Reply to The Apostle Paul and gay sex

Forum Index » Religion

Reply to "The Apostle Paul and gay sex"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]

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.[/quote]

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. [/quote]

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.[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics