francisdesales original response in red.
georges reply in blue.
francisdesales response in black.
This is an inaccurate description of "Christianity". While there are those Christians who believe that Paul is a canon within a canon, holding Paul's writings even above the Gospels, that is a minority opinion and is by NO means indicative of Christianity.
Sorry...I should have qualified that I'm speaking from the Lutheran perspective....here is the pecking order from highest to lowest....Luther, Paul, Christ, God...and my description is very accurate. Paul is held as the authority in mainstream Christianity...and the reason as I've been told is "progressive revelation"...
I can't answer definitively for Lutherans, but I highly doubt that God is last on the "pecking order" in their minds.
It is a half serious Joke...God takes a back seat though...Paul is the man...
It would be more accurate (from a Lutheran's point of view) to state that Luther "correctly interpreted" Paul and Christ to agree with each other, not that Christ and Paul contradict.
As you have been taught maybe, but in truth as I've found out, not...Jesus claims that Torah will last until the end of the world. Paul says it's not important to follow....I personally think that it is a contradiction...in my dictionary it is anyway... 
As to "progressive revelation", that much is true from OT to NT, and even WITHIN the OT itself! It is no surprise to see this within the NT, as well. For example, the Jewish people had the idea that a man was in sin for what his father before him did.
...check out EZE 18...God says that sons are not responsible for their father's sins....as a matter of fact...highlight the whole chapter in Gold.....it tells you the only thing you have to do is repent and follow God's commandment in order to live...
Later Jewish thought abandoned that concept, placing responsibility upon the shoulders of the individual.
I'm tossed "PR" in there to show how far Pauline apologists will go to make Paul fit. There are those on the forum who believe that God withheld info from Jesus so it could be revealed by Paul...How absurd is that? When stated how does Paul expound more than Jesus, or how can Paul teach better than those disciples Jesus taught...they answer "PR"...At that rate, Martin Luther should have been the man, not Paul.... Benny Hinn should be Solomon.:D
God's Church lives within time, and thus, the Church, guided by the Spirit of God, reveals the true intent of God's Word for the community within time.
I agree and disagree.....more agree than disagree. Prophecy is progressive revelation. However, moral concepts aren't progressively revealed. They are there in black and white. Jesus says obey them, Paul says it doesn't matter.
God doesn't merely give us a book and then abandon us. He enables us to interpret it, depending upon the point in time we exist within.
God also allows false teacher's and prophets into his congregation as well to test the people...Deu 13.
Ask any Catholic or Orthodox or most Protestants. Paul's words are not superior to Jesus Christ. IF a person finds that his intepretations of the Scriptures places Jesus and Paul at odds, his interpretation is WRONG.
Not so....for example, Jesus commands the Torah be kept, Paul taught that it didn't matter. I don't think I'm wrong in that statement. Paul's words are superior to Jesus' in that mainstream Christianity do not observe Torah.
Paul didn't teach that the Torah didn't matter. He taught that following Jewish dietary laws couldn't save a man.
Here are just a couple of instances that show Paul taught more than dietary laws (although that is his biggest faux pas).
Rom 3:28 Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.
Rom 7:6 But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter.
Rom 10:4 For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth.
Gal 2:16 Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.
There are more if you like....
Paul DID teach that the Law of Love would be followed. However, this Law is written upon ALL men's hearts. We follow this Law, which is summed up by the Decalogue. We do not follow the Decalogue per sec, although by following the Law of Love, we more than surpass the Law of Moses.
The Law of Love is the Torah....Love God, Love your Neighbor as yourself...as Christ taught...This talk of the Law of Love as being something different is pauline propaganda...
Thus, the Torah was a divinely inspired teacher. But now with the New Covenant, the old ways pass away. The old ways, the signs that point to the New Covenant, are no longer necessary.
Yet they are in effect until the Messianio Kingdom Age.....and even then it is clear from the OT prophecies that Messiah will teach Torah from Jerusalem....that's how unimporatant it is and will be....
They have been exceeded by the signs of the New Covenant - for example, Baptism replaces Circumcision.
Yet it was still required by the Nazarene Jews (James, Peter, John and the boys)....Even Paul at his two faced best performed the Nazarite Vow as required by James in Acts 21...
Continuing to follow the Old Law and the need for Circumcision was pointless to Paul and to Christians, since Baptism is superior...
Baptism is a Jewish thing adopted by Christians....
It does something that Circumcision could NEVER do - it changes a person interiorly with the indwelling of the Spirit of God.
Circumcision and Baptism were both required by the Nazarene Jews....
Paul understands this. He says we no longer need to consider the former Covenant.
Bingo....Jesus never said that....
However, it is understood that the New Covenant is in place and surpasses the Old. Jesus Himself establishes this Covenant at the Last Supper.
