New Testament > Old Testament

[JUGGERNAUT]

In my education & experience dealing with several Christian denominations i conclude that these denominations including both Catholics & Baptists indeed place greater importance on the New Testament over the Old Testament.

 

In higher level scripture studies the focus is placed on prophecy links. The Old Testament is studied with respect to it's relation to prophecy links in the NT. Beyond that it's considered symbolic at best & not to be taken literally. At least that has been my experience including ND.

 

Furthermore the mass & daily services support the NT having a greater importance over the OT. In Catholic mass there is only one OT reading per mass & a reference to Psalms. The bulk of the liturgy of the Word is devoted to the NT. The bulk of sermons in the other denominations are devoted to NT scripture as well.

[JUGGERNAUT]

For those who don't know the sermon in a Catholic mass is the Homily.

It follows the reading of the Gospel & it's main focus is to discuss the meaning of the Gospel. A survey by the Catholic Digest found that the OT reading at a daily mass is the least inferred during the Homily. Likewise the variance of reading selections from the OT year to year is much lower than that of the NT. Meaning that a Catholic whose Bible exposure comes solely from mass will become acquainted with far more readings from the NT than the OT.

 

Another survey by the Catholic Digest confirmed that Catholics are far less trouble naming all the books of the NT than they do the OT. If they can't name them I highly doubt they read from them

[JUGGERNAUT]

PART A:

Besides the fact that his other statements are wrong, especially on the Prime Covenant (Old Testament) here is one we can test.

 

What is read by Roman Catholics and mainline Protestants at worship? They read from the Common Lectionary - which has been revised to be the Revised Common lectionary.

 

If Jugs has a command of his facts, then if we were to look at the assigned readings for the three year cycle of readings, we would see, if Jugs were right, that the NT lessons would outweigh the OT lessons by a 2-1 margin.

 

Is that fact?

 

No. Jugs is incorrect as respectfully as I can point out.

 

The Roman/Mainline Protestant lessons, one source

 

You will note that there are four Lessons: The First from the Prime Covanant (Old Testament), the second (Psalmody) from the Psalms which is Prime Covenant (Old Testament), the third (Epistle) from, well, an epistle in the New Testament, and the fourth, the Gospel Lesson, from the New Testament.

 

That means that contrary to Jugs assertion, the readings are half and half, 50-50, not 2-1 as he claims. Setting aside Jugs usual insults (and I acknowledge his apology and offer my own for any offense I may have caused), he is factually incorrect.

 

PART B:

Here is another source for the lectionaryreadings some may find of note:

lectionary for 3 years laid out

 

Those who use the Revised Common Lectionary are Roman Catholics and as I said mainline Protestants, i.e., the Lutherans, Anglicans (Episcopal) and Methodists, Presbyterians, UCC, etc etc etc.

 

For example, here is a UCC link SAMUEL which points out the Revsied Common Lectionary is © Consultation on Common Texts. The Consultation on Common texts (formerly the International Consultation of Ecumenical Texts) is comprised of Roman Catholics and church bopdies represetning almost all of the church traditions around the world.

 

Christians live out of the Prime Covenant (Old Testament) and always have. For a perponderance of readings, here is lectionary from the Syriac that goes back in its roots to the 2nd-3rd century of the Common Era and note the heavy preponderance of OT texts:

Syriac Lectionary

 

Now that speaks of the assigned lessons for Sundays and all Church festivals. There are a variety of lectionaries for the daily office. The ones that are foundational to the Church indeed follow the 4 lesson, 2 OT, 2 NT format. There are a myriad of others that follow other formats. That is just fine.

 

PART C:

The only label we should apply is that sometimes many care deeply about the conversation and sometimes each one of us, sinful as we are, is guyilty of failing to respect the other. I confess my own sin and failings.

 

But as Jugs has made an assertion again and uses a stat to back that up, the number of OT vs NT lessons assigned for reading in Christian worship, his stats are incorrect and as he theologizes from them, well, when the foundation is sand, so the argument needs to be reconsidered, it seems to me. One can use that as a way to evaluate.

 

So I dispute you, Jugs, and you are wrong on the facts by which you condemn me. I do not condemn you, not in the least. You as are all of us, we are all beloved by God and live by grace.

 

I applaude you zeal. I disagree with much of what you say, almost all of it. Blast at me as you will. I stand before my God convinced by Scriptures and here I am, I can do no other. And for me, confessionally, the Scriptures are the source for the faith and life of the Church. Sola Scriptura.

 

PART D:

Trying to make a culture fit the precepts of a particular religious doctrine is inherently wrong. Jesus and those in Scripture who came before and after never tried to change the culture. They called us to a covennantal life with God within the culture we live (the old in but not of thing). Therein lay a huge difference in understanding by which the whole concept of "culture wars" does disturb me as a Christian of a deep and abiding faith. Differ with me. I differ with you. I can also call you "brother" in Christ. I pray you may return the favor.

 

We shall indeed all continue to differ and thank God that diversity within the Realm of God exists and that in God's house are many, many rooms. And when we dwell there all the days of our lives in the eschatological event to come, we shall all be surprised how wrong we all were on so much, how right others were, and how little difference it makes in the Gospel of the One who is Love Incarnate.

 

PART A:

No where did I enter a debate into the canons of the Church or the structure of the mass as designated in the Catholic Cathechism. Nor do I see what relevance it makes. Referring to Psalms as an OT reading is debateable. Psalms is not treated as a reading of the mass in the sense of the other 3 readings. But since you have choosen to go that route I will go one better. Even if you equate Psalms on the same level you still have the homily which is the sermon portion of the mass devoted to discussion the Gospel. If you measured it in terms of minutes of each mass devoted to NT & OT scriptural references it is a land slide victory for the NT.

 

If you prefer I can provide a copy of the a typical Sunday literature as outlined in the missalette so that people can decide for themselves whether they agree with your assertion that OT shares an equal attention in the Liturgy of the Word. Rather than continue your mode of stating who is wrong I will simply let the facts speak for themselves. For those unfamiliar with the mass verses from Psalms is not treated in the same manner as readings & to suggest otherwise is grossly misleading.

 

PART B:

No where did I disregard the importance of the Prime Convenant. Any Bible scholar knows the convenant is essential to the prophecy link between the Two Testaments.

I have on more than one occasion in more than one post emphasized the importance of that link. To suggest otherwise again is misleading.

 

PART C:

I will continue to attack the message & try to avoid attacking the messenger.

With all of your personal references it is hard to beleive you uphold that same virtue.

I am just stating a personal observation there. Likewise I will continue to debate you on this issue because I believe the quantiative as well as qualitative facts of the issue weigh heavily towards the NT. This debate was started over the importance of the OT vs the NT in the lives of Christians. The time spent & the attention paid is a valid point to debate in that argument.

 

PART D:

If what you are advocating is that we are not called to spread the good news then I strong disagree with that statement. Should I quote the scriptures in direct reference to this vocation?

 

I disagree with your statement that no one in scripture including Jesus attempted to try & change the culture. It's contrary to both the scriptures themselves & the Christian movement. Given that Christianity grew from a Jewish culture how can you dispute that it not only attempted but exceeded in doing so. As to a scriptural reference you need only refer to Jesus' own words that he came into the world to divide brother vs brother when it came to not accepting the new vs the old convenant. If those are not words that clearly are attempting to change a culture then you must have a different definition of what that means.

 

I suggest you read the epistles of Paul & ask yourself honestly the question of whether you feel his efforts were not directed to changing the predominant culture of the time. I do not see how you can come to that conclusion so I am certainly curious to see how you intepret them as you do.

 

It's ok to disagree with whether you believe Christianity is to be active or passive in society. But please don't suggest that Jesus or St Paul share your belief. There is a point at which personal opinion borders on blasphemy & I don't think it's a good idea to test it.

[cwsox]

And my one comment in thsi thread -

 

arguing from what people don't know is an odd argument.

 

I would also submit that many protestants, especially from the evangelical, conservative part of the Church, could fluently name all of the books of the Bible. It all depends on what one is taught. And in that case, this is teaching well. The rest of the Church ought learn that from evangelical, conservative part of the Church.

 

However, there was in the 19th and early 20th century a trend within the Church catholic (i.e. universal) to ignore the appointed Prime Covenant (Old Testament) readings. Then - Holocaust happened. There was a horrible disconnect between Christians and their Scriptures and evil resulted, Holocaust happened, in no small part because the church separated itself from its source and the inherent sin from seeing one portion of the Scriptures exalted over others and the dimunition of the Scriptures thereby. I refer to all of the self-examinations of the Christian churches following the Holocaust as well as many other Holocaust studies and the scholarship in the events of the churches prior to the Holocaust. The bibliography is vast.

 

In the years following Holocaust the Church catholic, Protestant and Roman Catholic with Orthodox observation (their own canonical law prohibited full involvement) redid the lectionary and commited themselves to never separating the Scriptures again.

 

Much Jewish-Christian dialogue happened in Chicago. The number of Roman seminaries and the archdiocese and Protestant seminaries with a large Jewish community especailly with Spertus Collge of Judaica (now, I think, of Jewish studies) faciliated this in Chicago as it happened elsewhere around the world. Father John Pawlikowski was a leading participant from the Roman Church, and Franklin Sherman of LSTC and Burton Nelson of NPTS were among protestant participants. (Interesting, very fitting, Sherman and especially Nelson were Bonhoeffer scholars.)

 

The rubrics of the various churches have been revised to require that if for any reason a lesson be dropped from the readings at worship, it be the Epistle Lesson, never the First (Prime Covenant/Old Testament) reading.

 

Whenever Jesus refered to the Scriptures, or for that matter Peter, Paul, Silas, Barnabas, Timothy, Phoebe, Dorcas, etc. etc. referred to the Scriuptures it was to the Prime Covenant/Old Testament. If the Prime Covenant/Old Testament were the Scriptures for Jesus how can it be any less for us as followers of Jesus. We live in the whole, not the part of our own choosing.

[kapkomet]

The rest of the Church ought learn that from evangelical, conservative part of the Church.

 

-----------------------

Whenever Jesus refered to the Scriptures, or for that matter Peter, Paul, Silas, Barnabas, Timothy, Phoebe, Dorcas, etc. etc. referred to the Scriuptures it was to the Prime Covenant/Old Testament.  If the Prime Covenant/Old Testament were the Scriptures for Jesus how can it be any less for us as followers of Jesus. We live in the whole, not the part of our own choosing.

----------------------

I think that these two parts of this post hit it right on the head.

 

You cannot have one covenant without the other. It in no way replaces the old, it merely changes the covenant. We are to learn from it's history, lessons, and good/evil teachings.

 

While relevant to the new covenant doesn't require that we run around and slaughter animals, etc., we are to learn from those examples in the old testament times the ideals of sacrifice, etc.

[JUGGERNAUT]

cwsox quote:

PART A:

The rubrics of the various churches have been revised to require that if for any reason a lesson be dropped from the readings at worship, it be the Epistle Lesson, never the First (Prime Covenant/Old Testament) reading.

 

PART B:

Whenever Jesus refered to the Scriptures, or for that matter Peter, Paul, Silas, Barnabas, Timothy, Phoebe, Dorcas, etc. etc. referred to the Scriuptures it was to the Prime Covenant/Old Testament. If the Prime Covenant/Old Testament were the Scriptures for Jesus how can it be any less for us as followers of Jesus. We live in the whole, not the part of our own choosing.

 

Juggs:

PART A: I fail to see the revelance of what might happen in the future as to do with what happens in the present. There has been much written on this very subject & many authors believe it would lead to a mass exodus in the Church & further separations. But really it's irrelevant to what occurs in mass today. Again given that the Homily will remain devoted to the Gospel & the fact that the Gospel will remain the most important part of the Liturgy of the Word even if that did happen it would simply weaken the attention of the NT over the OT. It would not balance the scales.

The NT would still be the primary focus of the LOTW.

 

PART B:

In general, that's an obvious point because the NC/NT hadn't been written yet. You can not refer to what does not yet exist. Specifically you are mistaken. There are scriptiual references to where Jesus draws a clear distinction between the OC & the NC. If you do not know this I can cut & paste them for you.

[The Beast]

I'm lost...at least in the eyes of god. He hasn't answered any of my prayers in 3 years...all I want is friends and people to hang with, is that too much to come by?

[JUGGERNAUT]

I think that these two parts of this post hit it right on the head.

 

You cannot have one covenant without the other.  It in no way replaces the old, it merely changes the covenant.  We are to learn from it's history, lessons, and good/evil teachings. 

 

While relevant to the new covenant doesn't require that we run around and slaughter animals, etc., we are to learn from those examples in the old testament times the ideals of sacrifice, etc.

The NC supercedes the OC. If you need verses I can cut & paste them for you.

[kapkomet]

The NC supercedes the OC.  If you need verses I can cut & paste them for you.

It supercedes it, but it does not replace it, which was my point.

 

By the way, both to you and c-dub, when you don't interject the personal "insults", this is a fascinating discussion between you. There's a lot to be learned if one really wants to by this exchange.

 

to both of you.

[Mathew]

I'm lost...at least in the eyes of god. He hasn't answered any of my prayers in 3 years...all I want is friends and people to hang with, is that too much to come by?

Yes I don't know God but if I had to guess I would suggest he or she doesn't give a s*** about such a prayer. Talk to people that have like interests and ignore the other dicks who are trying to make themselves feel better at your expense. Hang in there, I know the most popular kid from my Jr. High School. He works at Subway at age 22 and his life probably sucks ass.

[1549]

I'm lost...at least in the eyes of god. He hasn't answered any of my prayers in 3 years...all I want is friends and people to hang with, is that too much to come by?

I guess the best advice is hang in there.

 

I moved to NJ after eighth grade and I thought I would never have friends again. And there were some rough times freshman year because I hadn't made a lot of friends. But now I am nearing the end of my junior year and have plenty of friends.

 

Basically what I did to make friends freshman year was join a lot of clubs, and be as nice as possible to everyone. And once you find a nitch, it is easier to make friends quickly.

 

So just find a group of people who like the same things you do, and never pick on anyone. I can say that in High School the kids who have no friends try to gain friends by being sarcastic pricks, and it doesn't work. Just be a nice person and be yourself.

 

If you don't make friends in high school, then there is always college.

 

In addition to that, you said that God has not answered a prayer in over 3 years. God has strange ways of doing things, and it is impossible to see his plan for you. I prayed every night for my mom to survive her battle with cancer, and she did not. Since then I have battled depression, anxiety, and other forms of mental anguish. At some point everyday I question God's existence, I ask why? or why not? to various things that do or do not happen in my life. But in the end, I know that I am sure God has a plan, and no matter how bad things are, there is some reason this is happening. As long as I keep kicking things will turn out just fine.

[sox4lifeinPA]

Whenever Jesus refered to the Scriptures, or for that matter Peter, Paul, Silas, Barnabas, Timothy, Phoebe, Dorcas, etc. etc. referred to the Scriuptures it was to the Prime Covenant/Old Testament. If the Prime Covenant/Old Testament were the Scriptures for Jesus how can it be any less for us as followers of Jesus. We live in the whole, not the part of our own choosing.

 

I very much agree, however, it's kinda hard to refer to scriptures that haven't been written yet. I think our responsibility is to understand both sets of covenants. The old to understand which direction we need to avoid and the new to understand the direction we should be headed. Old testament lifestyle does not offer us the same map for community (which is of uber importance for a spirit filled Christian lifestyle) that the New testament shows.

[sox4lifeinPA]

I'm lost...at least in the eyes of god. He hasn't answered any of my prayers in 3 years...all I want is friends and people to hang with, is that too much to come by?

