Do You See The Duality In The Bible and Chrstianity?

1. 67

   Lady Guinevereposted 9 years ago

   Do You See The Duality In The Bible and Chrstianity?
   
   Jesus as the feminine and Paul as the Maculine.  Jesus as the softer side and Paul as the harsher side.  Jesus never converted nor made churches and Paul did convert and made churches.  Followers of Paul (Paulean doctrine) opposes Jesus Chrsit doctrine.  Step back and assess and what do you come up with?

   replyreport
2. 84

   Austinstarposted 9 years ago

   Well, you know me. I, personally think the bible, and the concepts found therein, is analyzed to death.
   When I read the bible (and it was many years ago), I approached it as I do all written works. I read what it actually has to say
   The stories are just stories. The parables are lessons disguised as stories, but they are easy to figure out. The violence and 'god' sensationalism is like watching a big movie. It seems like it was for entertainment purposes as they didn't have TV back in those days, so they exaggerated everything and made the stories as SHOCKING as possible.
   Part of the bible is just genealogy and serves no other purpose that I can see. Part is just a record of "laws" that people used to go by, but are now quite outdated and overruled by current society.
   The man versus woman stuff is the most puzzling to me. Part of the bible actually glorifies women and part demonizes women (as a profile of all women).
   So, as far as Jesus being 'feminine' and Paul being masculine, I really don't understand what the purpose of portraying them that way would be.
   If Jesus and Paul were real people, then I can only surmise that they had their own real personalities and we shouldn't try to second-guess  what underlying persona they were trying to convey.
   But if the bible was written by an author that wanted to portray them as fictional characters with feminine and masculine traits, that's a whole different thing.
   Quite naturally, I prefer the story of Jesus and his message over the one of Paul. Maybe it does reflect on the feminine personality?

   replyreport
   1. 67

      Lady Guinevereposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      What I see is that the curch uses Paul over Jesus and when others use Jesus they are ignored.  Division.  Paul was Roman (Catholic) and Jesus was ESSENE (Jewish)  Paul taught against women in Church, Jesus taught the good of women.  I go with Jesus.

      replyreport
   2. 84

      Austinstarposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      I would go with Jesus also!

      replyreport
   3. 87

      MizBejabbersposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      Me too!

      replyreport
3. 87

   MizBejabbersposted 9 years ago

   I think you may have a point. The scrolls and scriptures that are being found today and not mistranslated to death portray Jesus in a different light than that of the New Testament writers. Partly because he is a more spiritual being than the minds of that time could understand and convey to the public, and his historical image is partly a product of Roman propaganda. As for Paul, I could not figure out why people would follow him, or even trust him for that matter. I certainly would not trust a serial killer to be my spiritual leader. It seems to be coming to the forefront now that Paul was definitely a product of Roman propaganda.  Rome ruled Jerusalem and the lands surrounding the Holy Land, so they would want their “man” to control the religion of these people.
   I, for one, will never believe that Jesus said, “Render unto God what is God’s and unto Caesar what is Caesar’s. I think that is more Roman propaganda. If some truth did manage to squeak into the Biblical history of Jesus, remember that his efforts with Nicodemas the tax collector were not exactly pro-tax or pro-wealth.
   I see Jesus as a teacher who taught the people and healed the sick. He didn’t organize anything for the common man. He called the little children to him and told people to forgive the shortcomings of “sinners”. I don’t see a lot of that in the zealot Paul. Most of what I read was his telling Timothy how to run the church.

   replyreport
4. 82

   parrsterposted 9 years ago

   The only record of Jesus' life and teaching are those recorded by his apostles (or those near to them). Those same apostles also accepted Paul and his teachings as being from Christ. How should that impact our acceptance of Paul's teachings. If we cannot trust the apostles affirmation of Paul's authority, then we might as well give up on Christ as well, because those very same apostles are the only affirmation we have of Christ's life, teachings and authority.

   replyreport
   1. 67

      Lady Guinevereposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      Paul was a Liar and scripture proves it.  http://false-apostle-paul-archive.blogs … r-and.html

      replyreport
   2. 87

      MizBejabbersposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      Not really, if you read an account of the life of Jesus' brother, James, you will find that Paul basically "stole" the church from the real apostles. He was from Tarsus, a Roman citizen, and nearly 50 before he was converted.

      replyreport
   3. 67

      Lady Guinevereposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      When you steal, youhave to lie to cover it up.  That's is fine bcuz the church stole the creation story anyway too.  Thou Shalt Not Steal or Bear False Witness.  Go figure!

      replyreport
   4. 82

      parrsterposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      I'd rather quote Peter, (2 Peter 3:15-16), "..as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, has written to you, as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of things, in which are some things hard to understand...

      replyreport
5. 70

   Radical Rogposted 9 years ago

   The bible was written to promote the doctrine of Christianity, not the teachings of Christ.

   replyreport
   1. 78

      Chris Nealposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      Actually, quite the opposite.

      replyreport
   2. 67

      Lady Guinevereposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      @Chris, not all of Christ's teaching is in that one book, but a whole of of Paul's is and that is DIVISION.  Paul was a Deceiver and Liar. We must read other books about Jesus to know the truth. Church took them out or left them out for a reason.

      replyreport
   3. 78

      Chris Nealposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      If by 'church' you mean "all the people who were Christians before 100 AD" then you are correct. That group did decide which books were true (NOT the council of Nicea) for a reason. Which is why the other books are counterproductive.

      replyreport
6. 78

   Chris Nealposted 9 years ago

   "Jesus as feminine/Paul as masculine' is way, way, way more Freud than New Testament. Jesus preached loving your neighbors but He was hardly some ooey-gooey hippy spreading the 'free love' doctrine. If you actually read what Jesus said, some of it was exceedingly harsh, including the parts about people being consigned to a very unpleasant afterlife if they don't accept God. What you seem to be pushing is much more of a church issue than a Biblical one.

   replyreport
   1. 67

      Lady Guinevereposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      Not at all.  H said that We are Gods and That God Is WITHIN US and so are all the laws.  What we do and think affects our world and also that of others.  That was his main message.  I never said he was ooey, gooey hippy.  Onthe comtary he was a rebel

      replyreport
   2. 78

      Chris Nealposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      Jesus made it clear that we are not God, or even really 'gods.' The Laws were also externally given. To say that Jesus is "feminine" is to imply a softness that He did not show. But yes, what we do does effect others as well as ourselves.

      replyreport