As I understand the word; a Christian is a follower of Christ. He or she does what The Messiah says to do. And we know that's pretty much the basis of the faith.
---
And by the way, that's what I am; I'm a follower of what The Messiah says. I'm not this label or that label. I don't belong to this group or that group. I don't lean on what any other man but Christ has said to do.
Now I can't say this was always the case for me personally. In my early years of Christianity I was so convinced I was a follower of Christ because I saw the movies made about him a couple of times and went to church. But I hadn't completely read through even *one* of the four gospels (we're talking every word), because (pfft) sure I knew Christ; I knew the most important points about him (i.e. I had the cliff notes of the gospel in my head). But it turns out that after I began REALLY studying I realized I barely knew ANYTHING he actually taught or spoke on. So how could I claim to be a follower?
---
Luke 6:46
Now what I've witnessed in a few posts and threads is not only a lack of obedience in how Christ told us to treat our brethren (and instead witness pigeonholing, backbiting, verbal venom, etc.), but even when there arises specific disagreements about particular subjects of real contention very few of us actually quote *Christ* when in the middle of defending a stance...and will instead quote Paul.
Now there's nothing wrong with Paul...but who is our foundation? Who is our rock: Paul or Christ? Of course, Christ is...which means Paul's words should NOT be the primary source of a stance, but a supportive source of a stance that *Christ takes* on a subject (since he's the one we're conforming to). Otherwise it suggests that things Christ said were somehow "incomplete" and needed further clarification by Paul (as if Paul is the "fulfillment" of Christ...I'm being extreme here but only to make my point). Peter even says that Paul's words are hard to understand and without the *proper foundation* one can twist his words into lawlessness.
2 Peter 3:14-18
Again Peter is saying that "Paul alone" can lead to lawlessness (i.e. wickedness = "'a twisting of' like a candle wick") without knowledge and stability and one being on guard.
Hopefully no one is offended at me for the scripture I just posted because I didn't write it, Peter did. But again, very few quote what Christ said and will instead lean on Paul's words (while at the same time accusing their brethren of "not following what *Christ* said"). Paul can't be the "lead off" unless and until one's (at least) stable in *ALL* that Christ has said.
What I often read is a stance founded on (a) something Paul has said, which is then build upon (b) more of what Paul has said and then supported with (c) external publications [i.e. "extra-biblical" writings by definition] that attempt to discredit an opposing stance...when this is not necessary to do because...
2 Timothy 3:16-17
And when Paul said this to Timothy there wasn't a codified NT. So what scripture was Paul talking about in his letter? He wasn't wasn't calling his own letters scripture.
All one needs are the scriptures to determine whether a stance is correct or incorrect, when they're read in the proper context AND in order: from beginning to end, not from back to front (because again if one establishes the wrong foundation, meanings can drastically change).
So feel free to use this thread to address WHAT CHRIST SAYS FIRST about some major issues up for argument, AND THEN read what Paul has to say as weighed by what Christ establishes first.
Because we are not Paulians...we are Christians.
---
And by the way, that's what I am; I'm a follower of what The Messiah says. I'm not this label or that label. I don't belong to this group or that group. I don't lean on what any other man but Christ has said to do.
Now I can't say this was always the case for me personally. In my early years of Christianity I was so convinced I was a follower of Christ because I saw the movies made about him a couple of times and went to church. But I hadn't completely read through even *one* of the four gospels (we're talking every word), because (pfft) sure I knew Christ; I knew the most important points about him (i.e. I had the cliff notes of the gospel in my head). But it turns out that after I began REALLY studying I realized I barely knew ANYTHING he actually taught or spoke on. So how could I claim to be a follower?
---
Luke 6:46
Now what I've witnessed in a few posts and threads is not only a lack of obedience in how Christ told us to treat our brethren (and instead witness pigeonholing, backbiting, verbal venom, etc.), but even when there arises specific disagreements about particular subjects of real contention very few of us actually quote *Christ* when in the middle of defending a stance...and will instead quote Paul.
Now there's nothing wrong with Paul...but who is our foundation? Who is our rock: Paul or Christ? Of course, Christ is...which means Paul's words should NOT be the primary source of a stance, but a supportive source of a stance that *Christ takes* on a subject (since he's the one we're conforming to). Otherwise it suggests that things Christ said were somehow "incomplete" and needed further clarification by Paul (as if Paul is the "fulfillment" of Christ...I'm being extreme here but only to make my point). Peter even says that Paul's words are hard to understand and without the *proper foundation* one can twist his words into lawlessness.
2 Peter 3:14-18
Again Peter is saying that "Paul alone" can lead to lawlessness (i.e. wickedness = "'a twisting of' like a candle wick") without knowledge and stability and one being on guard.
Hopefully no one is offended at me for the scripture I just posted because I didn't write it, Peter did. But again, very few quote what Christ said and will instead lean on Paul's words (while at the same time accusing their brethren of "not following what *Christ* said"). Paul can't be the "lead off" unless and until one's (at least) stable in *ALL* that Christ has said.
What I often read is a stance founded on (a) something Paul has said, which is then build upon (b) more of what Paul has said and then supported with (c) external publications [i.e. "extra-biblical" writings by definition] that attempt to discredit an opposing stance...when this is not necessary to do because...
2 Timothy 3:16-17
And when Paul said this to Timothy there wasn't a codified NT. So what scripture was Paul talking about in his letter? He wasn't wasn't calling his own letters scripture.
All one needs are the scriptures to determine whether a stance is correct or incorrect, when they're read in the proper context AND in order: from beginning to end, not from back to front (because again if one establishes the wrong foundation, meanings can drastically change).
So feel free to use this thread to address WHAT CHRIST SAYS FIRST about some major issues up for argument, AND THEN read what Paul has to say as weighed by what Christ establishes first.
Because we are not Paulians...we are Christians.
Last edited:
