|
|
Post by Isapop on Oct 2, 2023 19:02:21 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Meseia on Oct 7, 2023 23:10:00 GMT
Christianity has thrived by being adaptable.
|
|
|
|
Post by PaulsLaugh on Oct 10, 2023 4:17:34 GMT
Christianity has thrived by being adaptable. That’s true of any successful ideology. |
|
|
|
Post by Meseia on Oct 10, 2023 5:51:35 GMT
Christianity has thrived by being adaptable. That’s true of any successful ideology. Maybe, but what does that have to do with Catholicism adapting to the modern age? Paul made Christianity adaptable, that's why it survived. |
|
|
|
Post by PaulsLaugh on Oct 10, 2023 6:37:50 GMT
That’s true of any successful ideology. Maybe, but what does that have to do with Catholicism adapting to the modern age? Paul made Christianity adaptable, that's why it survived. Belief systems evolve like anything else, so it is the doctrine’s purpose to keep it from straying off the orthodox. And Paul thought he was adapting 1st c. Judaism; it’s that remnant survived to become Christianity. But he was open to different forms of worship, church structures, or other beliefs not outside of the OT, though he never concentrated much on that aspect in his letters. He was about justifying the claim Jesus was the Messiah. I don’t think he adapted anything that wasn’t already in practice either. These anti-Temple Jews and zealots had been anticipating a messiah hard for generations, though every candidate fell through, until Paul began promoting Jesus to these outlying messianic cults, which being unorthodox already, had many gentile adherents, as the Messiah come. The big adaptations like Godhood for Jesus coming back to kick Satan’s ass came later, that was not Paul’s teaching. |
|
|
|
Post by Meseia on Oct 10, 2023 21:21:02 GMT
Maybe, but what does that have to do with Catholicism adapting to the modern age? Paul made Christianity adaptable, that's why it survived. Belief systems evolve like anything else, so it is the doctrine’s purpose to keep it from straying off the orthodox. And Paul thought he was adapting 1st c. Judaism; it’s that remnant survived to become Christianity. But he was open to different forms of worship, church structures, or other beliefs not outside of the OT, though he never concentrated much on that aspect in his letters. He was about justifying the claim Jesus was the Messiah. I don’t think he adapted anything that wasn’t already in practice either. These anti-Temple Jews and zealots had been anticipating a messiah hard for generations, though every candidate fell through, until Paul began promoting Jesus to these outlying messianic cults, which being unorthodox already, had many gentile adherents, as the Messiah come. The big adaptations like Godhood for Jesus coming back to kick Satan’s ass came later, that was not Paul’s teaching. So, you're saying he promoted a Christianity that was adaptable, sounds like we are in agreement. |
|
|
|
Post by PaulsLaugh on Oct 10, 2023 21:44:03 GMT
Belief systems evolve like anything else, so it is the doctrine’s purpose to keep it from straying off the orthodox. And Paul thought he was adapting 1st c. Judaism; it’s that remnant survived to become Christianity. But he was open to different forms of worship, church structures, or other beliefs not outside of the OT, though he never concentrated much on that aspect in his letters. He was about justifying the claim Jesus was the Messiah. I don’t think he adapted anything that wasn’t already in practice either. These anti-Temple Jews and zealots had been anticipating a messiah hard for generations, though every candidate fell through, until Paul began promoting Jesus to these outlying messianic cults, which being unorthodox already, had many gentile adherents, as the Messiah come. The big adaptations like Godhood for Jesus coming back to kick Satan’s ass came later, that was not Paul’s teaching. So, you're saying he promoted a Christianity that was adaptable, sounds like we are in agreement. He promoted or preached a form of Judaism…he didn’t separate the born Jews from the gentiles in his way of thinking…he was “adapting,” or more like, opening up the God of Israel’s redemption to all people, not just Jews, through the authority of Jesus, communicated to him via dreams, mediation, or other means, “The Way” or “The Kingdom,” because the King was on his way back in his lifetime. Therefore, he was not setting up a church establishment with any doctrine that could be reformed down the road as needed. There was no Gospel at time and any of his letters in circulation were not considered inerrant communiques from God yet. Any Church adaptation, was their idea, not Paul’s. He’d be shocked to know what happened to The Way after he died. I daresay the reason Paul became the Apostle to the Gentiles is because the pagans were a more receptive audience. |
|
|
|
Post by Meseia on Oct 10, 2023 21:56:49 GMT
So, you're saying he promoted a Christianity that was adaptable, sounds like we are in agreement. He promoted or preached a form of Judaism…he didn’t separate the born Jews from the gentiles in his way of thinking… he was “adapting,” or more like, opening up the God of Israel’s redemption to all people, not just Jews, through the authority of Jesus, communicated to him via dreams, mediation, or other means, “The Way” or “The Kingdom,” because the King was on his way back in his lifetime. Therefore, he was not setting up a church establishment with any doctrine that could be reformed down the road as needed. There was no Gospel at time and any of his letters in circulation were not considered inerrant communiques from God yet. Any Church adaptation, was their idea, not Paul’s. He’d be shocked to know what happened to The Way after he died. I daresay the reason Paul became the Apostle to the Gentiles is because the pagans were a more receptive audience. This is all obvious to you and I because we learn from many of the same sources, though you have a short memory, so you probably have no clue who I am. It doesn't change the fact that Paul created an adaptable church. Paul's changes made the church open to Gentiles and ultimately palatable to the Roman Empire, I believe I said exactly that in another post. |
|
|
|
Post by PaulsLaugh on Oct 10, 2023 22:38:09 GMT
He promoted or preached a form of Judaism…he didn’t separate the born Jews from the gentiles in his way of thinking… he was “adapting,” or more like, opening up the God of Israel’s redemption to all people, not just Jews, through the authority of Jesus, communicated to him via dreams, mediation, or other means, “The Way” or “The Kingdom,” because the King was on his way back in his lifetime. Therefore, he was not setting up a church establishment with any doctrine that could be reformed down the road as needed. There was no Gospel at time and any of his letters in circulation were not considered inerrant communiques from God yet. Any Church adaptation, was their idea, not Paul’s. He’d be shocked to know what happened to The Way after he died. I daresay the reason Paul became the Apostle to the Gentiles is because the pagans were a more receptive audience. This is all obvious to you and I because we learn from many of the same sources, though you have a short memory, so you probably have no clue who I am. It doesn't change the fact that Paul created an adaptable church. Paul's changes made the church open to Gentiles and ultimately palatable to the Roman Empire, I believe I said exactly that in another post. Oh, damn. How have you been doing? ![[wave]](http://storage.proboards.com/6870873/images/vgLBpEcxOoWPYfNnRNqL.gif) You say it’s a fact, but answer this, if he thought the end the world was coming in his lifetime, what was he “adapting” it for? And before you can answer that, what was it, that is the state of the Church, in c. 45AD? But before even that, define “adaptable.” I’m thinking like adapting the Constitution to the 21st century using legislation. |
|
|
|
Post by Meseia on Oct 10, 2023 22:45:17 GMT
This is all obvious to you and I because we learn from many of the same sources, though you have a short memory, so you probably have no clue who I am. It doesn't change the fact that Paul created an adaptable church. Paul's changes made the church open to Gentiles and ultimately palatable to the Roman Empire, I believe I said exactly that in another post. Oh, damn. How have you been doing? You say it’s a fact, but answer this, if he thought the end the world was coming in his lifetime, what was he “adapting” it for? And before you can answer that, what was it, that is the state of the Church, in c. 45AD? But before even that, define “adaptable.” I’m thinking like adapting the Constitution to the 21st century using legislation. It feels like you are trying, unsuccessfully, to disagree. I have no qualm is what you've said and it sounds more like agreement than disagreement except in tone. But the fact remains that Christianity as we know is a product of Paul opening it up to the Gentiles. Abrahamic religions as a rule are not adaptive or liberal. |
|
|
|
Post by PaulsLaugh on Oct 10, 2023 22:56:52 GMT
Oh, damn. How have you been doing? You say it’s a fact, but answer this, if he thought the end the world was coming in his lifetime, what was he “adapting” it for? And before you can answer that, what was it, that is the state of the Church, in c. 45AD? But before even that, define “adaptable.” I’m thinking like adapting the Constitution to the 21st century using legislation. It feels like you are trying, unsuccessfully, to disagree. I have no qualm is what you've said and it sounds more like agreement than disagreement except in tone. But the fact remains that Christianity as we know is a product of Paul opening it up to the Gentiles. Abrahamic religions as a rule are not adaptive or liberal. If you’re JC, you’re going to Cellblock 69. I have no wish to speak with you further. |
|
|
|
Post by Meseia on Oct 11, 2023 6:23:00 GMT
It feels like you are trying, unsuccessfully, to disagree. I have no qualm is what you've said and it sounds more like agreement than disagreement except in tone. But the fact remains that Christianity as we know is a product of Paul opening it up to the Gentiles. Abrahamic religions as a rule are not adaptive or liberal. If you’re JC, you’re going to Cellblock 69. I have no wish to speak with you further. Oh, Smirnoff Paul has taken over. I'll wait for sober Paul to come back tomorrow. |
|
