The Apostle Paul and gay sex

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Paul never met Jesus other than to have a vision with J asking him why he persecutes him(Jesus).

Not quite. It's true that the example you mention is the only one that is recounted in Acts, but even that indicates that Paul met Christ on other occasions. Acts 26:15-16 says, "I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting. But rise and stand upon your feet, for I have appeared to you (Paul) for this purpose, to appoint you as a servant and witness to the things in which you have seen me and to those in which I will appear to you." A plain reading of this text indicates further encounters to come.

Paul also mentions numerous times (which I have cited in my OP) that he was taught the Gospel not by any man but by Christ himself. Galatians 1 is probably the fullest account. Galatians 1:11-12 says, "For I would have you know, brothers, that the gospel that was preached by me is not man's gospel. For I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ."

Again, you're certainly free to believe whatever you want about whether Christianity and the claims of the Bible are true, but only through a willful disregard of the plain text can you come to the conclusion that Paul never claimed authority to speak for Christ or that he had no further encounters with Christ than on the road to Damascus. Paul is extremely clear in his writings that he regarded himself as bringing the teaching of Christ, which he received directly from Christ, to the church.

Paul received the teaching directly from Christ, but not from Christ in the flesh, but from the Spirit of Christ. Paul did not start writing his epistles until 30 years after Jesus died.

This is wrong. Paul claimed he met Jesus (after the resurrection) just a few years after the crucifixion. In fact, Paul's eye-witness testimony is earlier than any of the gospels, even Mark's. Paul may have written his letters later, and over a span of many years, but he drew from that very early encounter with Jesus. See, for example, Strobel's The Case for Christ.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, please do not speak for mainstream Christians. A literal interpretation of Paul is not mainstream.

You can read it literally or not if you want to and take it up with Christ during the Judgment. The issue I addressed was whether Paul claimed to be speaking for God, and a straightforward reading using plain meanings of words shows that he repeatedly and emphatically claimed to be imparting divine revelation in his letters. Paul, for himself, clearly meant his letters to be read as Scripture.

What's confusing to me is why anyone who didn't take Paul literally would take him seriously. He claimed in every letter of the Bible that he wrote but one that he was speaking for Christ. If you don't believe he was, then he was being dishonest or deluded. Why would you then take him seriously?

He's preaching the gospels as an apostle, so of course we take him seriously. That's very different from the more expansive role you want him to have, going beyond the gospels to talk about things the gospels don't mention, like homosexuality. On these issues, many "mainstream" Christians think he's a good man trying to interpret as best he can for new audiences on new issues.

You obviously disagree and want to read things your way. There's no point in continuing to argue with you. Good luck to you.

I am a different pp. You have posted this comment or some variation of it at least 50 times. Could you at least post some more authoritative source that agrees with you? You have put at least as much effort in posting this same opinion so many times!!!!

NP. Why don't you ask the PP who is making up her own definitions of "apostle" the same question?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, please do not speak for mainstream Christians. A literal interpretation of Paul is not mainstream.

You can read it literally or not if you want to and take it up with Christ during the Judgment. The issue I addressed was whether Paul claimed to be speaking for God, and a straightforward reading using plain meanings of words shows that he repeatedly and emphatically claimed to be imparting divine revelation in his letters. Paul, for himself, clearly meant his letters to be read as Scripture.

What's confusing to me is why anyone who didn't take Paul literally would take him seriously. He claimed in every letter of the Bible that he wrote but one that he was speaking for Christ. If you don't believe he was, then he was being dishonest or deluded. Why would you then take him seriously?

He's preaching the gospels as an apostle, so of course we take him seriously. That's very different from the more expansive role you want him to have, going beyond the gospels to talk about things the gospels don't mention, like homosexuality. On these issues, many "mainstream" Christians think he's a good man trying to interpret as best he can for new audiences on new issues.

You obviously disagree and want to read things your way. There's no point in continuing to argue with you. Good luck to you.

I am a different pp. You have posted this comment or some variation of it at least 50 times. Could you at least post some more authoritative source that agrees with you? You have put at least as much effort in posting this same opinion so many times!!!!

NP. Why don't you ask the PP who is making up her own definitions of "apostle" the same question?

Who cares? You can ask PP whatever you want. I'll ask what I want to know. PP has avoided answering this question in the other thread and will most likely continue to.