Yes he does....he establishes it...but the Old hadn't passed away yet. Did you know the Chirstians (Nazarene Jews) at Qumron believed they were part of the New Covenant...they didn't like Paul too well...
Prior to His death and resurrection, there was only one Covenant. But with Christ's New Covenant, the Old is fulfilled.
Not Christ's words....
You are confused, Georges. Paul's mention of the Ephesians expelling him are Jewish or pagans who worshiped Athena.
That is not so (completely)....you assumed that by the Acts narrative (writen by Paul's biographer). Paul complained that "believers" turned their back on him.
2Ti 1:15 This thou knowest, that all they which are in Asia be turned away from me; of whom are Phygellus and Hermogenes.
Believers...the ones who tested Paul according to the standards of the OT regarding false prophets are the ones who turned away...
Gotta stop here for now...will get back on it later....G....
You are reading into 2 Tim what is not there. It doesn't say "the believers" turned away from Paul. It says that there were those of the synogogue refused to accept Paul's message. Christian believers did not turn their backs on Paul. It was the Jews who turned their back on Paul's message because they were so enamoured with their rituals, rather than what they were meant to represent.
You are confusing ALL Ephesians are being part of the Church described in Revelation. What makes you think that ALL Ephesians are part of the Church?
They are not...you've got to realize the groups involved in the timeframe of Paul's missionary journeys. Pagan's, Jews, Jewish believers, Gentile believers.
And such is my point. Some Ephesians, whether pagan or Jews, did not accept the Gospel. THEY are the ones who cast Paul out, not the Christian believers. In your last post, you attempted to relate these Jews and pagans with the Church of Ephesus mentioned in Revelation. They are NOT the same people! Thus, the Church is NOT condemning Paul! It is pagans who desired to continue to worship idols and Jews who desired to hold onto their dietary laws and restrictions (rather than faith in God) as the means to enter into the Kingdom of God.
Sorry to break this to you...they have manuscripts of the Tanach that are as close to pristine as you can expect (minor letter modifications, etc). What I mean by that is that the most ancient copies of the Tanach manuscripts are almost identical with the text available (in Hebrew) today. The Septuagint I will admit has minor translation flaws as many translations do when extralanguage barriers are to be crossed. Blatent edits to fit a theology are unexcusable...wouldn't you agree?
Actually, the Septuagint is closer to the Dead Sea Scrolls then the Hebrew Old Testament that the Masoretics passed on by oral tradition. But how do you know that the Tanach is "pristine"? You don't have the original autograph! According to the Scriptures themselves, we have the Law "found" by Ezra. Most scholars say that his version of the Law was edited, by at least three different groups (if you believe the DEP theory), or a combination of three different traditions put into one manuscript. Thus, the Torah was edited at one point - meaning, we don't have the original three different traditions "pristine". An editor had three different traditions, and rolled them into one. What is important is that God inspired this editor to produce what we have today.
As to the "blatant" edits, I agree. They are efforts to use modern language to bring the Word of God more readily to modern man's lingo. At times, this effort ends up changing the meaning of the intent of Scriptures. I thus prefer a more literal interpretation of Scriptures, such as the RSV or the Douay Rheims, rather than the NIV.
The Church holds that the END PRODUCT is indeed inspired by God.
To the winner the spoils....
God has done what God has done...
Apparently, you believe that the NT was written to counter Paul.
Nope...Just the epistles of James, Peter, John, Jude, Letters of Revelation. Of course your assumption is expected of someone just jumping into the debate without reading their antagonist's entire post.
As I said before, I disagree with your assertion. You have presumed that I just "jumped in" to the conversation. I have read your posts and remain unconvinced. As a Catholic, I don't find Scripture contradicting itself. James AND Romans are Scriptures. If one finds that James 2 and Romans 3 contradict, it is because of the human reader who reads Scriptures without the Church to aid him. James does NOT contradict Paul. That is YOUR assumption which leads you to dismiss the parts of Scripture that you do not like, maintaining your erroneous theology.
IF the Church had problems with Paul, why exactly did they include his writings in the Canon of Scripture determined in the late 300's by the Catholic Church?
Because by that time the church was thouroughly antisemitic and so far removed from the influence of the Jamesian Chruch in Jerusalem, that they didn't have anything else to go on...Hmmmm...why did it take 400 years.....let's put it into time perspective. The USA has been a country for 200 plus years....How long did God take to finalize the NT canon? 400 years? Twice as long as the history of the USA....come on....If the complete NT were truly inspired, it would have been canon at 95 AD.
That is the subject of a whole post itself. I won't address why it "took so long" except to note that the canon went through a state of acceptance by the entire Church, just as the OT canon by the Jews was not instantaneously accepted. Consider that Esther wasn't considered part of the OT by Jews until well after the fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD... Canons are subject to acceptance by the community.
