what point did they stop being Jewish - before or after Jesus' execution?
Ketty

Farmer Geddon wrote:

At what point did they stop being Jewish - before or after Jesus' execution?


Looking through a cultural lens I don't think they ever stopped being Jewish.

       nglreturns.myfreeforum.org Forum Index -> All faiths and none
Page 1 of 1
Create your own free forum | Buy a domain to use with your forum