[Anonymous]

PP here. I heard this straight from my priest. I've also read it in a book or two on Paul, although I don't have the books any longer because I have so many books that I now give them away when I'm done, so I can't quote you chapter and verse.

I find that faith is stronger if you ask questions and do the hard work of looking for answers.

OP is different in this respect, because she's a literalist. I also know from her first post here that she puts interpretations on words and sayings that, for me and others here, stretch credibility. It's impossible to argue with a literalist, however, because it's based in faith (atheists say that about all of us believers).

Finally, casting doubt on my credibility, and insinuating that I'm alone in the world for interpreting Paul this way, do not reflect well on you. You know, I'm sure, that there are plenty who think as I do--maybe even more than think as you do. So please stop with the implied insults; they don't reflect well on you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:PP here. I heard this straight from my priest. I've also read it in a book or two on Paul, although I don't have the books any longer because I have so many books that I now give them away when I'm done, so I can't quote you chapter and verse.

I find that faith is stronger if you ask questions and do the hard work of looking for answers.

OP is different in this respect, because she's a literalist. I also know from her first post here that she puts interpretations on words and sayings that, for me and others here, stretch credibility. It's impossible to argue with a literalist, however, because it's based in faith (atheists say that about all of us believers).

Finally, casting doubt on my credibility, and insinuating that I'm alone in the world for interpreting Paul this way, do not reflect well on you. You know, I'm sure, that there are plenty who think as I do--maybe even more than think as you do. So please stop with the implied insults; they don't reflect well on you.

Often, asking questions about religious beliefs and searching for answers destroys faith. It's happened to a lot of people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Paul never met Jesus other than to have a vision with J asking him why he persecutes him(Jesus).

Not quite. It's true that the example you mention is the only one that is recounted in Acts, but even that indicates that Paul met Christ on other occasions. Acts 26:15-16 says, "I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting. But rise and stand upon your feet, for I have appeared to you (Paul) for this purpose, to appoint you as a servant and witness to the things in which you have seen me and to those in which I will appear to you." A plain reading of this text indicates further encounters to come.

Paul also mentions numerous times (which I have cited in my OP) that he was taught the Gospel not by any man but by Christ himself. Galatians 1 is probably the fullest account. Galatians 1:11-12 says, "For I would have you know, brothers, that the gospel that was preached by me is not man's gospel. For I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ."

Again, you're certainly free to believe whatever you want about whether Christianity and the claims of the Bible are true, but only through a willful disregard of the plain text can you come to the conclusion that Paul never claimed authority to speak for Christ or that he had no further encounters with Christ than on the road to Damascus. Paul is extremely clear in his writings that he regarded himself as bringing the teaching of Christ, which he received directly from Christ, to the church.

Paul received the teaching directly from Christ, but not from Christ in the flesh, but from the Spirit of Christ. Paul did not start writing his epistles until 30 years after Jesus died.

This is wrong. Paul claimed he met Jesus (after the resurrection) just a few years after the crucifixion. In fact, Paul's eye-witness testimony is earlier than any of the gospels, even Mark's. Paul may have written his letters later, and over a span of many years, but he drew from that very early encounter with Jesus. See, for example, Strobel's The Case for Christ.

These early historical meetings support the interpretation that Paul is speaking, in part, from what he learned directly from Jesus after the crucifixion, also directly during his (Paul's) meetings with Peter and James (Jesus' brother). All of these meetings took place within a few years into his (Paul's) mission.

It seems very conjectural to hypothesize that Jesus, Peter, or James spoke to Paul about homosexuality, when we have no record of Jesus talking about it. We know that OP likes to make this conjecture, but IMO it seems very wrong to put convenient words into Jesus' mouth like that.

It also seems conjectural to speculate that Paul's pastoral letters 30 years later to new, gentile (non-Jewish), audiences were intended as more than advice from a highly respected church leader. OP keeps insisting that Paul saw himself as an authority on everything. Certainly Paul himself saw himself as an apostle who was charged by God with spreading the gospels, and OP's many quotes support that. But it seems very likely that Paul saw himself in several roles: spreading the gospels (apostle) and providing sage and respected advice to help the new, often gentile, churches navigate their establishment and survival in a world where people were starting to realize the messiah might not return immediately. It's speculative, and OP's quotes are ambiguous (that's generous) to argue that Paul thought he was speaking for God on new issues like homosexuality. That would make Paul a *prophet*, and even OP concedes Paul doesn't call himself that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:PP here. I heard this straight from my priest. I've also read it in a book or two on Paul, although I don't have the books any longer because I have so many books that I now give them away when I'm done, so I can't quote you chapter and verse.