To the other point, suffice to say that "the church being antisemitic" is ridiculous -
this does NOT explain why JAMES writings REMAIN! If the Church was "anti-semetic", they would have followed in the wake of your opposite, Marcion - who kept Paul and Luke and tossed the rest of the NT out the window. HE couldn't accept the "evil God" of the OT and thus, did away with all things Jewish - probably to his chagrin that Jesus happened to be Jewish... You present the same argument from the opposite direction - and it fails for the opposite reason.
IF the Church was anti-semetic, then James and Matthew and anything "contradicting" with Paul would have been removed...
Read the "non Canical" Pseudo-Clementine Recognitions (an important early Christian document). In it Peter details how Satan told Jesus in the wilderness that he would send false apostles and teachers to counter his aposltes....very interesting reading and an explanation as to why Paul's writings were left in.
Also consider, the Church Center moved from Jerusalem to Rome...if it was still centered in Jerusalem, Paul wouldn't be in the NT...all you would have is the Tanach, Gospels (pure), and Revelation.
The Pseudo-Clementine Recogntions are heretical writings in the fashion of Arianism. It claims that the Son of God is a creature and that the Spirit is a creation of the Son. Naturally, the Church has nothing to do with such writings. Now, there are some fanciful biographical items in there, some of which may or may not be true. However, it is unreliable, since the theology itself is false. One would need to coorobarate with other biographies to determine the truth of such writings.
Your point of view makes little sense. The fact of the matter is that ALL Scriptures are inspired, whether written by Paul or by James.
That is the problem...where is it stated that? How do you know that? Who promoted that? "All Scripture" in reality is the OT, and writings containing Jesus' words only. Paul's epistles were not scripture when they were written. People are taught that "all Scripture" is Paul and even the other Apostles as being on the same team, when they are not...
PETER HIMSELF says that the writings of Paul are "Scripture".
"
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 and unstable wrest, as [they do] also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction." 2 Peter 3:15-16.
The Apostles knew they were teaching the Gospel given to them by God Himself. Thus, it only stands to reason that their writings, once determined to be from them, would be inspired by God. Now, you can discuss whether the Apostles as a group were wrong - but there is no doubt that they could NOT disagree IF they were inspired by God. Either the entire group was wrong, or the entire group was right. You can't have it where some Apostles taught correctly God's Word, while others did not. The Church recognizes Paul as an Apostle - and nowhere do we have contradicting ideas that Paul was NOT an Apostle in the writings of the rest of the NT.
The reason why the "catholic" letters follow Paul's writings is because the catholic letters are written to the universal church, not to specific communities.
Nooooot...the reason is that they are held in less esteem in the "Catholic" church than those of Paul....and they are written to the Jewish believing communities...
Wrong. Again, your idea is highly subjective. Held in less esteem? By whom? Secondly, much of the catholic epistles were not written to Jews! None of John's epistles are written to Jews! And Revelation is certainly not written to Jews! Peter writes to Gentile Christians - but where does he say he is writing to Jews? Speculations...
The Church doesn't include the Gospel of Thomas in the Canon, nor would it include the Pauline Corpus IF it was NOT inspired by God.
What if God had nothing to do with the formation of the NT canon....ever consider that?
When if God had nothing to do with the formation of the OT Canon...ever consider that? See where you take us?
Marcion couldn't conceive of the "God of the OT" being the same God of Love of the NT. His idea was to remove any Jewish "tainted" NT books, such as Matthew and James.... And Marcion was declared a heretic.
Marcion was declared a heretic, but many of his idea's and theology infiltrated church doctrine....
Like what??? That there are two separate gods? A demiurge? Sorry, but the Church expresses that the Old Testament AND the New Testament are the Word of God - understanding that the New is hidden in the Old and that the New reveals the meaning of the Old.
I'm not Marcion...I don't support Paul as he did...I would say you may be closer to him then I....I don't support any of the Gnostic tinged interpretation that he, or Paul may have inferred.
You are the opposite of Marcion in theology, but you share the same concept - cut up the Scriptures to fit your theology.
Sorry, but it is clearly seen throughout the Scriptures. We don't have to be circumcised to achieve eternal life - we don't have to convert to Judaism to be saved.
Ah! but it is the physical act that show's the devoted's intent. If you wish to identify yourself as a follower of God, you obey his commandment. It's the intent....No, you don't have to convert to Judaism, just obey God's commandment.
Of course! And the physical ritual is now called "Baptism". Circumcision of the flesh is merely a sign that gives no spiritual benefit. The old is a shadow of the new. When you are driving a car and read road signs that point to "Los Angeles", you follow them. However, once you reach the destination, what is the purpose of following the signs? We don't need to follow the signs of the Old Covenant because the New Covenant fulfills and subsumes it. Now, to enter into the Kingdom of God, the ENTIRE HUMAN RACE is given the option to become Baptized in God's name, the Trinity. That is the revelation given to us by the Apostles.
Regards
