Conference lgp30::christian-perspective

  In what way did Paul not fit the "job description"?





  What's wrong with starting with a prayer?




 Jim

>    I was a little surprised that the class began with a prayer but I guess
>    I can handle that.

At Andover-Newton Theological School they started a class with a prayer?

Praise the Lord!

/john

    I made peace with prayer a long time ago.
    
    I used to think prayer was the predominant domain of the
    evangelical/fundamentalist faction, that public prayer was a tad
    undignified and embarrassing, that it was not a reflection of
    reality to 'pray on demand'.
    
    I've changed my mind about all of these things.  Something that was
    helpful for me in the beginning was the idea that prayer helps the
    one who is praying to focus, to become centered and more receptive.
    
    About the letters to the church at Corinth, I found it enlightening to
    learn what Paul had to deal with in that particular environment. 
    Corinth, at the time of Paul, was a booming metropolis and a hotbed
    of religious fervor.  Paul was frequently called upon to quell
    painfully divisive situations which arose out of certain zealous
    factions within the fledgling church.
    
    Knowing this makes Corinthians, especially I Corinthians, chapters
    12, 13 and 14, easier to understand.
    
    Peace,
    Richard
    

    Patricia,
    
    	Notice where Corinth is located on a map.
    
    	You'll see it's very near a narrow point in the land separating
    navigable waters.  Cargo and sometimes whole vessels were carried
    over this narrow stretch of land, thus circumventing the body of land
    farther South.  Corinth served as a kind of hub for much of the
    shipping traffic at the time of Paul.
    
    	We may draw a number of fairly accurate assumptions from even
    this small bit of information.
    
    Peace,
    Richard
    

    re: .2
    
    We often pray to her!
    
    	:-)
    
    ps: she has "wisdom" and the gentle touch and care Mary must have given
        to Jesus.
    

I think it's great that you study carefully the evidence
of who wrote Corinthians.  Was the witness of the early
Church fathers given much prominence in this discussion?

I have the same question as Jim - in what ways did Paul
not fit the "job description"?  Actually, the first question
is, what was the "job description"?  The one I've commonly
heard is that God uses those who are willing.  I think Paul
met that one.  :-)

Collis

    Throughout the Bible, God frequently used the least likely of
    people.  I believe God still does.
    
    Richard
    

    re: .-1
    
    I'll 2nd and 3rd that!
    
    	:-)
    

    I've been away for a few days.  Thank you all for the replies.
    
    The job description the professor was using was the description of the
    requirements for apostleship defined in Acts when Judas was being
    replaced as an apostle.  The criteria was to select someone who had
    been with Jesus from the time of his baptism.  This was brought up in
    the context of what Paul was dealing with in Corinth and the
    divisiveness in the church.  Many were apparently questioning his claim
    to apostleship.
    
    Interesting in the understanding was the impact of Paul's defending his
    position in the letter against the charges of the different factions
    within the church.  Just like in this notes file when we are angry or
    charged we are not always as gentle and rational as we are in different
    circumstances.  So when the statement that women should be silent in
    church just appears toward the end of Corinthians, who was he
    addressing, and why, and in what contexts, and out of what social
    stereotypes.
    
    By the way, the  decrees of the early church fathers were not
    given as a proof of authorship.  The fact that Paul was recognized as
    the author of Corinthians from the earliest time and also that Celest
    wrote a later letter to Corinth refering to Paul's letter was used as
    support.  The clear assumption was that not all the books attributed to
    Paul are in fact written by Paul.
    
    Patricia

    Can anyone help me with 1 Corinthians 15.  I need to write two papers.
    
    The first should not be difficult.  It is to decide whether 1 Cor 15 is
    the unifying theme within the Corinthain letters.  That should not be
    too difficult but it would help if I could discuss how some of you view
    this passage in particular and Paul's thoughts about the ressurection
    and the Risen Christ in General.
    
    My second paper is my request to Define what Paul means to me as a UU. 
    My instructor insists that I pick one passage to base my paper on. 
    Since I want to write on Paul and General and my instructor wants me to
    limit it to one passage, then the trick is to pick the passage that is
    central to Paul and determine what it means to me.
    
    Intellectual honesty forces me to pick this passage which is
    perhaps the most difficult passage to relate to as a Unitarian
    Universalist who believes that death is a mystery which we will not be
    able to comprehend until after we die.
    
    If anyone wants to give me some suggestions and particularly tell me
    what the Ressurection means to them, I would appreciate it.
    
    Thanks
    
    Patricia

    For your second paper, it may be more difficult.  Must you choose a
    passage from Chapter 15 or might the passage be from anywhere in
    I Corinthians?
    
