The Apostle Paul and gay sex

[Anonymous]

It would be helpful, in the spirit of debate, if you addressed the points in 8:13 instead of abusing people and their priests.

Were you wrong about Paul never meeting Jesus in person, or was that poster wrong? What about that interpretation of Paul?

I hope you understand that people will think Christians act like you. Your protestations of innocence just make it worse, when we can all read your words and tone.

[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.

OP is a man.

Would it be sexist of me to say that that explains the aggression?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

OP here. I respect this thoughtful response, but when Paul writes multiple times that he received his knowledge by revelation from Christ and that he has been careful to not to depart from what Christ revealed to him and to make the word of God fully known, it's not really conjecture to say that what Paul intended to write was the teaching of Christ and not just his opinion and interpretation of new issues. And also, Paul writes in Galatians 1 that he was not taught by Peter and James or any other man but that what he learned he learned through direct revelation of Christ. I'm sure they discussed what they knew, but Paul is very clear that he is not relying on human instruction. Again, if you want to believe or disbelieve Paul, that's certainly your prerogative, but I believe and can defend with the Biblical record that Paul was not making stuff from his own understanding up or relying on other people to teach him things. Paul has to be dealt with as one who believed he was speaking directly for Christ. It's not a literalist interpretation to say that; these are his very words, which I have amply demonstrated. And if you read the passages I cited in their entirety, the case only gets stronger.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It would be helpful, in the spirit of debate, if you addressed the points in 8:13 instead of abusing people and their priests.

Were you wrong about Paul never meeting Jesus in person, or was that poster wrong? What about that interpretation of Paul?

I hope you understand that people will think Christians act like you. Your protestations of innocence just make it worse, when we can all read your words and tone.

I didn't make those points... why would I address them?

Again, there are numerous people here.

Nor am I "innocent." Innocent of what? Numerous posters have called me mean, nasty, illogical, un-Christian. Who cares. Feel free to take out those glum Thursday feelings on me. Friday's tomorrow guys!

Why don't we focus on the argument, which is about Paul's authority. There have been numerous anonymous opinions about Paul's status and authority, which mean very little when stacked against the Biblical text itself. Let's move on to a theologian's opinion or some historical reference.

[Anonymous]

PS I also think it is telling that OP has constructed a very solid argument citing Biblical text itself and that the people arguing with her (or him) cannot so much as cite a book that opposes her stance.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

OP is a man.

Would it be sexist of me to say that that explains the aggression?

It wouldn't be sexist, but it would be erroneous. There is another aggressive poster on here who is calling into question anonymous sources and asking people to calm down, but that is not OP. I am attempting to state strongly my position on Paul, but I have not gotten insulting, rude or aggressive about it. I appreciate that that PP is attempting to bolster my position, but I do wish this debate remained more civil.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It would be helpful, in the spirit of debate, if you addressed the points in 8:13 instead of abusing people and their priests.

Were you wrong about Paul never meeting Jesus in person, or was that poster wrong? What about that interpretation of Paul?

I hope you understand that people will think Christians act like you. Your protestations of innocence just make it worse, when we can all read your words and tone.

I didn't make those points... why would I address them?

Again, there are numerous people here.

Nor am I "innocent." Innocent of what? Numerous posters have called me mean, nasty, illogical, un-Christian. Who cares. Feel free to take out those glum Thursday feelings on me. Friday's tomorrow guys!

Why don't we focus on the argument, which is about Paul's authority. There have been numerous anonymous opinions about Paul's status and authority, which mean very little when stacked against the Biblical text itself. Let's move on to a theologian's opinion or some historical reference.

These arguments are very germane to Paul's status and authority. We know you didn't write them yourself, because you obviously disagree. Although they may or may not have been addressed directly to you, you shouldn't just dismiss them, and feel you don't need to respond. address them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It would be helpful, in the spirit of debate, if you addressed the points in 8:13 instead of abusing people and their priests.

Were you wrong about Paul never meeting Jesus in person, or was that poster wrong? What about that interpretation of Paul?

I hope you understand that people will think Christians act like you. Your protestations of innocence just make it worse, when we can all read your words and tone.

I didn't make those points... why would I address them?

Again, there are numerous people here.

Nor am I "innocent." Innocent of what? Numerous posters have called me mean, nasty, illogical, un-Christian. Who cares. Feel free to take out those glum Thursday feelings on me. Friday's tomorrow guys!

Why don't we focus on the argument, which is about Paul's authority. There have been numerous anonymous opinions about Paul's status and authority, which mean very little when stacked against the Biblical text itself. Let's move on to a theologian's opinion or some historical reference.

These arguments are very germane to Paul's status and authority. We know you didn't write them yourself, because you obviously disagree. Although they may or may not have been addressed directly to you, you shouldn't just dismiss them, and feel you don't need to respond. address them.

Hmm. No thank you! I disagree with that post across the board. Again, it is all opinion and conjecture stacked against the Bible's own text, which OP presented. I would like to see a more authoritative source, such as a book by a theologian, that presents this point.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:PS I also think it is telling that OP has constructed a very solid argument citing Biblical text itself and that the people arguing with her (or him) cannot so much as cite a book that opposes her stance.

We have opposed it, several times in this thread. All of the following points have began made on this thread:
- apostle =\= prophet speaking for God
- spreading the gospels =\= developing advice for new parishes on things that were not in the gospels
- we have
- "Grace and peace from God" are said in every church across the country every Sunday. They never mean the speaker is a mouthpiece for God.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:PS I also think it is telling that OP has constructed a very solid argument citing Biblical text itself and that the people arguing with her (or him) cannot so much as cite a book that opposes her stance.

Is there such a thing as a "very solid argument" that only cites biblical text in defense of what's in the Bible? Only trict literalists don't consider the Bible's many translations and changes over the centuries. And historians know that anything found in only one source is disputable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It would be helpful, in the spirit of debate, if you addressed the points in 8:13 instead of abusing people and their priests.

Were you wrong about Paul never meeting Jesus in person, or was that poster wrong? What about that interpretation of Paul?

I hope you understand that people will think Christians act like you. Your protestations of innocence just make it worse, when we can all read your words and tone.

I didn't make those points... why would I address them?

Again, there are numerous people here.

Nor am I "innocent." Innocent of what? Numerous posters have called me mean, nasty, illogical, un-Christian. Who cares. Feel free to take out those glum Thursday feelings on me. Friday's tomorrow guys!

Why don't we focus on the argument, which is about Paul's authority. There have been numerous anonymous opinions about Paul's status and authority, which mean very little when stacked against the Biblical text itself. Let's move on to a theologian's opinion or some historical reference.

These arguments are very germane to Paul's status and authority. We know you didn't write them yourself, because you obviously disagree. Although they may or may not have been addressed directly to you, you shouldn't just dismiss them, and feel you don't need to respond. address them.

Hmm. No thank you! I disagree with that post across the board. Again, it is all opinion and conjecture stacked against the Bible's own text, which OP presented. I would like to see a more authoritative source, such as a book by a theologian, that presents this point.

OK, then tell us why you oppose it! This insistence on names of theologians is a red herring because you know very well that many, many theologians share the views you are dismissing, exactly as they're expressed above. Names (OK, CS Lewis, Paul Tillich, and many before and after them) aren't going to change the argument itself. Why won't you address the argument?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:[

Again, there are numerous people here.

Nor am I "innocent." Innocent of what? Numerous posters have called me mean, nasty, illogical, un-Christian. Who cares. Feel free to take out those glum Thursday feelings on me. Friday's tomorrow guys!

Why don't we focus on the argument, which is about Paul's authority. There have been numerous anonymous opinions about Paul's status and authority, which mean very little when stacked against the Biblical text itself. Let's move on to a theologian's opinion or some historical reference.

These arguments are very germane to Paul's status and authority. We know you didn't write them yourself, because you obviously disagree. Although they may or may not have been addressed directly to you, you shouldn't just dismiss them, and feel you don't need to respond. address them.