I find that faith is stronger if you ask questions and do the hard work of looking for answers.

OP is different in this respect, because she's a literalist. I also know from her first post here that she puts interpretations on words and sayings that, for me and others here, stretch credibility. It's impossible to argue with a literalist, however, because it's based in faith (atheists say that about all of us believers).

Finally, casting doubt on my credibility, and insinuating that I'm alone in the world for interpreting Paul this way, do not reflect well on you. You know, I'm sure, that there are plenty who think as I do--maybe even more than think as you do. So please stop with the implied insults; they don't reflect well on you.

So, let's see, our sources are

You (anonymous)
Your priest (also anonymous)
"A book or two" whose titles you don't remember and can't be bothered to recall or type

vs.

Biblical text.

Hmm. Tough one. Can you at least give a NAME of a book that discusses this issue that you have read and agreed with?

And can you stop making the thread about you and people "insulting" you? Your tone has been just as insulting as anyone else's, and seriously, who cares? It's an anonymous message board. Get over yourself.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

This is wrong. Paul claimed he met Jesus (after the resurrection) just a few years after the crucifixion. In fact, Paul's eye-witness testimony is earlier than any of the gospels, even Mark's. Paul may have written his letters later, and over a span of many years, but he drew from that very early encounter with Jesus. See, for example, Strobel's The Case for Christ.

These early historical meetings support the interpretation that Paul is speaking, in part, from what he learned directly from Jesus after the crucifixion, also directly during his (Paul's) meetings with Peter and James (Jesus' brother). All of these meetings took place within a few years into his (Paul's) mission.

It seems very conjectural to hypothesize that Jesus, Peter, or James spoke to Paul about homosexuality, when we have no record of Jesus talking about it. We know that OP likes to make this conjecture, but IMO it seems very wrong to put convenient words into Jesus' mouth like that.

It also seems conjectural to speculate that Paul's pastoral letters 30 years later to new, gentile (non-Jewish), audiences were intended as more than advice from a highly respected church leader. OP keeps insisting that Paul saw himself as an authority on everything. Certainly Paul himself saw himself as an apostle who was charged by God with spreading the gospels, and OP's many quotes support that. But it seems very likely that Paul saw himself in several roles: spreading the gospels (apostle) and providing sage and respected advice to help the new, often gentile, churches navigate their establishment and survival in a world where people were starting to realize the messiah might not return immediately. It's speculative, and OP's quotes are ambiguous (that's generous) to argue that Paul thought he was speaking for God on new issues like homosexuality. That would make Paul a *prophet*, and even OP concedes Paul doesn't call himself that.

PS, I'm paraphrasing from my priest and various books. This probably conveys the full argument better than isolated quotes anyway. Also, you probably would call the sources, including my priest, "Libtards" if I named them. This way, I'm conveying the full argument, which obviously you reject, but you did say you want to understand it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP here. I heard this straight from my priest. I've also read it in a book or two on Paul, although I don't have the books any longer because I have so many books that I now give them away when I'm done, so I can't quote you chapter and verse.

I find that faith is stronger if you ask questions and do the hard work of looking for answers.

OP is different in this respect, because she's a literalist. I also know from her first post here that she puts interpretations on words and sayings that, for me and others here, stretch credibility. It's impossible to argue with a literalist, however, because it's based in faith (atheists say that about all of us believers).

Finally, casting doubt on my credibility, and insinuating that I'm alone in the world for interpreting Paul this way, do not reflect well on you. You know, I'm sure, that there are plenty who think as I do--maybe even more than think as you do. So please stop with the implied insults; they don't reflect well on you.

So, let's see, our sources are

You (anonymous)
Your priest (also anonymous)
"A book or two" whose titles you don't remember and can't be bothered to recall or type

vs.

Biblical text.

Hmm. Tough one. Can you at least give a NAME of a book that discusses this issue that you have read and agreed with?

And can you stop making the thread about you and people "insulting" you? Your tone has been just as insulting as anyone else's, and seriously, who cares? It's an anonymous message board. Get over yourself.