    Peace,
    Richard

    OK, Patricia.  If I was a UU, I think this is how I would approach it.
    I think the unifying chapters of I Corinthians are actually 12 and 13.
    They are the main courses which acknowledge the diversity within the
    church and they also emphasize the church's potential for cohesiveness.
    Chapter 15 is more like dessert.  This is the sweet and fattening reward
    for everyone's pulling together and making it work -- power over death
    through Christ.  "Death, where is thy sting?"
    
    Peace,
    Richard
    

    Richard,
    
    I can choose my own passage.  I do like chapters 12 and 13 so that may
    be a good idea.  The first paper has to be on chapter 15.  The
    instructor may in fact prefer that I do not do both papers on the same
    passage.  "Love and Faith"  I can certainly relate to those topics.
    We will be covering 12, 13, and 14 this Thursday too.
    
    Thanks 
    
    Patricia

The central theme of Paul's writing I find in I Cor 1:18-31.
"For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are
perishing, but to us whoare being saved it is the power of
God..."  The rest of I Corinthians deals with issues that
there are solutions to because of the cross of Christ.

Paul reiterates this message at the conclusion of I Corinthians.
The message of the cross and the resurrection of Jesus Christ
is the single most important message that everything else
comes from - because without the resurrection, our faith is
worthless.

I have no clue how a UU should respond to this message other
than how anyone should respond to the gracious offer that God
gives us - salvation through the sacrifice of His one and
only Son.

    Collis,
    
    That is the same challenge that chapter 15 raises and I suppose the
    same challenge that I struggle with.  For me the challenge then is "If
    I do not literally accept the Christian myth,  what does Christianity
    mean to me".  My understanding is helped by my understanding that many
    Christians do not literally accept the myth either.
    
    So intellectually, I need to ask myself whether I agree that that is
    Paul's fundamental message.  And if it is which I suspect it may be,
    then what does that mean to me.
    
    The issue that that raises then is what is the important thing about
    faith.  Is it the content of faith, which Paul would affirm yes, or is
    it the actions resulting from faith.  The way our encounter with the
    divine afffects our life.  To me that is the more interesting question.
    
    For me though Chapter 11 may be the pivotal chapter for me.  This is
    the chapter where I interpret Paul as saying only men are created in
    the image of God.  The commentary I am reading totally skirts over this
    issue which is intellectually dishonest.  The pivotal question for me
    as a feminist becomes one of how Christianity today deals with its own
    sexist heritage and is Christianity capable of reforming itself to
    truly be a religion for both women and men or do I as a women need to
    find my spiritual community outside of Christianity.  That is the
    pivotal question for Feminist Theologians from the Western traditions.
    Collis, even if we are on opposites sides of the spectrum, I do
    appreciate your intellectual honesty.
    
    
    Patricia

>    sexist heritage and is Christianity capable of reforming itself to
>    truly be a religion for both women and men or do I as a women need to
>    find my spiritual community outside of Christianity.  That is the

    That implies that Christianity was made for the people and
    that people were not made for Christianity.

    (The above statement changed my mind about the blood transfusion
    question)

    Tom

    re: .15
    
    >>Is it the content of faith, which Paul would affirm yes, or is
        it the actions resulting from faith.  
    
    Thanks, for a GREAT topic for a sermon!
    
    	Shalom,
    
    	Ron
    

re .15  Patricia

>    For me the challenge then is "If
>    I do not literally accept the Christian myth,  what does Christianity
>    mean to me".  My understanding is helped by my understanding that many
>    Christians do not literally accept the myth either.

This "myth" is what all of Christianity rests on.
If it is a myth, then Christianity is useless; no, it's worse than
useless - it's a lie.  And I, as well as others, have staked our lives
on it erroneously.

If one does not accept the truth of Christ's being God and man, his
being crucified to pay for our sins, and raised from the dead, one is not
a Christian.  Period.

>    I need to ask myself whether I agree that that is Paul's fundamental
>    message.

   "Now, brothers, I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you,
which you received, and on which you have taken your stand.  By this gospel
you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you.  Otherwise
you have believed in vain.
   "For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance:
that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was
buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures,
and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve."

	1 Cor 15:1-5

Note what Paul said to those who started to question this fundamental
truth because they listened to people who distorted it:

"Come back to your senses as you ought, and stop sinning; for there are
some who are ignorant of God - I say this to your shame."   1 Cor 15:34

It is clear what Paul's fundamental message is.  Do you believe the
message?


-Steve

    Steve,
    
    Your right.  Weaving Chapter 15 into my Unitarian Universalism could be
    quite a challenge.  
    
    I do not think I agree with Paul in the content of his belief regarding the
    resurrection.  By next Thursday I will write my paper on that chapter
    so I will have thought a whole lot more about it by then. It is
    interesting though that Paul believes in a Spiritual Ressurrection and
    not a physical one.  Would he agree with the Gospel accounts of the
    Ressurrection.  Paul also omits any mention of the appearance of the
    ressurected Christ to women.  Is that just an oversight?
    
    
    We already determined in this notes file though that Christians have
    the right and I would add the responsibility to identify for themselves
    what it means to call themselves a Christian.   Not all Christian's use
    your criteria.
    
    I do appreciate your feedback though.
    
    Patricia
    

RE:             <<< Note 726.15 by AKOCOA::FLANAGAN "honor the web" >>>

>    sexist heritage and is Christianity capable of reforming itself to
>    truly be a religion for both women and men or do I as a women need to
 
     Women are welcome in my church and all of the other Bible believing
    churches of which I'm aware.



   Jim

>    Your right.  Weaving Chapter 15 into my Unitarian Universalism could be
>    quite a challenge.  

Remember in some other thread of discussion I was arguing that trying to
interpret the Bible in light of one's beliefs instead of having one's
beliefs shaped by the Bible is a slippery slope?  This is why.  If you
start with some presupposition and then build your view of the Bible
around it, you slide down a hill into all sorts of heresy.  Like...

>    interesting though that Paul believes in a Spiritual Ressurrection and
>    not a physical one.

Where did you read this?  Paul very explicitly argues that physical
resurrection is real in 1 Cor 15.  "And if Christ has not been raised,
our preaching is useless, and so is your faith."

>    Would he agree with the Gospel accounts of the Resurrection.

Well, of course.  This is what he's defending in 1 Cor 15.

>    Paul also omits any mention of the appearance of the
>    ressurected Christ to women.  Is that just an oversight?

No, not an oversight.  Just not important to his argument.  The gospels
do include Christ's appearance to Mary.

>    the right and I would add the responsibility to identify for themselves
>    what it means to call themselves a Christian.   Not all Christian's use
>    your criteria.

I'm not going to get tangled in a semantic debate.  The Bible is very clear
on what a Christian is and isn't.

>    I do appreciate your feedback though.

You're welcome.  I'm happy to discuss it.

-Steve

.20

>     Women are welcome in my church and all of the other Bible believing
>    churches of which I'm aware.

True, true.  And as long as those women know their place and stay in it,
everything is just hunky-dory, right?

Richard

    Though Patricia hasn't said it (unless I missed it), when she
    refers to the "Christian myth," I suspect she is not saying it's
    a falsehood, a lie, or just plain wrong.  I believe Patricia means
    "myth" in the sense that it is the foundational story for a belief
    structure.  Sociologists sometimes use the term "myth" for similar
    purposes.
    
    I'm also somewhat familiar Unitarian-Universalism.
    
    Correct me where I'm in error, Patricia.
    
    Peace,
    Richard

Although "myth" is not the opposite of fact, it does imply fiction.

Note 726.21

>>    interesting though that Paul believes in a Spiritual Ressurrection and
>>    not a physical one.

>Where did you read this?  Paul very explicitly argues that physical
>resurrection is real in 1 Cor 15.  "And if Christ has not been raised,
>our preaching is useless, and so is your faith."

Read on farther.  Especially around verse 44. (I Cor 15.44)

Richard

    Also see topic 570, "The Myth Note."
    
    Peace,
    Richard

RE:           <<< Note 726.22 by CSC32::J_CHRISTIE "Pacifist Hellcat" >>>


>>     Women are welcome in my church and all of the other Bible believing
>>    churches of which I'm aware.

>True, true.  And as long as those women know their place and stay in it,
>everything is just hunky-dory, right?



 Its not a matter of knowing "their place". Its a matter of each sex accepting
 their roles within the church, and fulfilling those roles.  It works quite well
 in fact.  



 Jim

    .27
    
    It seems like you're simply saying the same thing, but in other words.
    
    There are churches that won't allow a woman to speak from the pulpit,
    or teach a class that has a man present, or hold any kind of office
    within the official church structure.
    
    The Bible can be and has been taken so far as to prohibit a woman from
    worship who doesn't cover her head.  I Corinthians 11.4-7.  Tell me,
    does your Bible-believing church abide by these instructions??
    
    Richard

re Note 726.21 by CFSCTC::HUSTON:

> >    Your right.  Weaving Chapter 15 into my Unitarian Universalism could be
> >    quite a challenge.  
> 
> Remember in some other thread of discussion I was arguing that trying to
> interpret the Bible in light of one's beliefs instead of having one's
> beliefs shaped by the Bible is a slippery slope?  This is why.  If you
> start with some presupposition and then build your view of the Bible
> around it, you slide down a hill into all sorts of heresy.  Like...
  
        Remember that in some other thread of discussion I was
        arguing that it is unavoidable to interpret the Bible in
        light of one's most fundamental beliefs and assumptions.

