Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohio
OBW, nice "jab" about the Nicholas - "bully" comment. You snuck that one in, didn't you?
I have to disagree about Paul's teachings, they did go further than the teaching of the Twelve. Many things he taught were from the resurrected Christ as the Spirit and not the earthly Jesus, even as the Lord told the Twelve in John 16.12-15.
|
First, it was not intended as a jab, although I did recall that there was some question raised by some of the non-clergy/laity thinking that maybe this particular Nicolas was somehow the source of the name. I always considered that to be nothing more than speculation. But the idea that we took the reading of the nuances of the words that could make up the name and found the ones that created something that could be made hay of in teaching something that seems special rather than allowing for the more likely meanings is not particularly new. And not a lot different than saying that "economy" simply equals "dispensing." (And only dispensing.)
I would agree that Paul's teachings were of a different type than those of the 12. But I'm not sure that his goal was really any different than theirs. The more I read Paul, the more I see him directing his charges to imitate Christ, and to obey. Imitate Christ in so many ways. Not squabbling over social status, or condemning those who believe differently with respect to certain things, like meat offered to idols, or observing days. These are not an exclusive list, but examples.
And I think that if you read Paul a little more broadly (meaning read the whole passage in which he says some of those interesting and spiritual things) you may find that he seldom says to do spiritual things, or to work on spiritual things, but to note that there are spiritual realities that allow (and even command) that you obey with respect to whatever it is that Paul is talking about. So Paul does give us a brilliant painting of the spiritual realities, but they are not for the purpose of being spiritual as much as they are for the purpose of being the righteous, obedient follower that Jesus commanded.
In other words, the gospels really are the core. They are the heart of the divine revelation. We may get a better look behind the curtain with Paul's writings, but all of it is to direct us back to following and obeying. Not to falling all over "spiritual" activities. And we have seen through the value of those overly-adjectivized phrases that the LRC shouts "hallelujah!" about so much. But have we considered that running around trying to determine whether we are living the "I've been crucified with Christ" life enough to finally do that thing that Jesus (and also Paul) commanded is just as bad. Paul didn't say go get more crucified. He said we are, so we should do.
Doesn't look as different from the gospels when that is your view. And more and more I am unable to see Paul as telling us so much unique stuff as much as I see him commenting on the real core of the New Testament. And that is the gospels.
And another LRC error. They are so sure that John is the really important gospel. But if that is true, why did God have the others written first, and seemingly three passes at much of the same things, then later add that different gospel by John? Maybe the content of the other three is three times more important than the one. (Probably not that simple.) Or the three are the core, but the one is also needed. And if you are going to focus on only part of it, the weight of the three may just indicate relative importance in some ways. You can be obedient without getting into so much of the spirituality. But if you try to be spiritual without the obedience, you are just a sham.