I think the most important things in life are lessons that seem to reoccur throughout our lifetimes. If you're constantly worrying about something beastly, it's because God wants you to learn much from that situation. to ripoff JFK, I would say, ask not what your God can do for you, but what you can learn from your God. That's not exactly biblical, but I think the point is, just try to figure out what life is trying to teach you...learn from it and become a better person. Don't sweat it if you're uncomfortable in HS, everyone is, but most people don't let in on it, and those who are, well, they've learned not to sweat it along time ago.

 

hang in there bud.

[JUGGERNAUT]

Here's another fact in the NT > OT debate:

A typical mass is 50 minutes long. Time devoted to OT readings: no more than 5 minutes. Time devoted to NT readings: no less than 15 minutes (Homily included).

That's no less than a 3 to 1 ratio.

 

About prayer in general:

PA knows me probably more than most. I'm usually at odds with myself. The scientist in me is always sparring with the evangelist & yet in the greater whole of myself a peaceful co-existence must be found. The faith can never destroy the science & the science can never destroy the faith. So why am I telling you this? Because I inevitably wrap issues of faith with a blanket of science.

 

Try to think of prayer in the logical context of man's purpose for God. If we are created in God's image & his love for is measured by what he allows as a part of our free will then we can draw upon some logical assumptions:

1) The hardest prayers to answer our those that bend free will. Christians that prayed for freedom from persecution from the Roman's eventually were answered. God answered them by bending free will the least. He took control of a Roman who's job was to persecute Christian. St Paul's work would instrumental to ending the persecution.

 

2) The easiest prayers are those that effect change in our own hearts.

 

So my advice to you is this:

Think of the persons in your school which would need the least of God's intervention to become your friend. Then pray for wisdom & courage that you can stumble across something you might have in common & that you will persevere if they should reject you. Remember you're never the only one. There must be kids like yourself in your school praying for the same thing. Ask God to help you find them. Bargaining sometimes helps. Offer 10 Hail Mary's & 10 Our Fathers & he might feel you're more sincere about what you ask for. It sometimes works for me

[The Beast]

Oh I'm not going to commit suicide. I have friends I just want to be in a group. Maybe you do not need to do have a group but it would be nice. It also would be nice if a perticular person wouldn't think i'm retarted and could talk White Sox baseball normally with me. Honestly, I hate being ridiculed.

[BrandoFan]

Here's another fact in the NT > OT debate:

 

Godzilla > NT

 

A typical mass is 50 minutes long. Time devoted to OT readings: no more than 5 minutes. Time devoted to NT readings: no less than 15 minutes (Homily included).

That's no less than a 3 to 1 ratio.

 

Reminds me of that whole comparing to other golfers by height bit....LMAO

[The Critic]

I'll go Old Testament.

I hate sequels.

[JUGGERNAUT]

QUOTE (sox4lifeinPA @ May 11 2004, 07:24 PM)

interesting...

 

so like people who believe that God's ok with anyone's sexual preferences, as long as they're living in Love? or the fact that God destined some for hell and others for salvation. or how about Jesus' radically inclusive message?

 

man, I hate it when Paul says things that aren't in the bible.

how about Romans 9

 

man, I hate it when Paul says things that aren't in the bible.

man, I hate it when JESUS says things that aren't in the bible.

 

the facts and realities of the bible are difficult to swallow sometimes, and we'd all like to feel warm and squishy about the fact that our mothers or brothers may end up in a different place on judgement day, but this is all to His glory... people, step away from your own agendas and realize the truth of Christ's message. none of us know our final destination, therefore make your election secure by treating those around you as if they were yourself and love God above all things.

 

just sayin'

 

Man don't you just hate it when people contradict themselves by quoting passages from the Bible.

Previous Thread

 

But we should take everything the Bible says as verbatim. Seeing as how you said that a murderer can still be saved if he "finds" Jesus. But in this passage it clearly says the opposite.