Hmm. No thank you! I disagree with that post across the board. Again, it is all opinion and conjecture stacked against the Bible's own text, which OP presented. I would like to see a more authoritative source, such as a book by a theologian, that presents this point.

OK, then tell us why you oppose it! This insistence on names of theologians is a red herring because you know very well that many, many theologians share the views you are dismissing, exactly as they're expressed above. Names (OK, CS Lewis, Paul Tillich, and many before and after them) aren't going to change the argument itself. Why won't you address the argument?

CS Lewis and Paul Tillich have wide followings. You could also toss theologians like Crossan and Spong into the mix (I don't count Ehrman as a theologian, rather as a historian). Even I, although I agree with these last two about Paul, have problems with much of what they write in other subjects, and I'm sure PP would snort at them. However, as influential theologians they fit the bill as requested by PP. Their arguments have been broadly recapped above. So now can you address the arguments?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PS I also think it is telling that OP has constructed a very solid argument citing Biblical text itself and that the people arguing with her (or him) cannot so much as cite a book that opposes her stance.

Is there such a thing as a "very solid argument" that only cites biblical text in defense of what's in the Bible? Only trict literalists don't consider the Bible's many translations and changes over the centuries. And historians know that anything found in only one source is disputable.

Paul's letters say what they say. In them, Paul claims to be speaking for God. Again, you can dispute whether he was actually doing that, but you can't deny unless you like to ignore plain evidence in front of your face that he said that's what he's doing.

What I don't understand is that if you don't think Paul was right about things (like homosexuality), why do you care what he wrote or what the Bible says? You obviously don't think he or the Bible has authority on the subject. But he claimed to be speaking for Christ. It's in the text, plain as day.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Hmm. No thank you! I disagree with that post across the board. Again, it is all opinion and conjecture stacked against the Bible's own text, which OP presented. I would like to see a more authoritative source, such as a book by a theologian, that presents this point.

OK, then tell us why you oppose it! This insistence on names of theologians is a red herring because you know very well that many, many theologians share the views you are dismissing, exactly as they're expressed above. Names (OK, CS Lewis, Paul Tillich, and many before and after them) aren't going to change the argument itself. Why won't you address the argument?

Because I've already written why I oppose it, on the other thread, multiple times. We're just going to go back and forth, back and forth, and I don't really care for that anymore. Maybe it's time to start talking about what CS Lewis said about this. That would be a more interesting debate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Again, there are numerous people here.

Nor am I "innocent." Innocent of what? Numerous posters have called me mean, nasty, illogical, un-Christian. Who cares. Feel free to take out those glum Thursday feelings on me. Friday's tomorrow guys!

Why don't we focus on the argument, which is about Paul's authority. There have been numerous anonymous opinions about Paul's status and authority, which mean very little when stacked against the Biblical text itself. Let's move on to a theologian's opinion or some historical reference.

These arguments are very germane to Paul's status and authority. We know you didn't write them yourself, because you obviously disagree. Although they may or may not have been addressed directly to you, you shouldn't just dismiss them, and feel you don't need to respond. address them.

Hmm. No thank you! I disagree with that post across the board. Again, it is all opinion and conjecture stacked against the Bible's own text, which OP presented. I would like to see a more authoritative source, such as a book by a theologian, that presents this point.

OK, then tell us why you oppose it! This insistence on names of theologians is a red herring because you know very well that many, many theologians share the views you are dismissing, exactly as they're expressed above. Names (OK, CS Lewis, Paul Tillich, and many before and after them) aren't going to change the argument itself. Why won't you address the argument?

CS Lewis and Paul Tillich have wide followings. You could also toss theologians like Crossan and Spong into the mix (I don't count Ehrman as a theologian, rather as a historian). Even I, although I agree with these last two about Paul, have problems with much of what they write in other subjects, and I'm sure PP would snort at them. However, as influential theologians they fit the bill as requested by PP. Their arguments have been broadly recapped above. So now can you address the arguments?

How very insulting!!![i] **Clutches pearls, faints dead away.**