Then stop with insults, starting with this latest post from you.

You know very well that your literalism is a small minority of Christians in the US today. You can insult me all you want, but you know (and maybe that's why you seem so threatened) that I'm in the majority.

You really are a very nasty piece of work. Not very Christian.

Good bye. I don't want to be in the gutter with you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
PS, I'm paraphrasing from my priest and various books. This probably conveys the full argument better than isolated quotes anyway. Also, you probably would call the sources, including my priest, "Libtards" if I named them. This way, I'm conveying the full argument, which obviously you reject, but you did say you want to understand it.

Woah... no one has used insulting language more than you. No one has used words like "libtard" other than you, just now. Obviously you are not used to having someone disagree with you and you are taking it very, very hard. Calm down.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Then stop with insults, starting with this latest post from you.

You know very well that your literalism is a small minority of Christians in the US today. You can insult me all you want, but you know (and maybe that's why you seem so threatened) that I'm in the majority.

You really are a very nasty piece of work. Not very Christian.

Good bye. I don't want to be in the gutter with you.

Are you literally hyperventilating as you type? Isn't "nasty piece of work" a more personal insult than ANYTHING else on these threads?

Wow.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
PS, I'm paraphrasing from my priest and various books. This probably conveys the full argument better than isolated quotes anyway. Also, you probably would call the sources, including my priest, "Libtards" if I named them. This way, I'm conveying the full argument, which obviously you reject, but you did say you want to understand it.

Woah... no one has used insulting language more than you. No one has used words like "libtard" other than you, just now. Obviously you are not used to having someone disagree with you and you are taking it very, very hard. Calm down.[/quote

You insulted her priest and her memory. You've been a patronizing ass, like that "calm down" quip. Thank god I'm not a Christian like you ?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Then stop with insults, starting with this latest post from you.

You know very well that your literalism is a small minority of Christians in the US today. You can insult me all you want, but you know (and maybe that's why you seem so threatened) that I'm in the majority.

You really are a very nasty piece of work. Not very Christian.

Good bye. I don't want to be in the gutter with you.

Are you literally hyperventilating as you type? Isn't "nasty piece of work" a more personal insult than ANYTHING else on these threads?

Wow.

QED (look it up)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
PS, I'm paraphrasing from my priest and various books. This probably conveys the full argument better than isolated quotes anyway. Also, you probably would call the sources, including my priest, "Libtards" if I named them. This way, I'm conveying the full argument, which obviously you reject, but you did say you want to understand it.

Woah... no one has used insulting language more than you. No one has used words like "libtard" other than you, just now. Obviously you are not used to having someone disagree with you and you are taking it very, very hard. Calm down.[/quote

You insulted her priest and her memory. You've been a patronizing ass, like that "calm down" quip. Thank god I'm not a Christian like you ?

Where on earth were a priest or someone's memory insulted in that post? I was making a point that so far, everything has been "anonymous" and it is basically impossible to compare the credibility of anonymous sources and opinions with plain language biblical text. I am actually interested in knowing more about this argument, as I have told that poster before.

I would point out that poster was the first to get rude in tone, but seriously, WHO CARES? I don't care, and that poster can say whatever he wants about me, because... caring about what some stranger types about you is nonsense. Who cares about whether someone's tone is snarky or patronizing on an anonymous message board? There are actually multiple posters who agree with me and are making the same argument, so maybe it's one of them you are so mad at!

But that poster is not really interested in a debate That poster is just getting huffy over tone because he (or she) doesn't want to present his sources... I suspect, perhaps, that they are not as substantial or respected as he would like us to think.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:PP here. I heard this straight from my priest. I've also read it in a book or two on Paul, although I don't have the books any longer because I have so many books that I now give them away when I'm done, so I can't quote you chapter and verse.

I find that faith is stronger if you ask questions and do the hard work of looking for answers.

OP is different in this respect, because she's a literalist. I also know from her first post here that she puts interpretations on words and sayings that, for me and others here, stretch credibility. It's impossible to argue with a literalist, however, because it's based in faith (atheists say that about all of us believers).

Finally, casting doubt on my credibility, and insinuating that I'm alone in the world for interpreting Paul this way, do not reflect well on you. You know, I'm sure, that there are plenty who think as I do--maybe even more than think as you do. So please stop with the implied insults; they don't reflect well on you.

OP is a man.