 

I have a question for the people here who truly believe that God has already chosen who will be damned even though they have circumstances they can't control like living being before Jesus came, or by practicing another religion. Why would you choose to worship such a God? Is a God who does not see all people as equal in his eyes (which he clearly doesn't if some are saved and others aren't based on what religion they follow) truly worthy of such worship?

 

--------------------

 

QUOTE (whitesoxfan99 @ May 11 2004, 08:56 PM)

Man don't you just hate it when people contradict themselves by quoting passages from the Bible.

Previous Thread

 

But we should take everything the Bible says as verbatim. Seeing as how you said that a murderer can still be saved if he "finds" Jesus. But in this passage it clearly says the opposite.

 

I have a question for the people here who truly believe that God has already chosen who will be damned even though they have circumstances they can't control like living being before Jesus came, or by practicing another religion. Why would you choose to worship such a God? Is a God who does not see all people as equal in his eyes (which he clearly doesn't if some are saved and others aren't based on what religion they follow) truly worthy of such worship?

 

QUOTE

But we should take everything the Bible says as verbatim.  Seeing as how you said that a murderer can still be saved if he "finds" Jesus. But in this passage it clearly says the opposite

 

the problem with arguing with people who don't understand the scripture, is that you don't understand the scripture. I sin daily and I believe that I will be among those who go to heaven. I am repentant and accept Christ as the remover of inequities and clenser of my soul. So even if I killed a man yesterday and was without Christ, If I confess my sins and walk a new path, yes, I can be with him in heaven.

 

QUOTE

Man don't you just hate it when people contradict themselves by quoting passages from the Bible.

 

I'm sorry kid, but there was no contradiction, just your misinterpretation and lack of understanding the scriptures.

 

QUOTE

Is a God who does not see all people as equal in his eyes truly worthy of such worship?

 

The problem once again, is that you don't understand the point of "worship". It isn't that we've done anything that God desires from us. He created us for the sole purpose of bringing glory upon himself. whether elect or non-elect, your life will be for the glorification of Him. We live in a society of individualistic thought and self-worship, so it doesn't surprise me that so many people don't get this idea.

 

"The matrix" would mean alot more to people if they understood this principle.

It helps to remain rooted in one version of the Bible. Something cwsox didn't even touch upon in his post referring to the cannons. The majority of Protestant denominations adhere to the King James Version of the Bible. Though I am Catholic I too adhere to this version because it is the least spoiled & the most complete.

 

But I am not in awe of myself to the degree where I discount all other versions including those that are not found in either KJV or the latest Catholic one. The so-called banned books of the Bible. No I am one who studies the Bible from the perspective of a historian & sociologists .. seeking common themes to get a better picture of the true story that is underlying to the foundation of the prophecy links of the Bible.

 

To add upon PA's glory to God statements:

The purpose of existence is to love & serve God.

As Christians, that becomes to love & serve our Lord & Savior, Jesus Christ.

 

How do you do that?

By reading St Paul & following what he preaches. Why Paul?

Because Paul is the most pragmatic author in the Bible.

The audience he is writing for is filled with skeptics & non-believers.

But his words are so cut & dry to the point of what it means to be a Christian

that they took root amongst these people & eventually conquered the ideology

of the Roman Empire.

 

Matrix note:

PA, the Matrix fell from grace (pun intended) because Reloaded was convuluted in excess & burly brawl was no-where near as ground-breaking as bullet-time. How many times are we going to hear purpose in that trilogy? Did it not make you want to say ... ARRRGHHHHHHH .. enough already ... we get this simple minded point!

 

IMHO, they would have been better off making 4 movies to tell the story. The second movie would have been better left delving into the Second Ren. Here they could have laid the ground work for the origin of the Oracle, Architect, & the Merovigian. Then in Reloaded when you revisist these characters it will make a lot more sense. The directors of the Matrix are pretty bad when it comes to using flash backs to tell the story. They prefer to simply narrate it with characters sitting in chairs or standing around & that's not a good idea for a big budget action flick.