        You may not want to stand on what you think is a "slippery
        slope" but there is NO other place to stand.  Of course, if
        you need and/or desire strongly enough to think you have firm
        ground independent of what you brought to the interpretation,
        then you will probably believe it to be so.

        Bob

    RE: .28
    
    My church does not hold to those rules.
    Our interim pastor is a woman.
    
    Marc H.

Re:  physical resurrection of the dead

Paul states quite clearly with no possibility of misunderstanding
in the Greek that our physical bodies are resurrected.  This
is in the chapter under discussion, I Cor 15.

None of this means that are bodies are not transformed from
perishable to imperishable, just as Jesus was physically
resurrected and came back to earth with a transformed body.
This is foundational theology throughout Christendom and
I'm surprised that you reached the opposite conclusion.  No
where does Scripture claim that we are not resurrected.  The
bodily resurrection of the dead is in a number of places in
the New Testament.

The body is changed from perishable to imperishable - but
the resurrection is a bodily resurrection.

Collis

Patricia,

If Paul's fundamental message is the same as Jesus' fundamental
message is the same as Peter's fundamental message, etc., what
does that mean about your relationship with Jesus?

Re:  women not in the image of God

Simply put, this is not what the text says.  The text says
that men are in the image of God, not that women are not in
the image of God.  That is why I believe you don't find a 
discussion on this issue (since it's not an issue).  Genesis 1
is clear and Paul believes in the truth of Scripture (many
references omitted).

Now Paul certainly believes in different roles for men and
women.  We all can agree that people have (and should have)
different roles.  That is what I Corinthians 12 is all about.
Where you and Paul differ is believing whether or not our God-given
sex should be a factor in determining some of those roles.

Collis

    Re: physical resurrection of the dead.
    
    Gross, Dude!  It's something out of "The Night of the Living Dead!"
    Decayed corpses up and doing whatever they're gonna do.
    
    Speaking personally, I don't want this physical body back.  Do me
    a favor, God.  Don't resurrect this physical body.  It was enough fun
    the first time.
    
    Peace,
    Richard

re Note 726.34 by CSC32::J_CHRISTIE:

>     Re: physical resurrection of the dead.
>
>     Gross, Dude!  It's something out of "The Night of the Living Dead!"
>     Decayed corpses up and doing whatever they're gonna do.
>
>     Speaking personally, I don't want this physical body back.  Do me
>     a favor, God.  Don't resurrect this physical body.  It was enough fun
>     the first time.

        Richard,

        I think what you get might get back at the resurrection might
        be quite different:

        I Cor 15:42: So also [is] the resurrection of the dead.  It
        is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption:

        15:44 It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual
        body.   There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual
        body.  

        Bob

    Does that mean there is a fleshly body and there is a spiritual body?
    
    So if the spiritual body is the body that gets ressurrected then don't
    we have a spiritual ressurrection and not a physical one.
    
    

    My instructor changed all the rules.  Now my paper has to either
    support or negate the thesis that chapter 16 is an appropriate ending
    for 1 Corinthians.  I don't have a clue how I am going to do that but I
    guess I will be creative.
    
    Last nights class was a downer.  We discussed chapters 11,12 & 14.  WE
    discussed three different interpretations on Paul's thoughts about
    women.  He is obviously stretching in the arguments of veiling of women
    and women keeping silient in church.  His arguments are inconsistent
    with much else in the chapter.  My Opinion.  Paul is a man of the time
    and when it came to women disrupting societal norms to assert there
    equality before God, he put his foot down.  The result was some of his
    least worthy passages.  It is truly unfortunate what the Christian
    churches have done with those passages.   My enthusiasm for Paul has
    diminished a bit but I need to now go back and reread all of 1 Corinthians
    and put it into perspective.  To understand Paul at his greatest and
    Paul at his lowest..
    
    Patricia

    Regarding Paul's words about what women should wear:
    when I went to the Paulist Center progressive Catholic Church in
    Boston, the director once said that what Paul was saying at that
    time was equivalent to saying nowadays "Please don't come to
    church in a bathing suit."
    
    I am still not sure that the male Catholic priest who said this,
    enlightened as he is otherwise (and he is one of the most enlightened
    people I have met), could truly consider Paul's words from the
    point of view of women. Nevertheless, I think his (the priest's)
    words have value.
    
    Eileen

Been doin' a little looking into Corinth.

It seems Julius Caesar had Corinth rebuilt after it had been utterly
destroyed at an earlier time.

Although Corinth didn't acquire the status of an Athens, it seems Corinth
had quite a bit going for it in the way of art and culture.  Corinth was
about 60 miles from Athens and was the capital of the province of Achaia,
as I recall.

There were probably at least two more letters addressed to the church
at Corinth from Paul, according to scholars.  In addition, what we call
II Corinthians may be the combining of two of Paul's letters.

Shalom,
Richard