[BrandoFan]

PA, the Matrix fell from grace (pun intended) because Reloaded was convuluted in excess & burly brawl was no-where near as ground-breaking as bullet-time. How many times are we going to hear purpose in that trilogy? Did it not make you want to say ... ARRRGHHHHHHH .. enough already ... we get this simple minded point!

 

IMHO, they would have been better off making 4 movies to tell the story. The second movie would have been better left delving into the Second Ren. Here they could have laid the ground work for the origin of the Oracle, Architect, & the Merovigian. Then in Reloaded when you revisist these characters it will make a lot more sense. The directors of the Matrix are pretty bad when it comes to using flash backs to tell the story. They prefer to simply narrate it with characters sitting in chairs or standing around & that's not a good idea for a big budget action flick.

 

Matrix II & III = unwatchable s***. In every way.

 

For me, there is only one Matrix.

[JUGGERNAUT]

Some people misunderstand the references of same-sex, sodomy, & sex in general in the Bible. The underlying theme is that the main purpose of sex in the eyes of God is to bring life into the world (reproduction). And not just reproduction in the sense of the mechanics but reproduction in the sense of God's love. Reproduction as a result of rape, incest, or any other human rights violation is not looked upon favorably in the eyes of God. However; the love, kindness, & dedication we show upon a child born of such ill circumstances is definitely noticed in a very favorable light by God.

 

A creature may be born of evil, or created by evil circumstances but that does not mean it must be ruled by evil. To grow such a creature to the side of good creates greater joy in heaven than if the creature were to have been born from good.

 

Jesus didn't say much about same-sex relations because there wasn't much to say.

The OT pretty much said it all at the time & those engaging in the acts weren't exactly signing up for temple time so their story could be heard. What we do know is that Jesus' did weigh in on some of the more important issues of that time & his responses shine light on what his views would be on todays.

 

It's interesting to note that where Jesus avoided questions dealing with present issues of the day by answering in parables & philosophy (it's no wonder why the Matrix does), Paul is pretty much the opposite. Paul takes the issues head on.

In fact one of Paul's toughest statements to accept is that he implies it's better to be single than married because marriage inevitably makes one choose between the needs & wants of their spouse & those of God. These statements by Paul is what established the foundation for why priests & nuns should never marry & why that believe persists today. You can not serve two masters. One master exists free from temptation & the other (a spouse) does not.

 

Paul weighs in on same-sex, being the master of one's domain (think Seinfeld), & everything else that pertains to issues confronted by the modern world. It's almost as if Paul knew that these issues would be prevalent in our day.

 

I sometimes envision Paul as the Dean & Jesus as the counselor in this school

called Christianity. Paul is a no-nonsense dude that won't hesitiate to discipline you for infractions. He's very smart & extremely detailed oriented so he doesn't miss much. Jesus is the cool dude that is liked by most & always standing up for his students. He always sees the good in them even when they can't see it themselves.

And God is the big Kahuna. The owner of the school. You only see him when it's time to graduate & move on to the next world. Or I guess in the case of some he makes eariler visits when it comes to some one being expelled or suspended (early deaths & near death experiences). Most of us continue to be left behind & don't move forward in grades. it takes us much more than a few decades to finally graduate. Eventually time runs out & God has to decide whether to transfer us to another school (pergatory) because the one were in seems to hard for us. Pergatory then can be considered the schools for good kids with bad attitudes. Of course these kids might be well into their 70's or 80's when they arrive. Hell then is definitely reserved for bad kids with bad attitudes. The damned & the hopeless. Those for whom no amount of education will change their hearts.

 

Makes you want to say ... hmmm

[JUGGERNAUT]

No offense to any of you whom are OT zealots but do you understand the implications on Christianity if Paul had never come into being. Perhaps not Paul himself but a character of his magnitude? If you study the history of the faith in conjunction with the history of the world w/out St. Paul's impact on the world Christianity probably is smaller in numbers today than the Jewish faith itself.

 

Another thing that makes you wanna say ... hmmm