 Et tu Jim | 21. Jun 2026 @ 21:53  |
|---|
Interesanti. Droši vien klasificējas kā herētiķis, bet, nu, ne par to stāsts.
Modern Christianity is largely Pauline Christianity.
That statement is not an attack on Paul. It is simply a recognition of history. The central creeds of Christianity contain remarkably little of the ethical teaching of Jesus. They are overwhelmingly concerned with metaphysical claims about his nature, death, resurrection, and cosmic significance.
The Sermon on the Mount, the parables, the radical inversion of power, the critique of religious authority, and Jesus' vision of the Kingdom of God occupy surprisingly little space within the doctrinal architecture that eventually emerged. You cannot pin Christianity on Jesus. Christianity as we know it is the product of a long historical development, and no individual shaped that development more than Paul.
Paul's letters were written before the gospels and became the earliest documents of the New Testament. It is entirely possible that the theological categories Paul employed influenced the writers of the synoptic gospels themselves. By the time orthodoxy emerged, Paul's interpretations had become woven into the very fabric of Christian thought. Western Christianity, whether Catholic or Protestant, is fundamentally Pauline in its assumptions and structure.
I suspect Jesus and Paul would have had profound disagreements. Jesus was a brown-skinned Jewish teacher announcing the Kingdom of God and overturning conventional notions of purity, power, and religious status. Paul, shaped by his own Pharisaic training and his encounter with the risen Christ, developed an elaborate theological framework that interpreted Jesus' death through sacrificial and redemptive categories. Jesus himself might have been astonished by much of the mythology and theology eventually attached to his name.
Perhaps Paul's most consequential move was interpreting the Roman execution of Jesus through the lens of sacrificial atonement. The Jewish image of the Passover lamb became the model through which Jesus was understood as the Lamb of God whose blood removed the sins of humanity.
Over time Christianity became organized around the cross itself. In this sense, Paul helped transform Christianity into what might almost be called Cross-tianity. Significantly, the earliest followers of Jesus did not go around wearing crucifixes or carving crosses. The cross as a dominant devotional symbol emerged centuries later. The first known crucifix imagery appears only many generations after Jesus and Paul were gone.
Yet none of this requires hostility toward Paul. He was not attempting to create an infallible religion for future civilizations. He was writing occasional letters to struggling communities attempting to sort out practical and theological questions. He found himself in the strange and unenviable position of becoming the resident expert on Christianity. One could reasonably ask, "Who died and made Paul pope?" Nobody did. History simply placed him there.
Nor did Paul work in a vacuum. Like every human being, he drew from the raw materials available to him. His Jewish upbringing, his education, his experience, and the intellectual world of the first century all shaped the way he interpreted Jesus. Under similar circumstances, none of us would likely have done any better. Paul did what human beings always do. He made sense of experience through the conceptual tools he possessed.
The problem is not Paul. The problem is what later generations did with Paul. It was the Church, not Paul, that elevated his correspondence into the infallible Word of God. It was later communities that assumed his ideas had descended directly from heaven rather than emerged through the ordinary processes of human reflection and interpretation. That burden belongs to us, not him.
A healthy approach to Christian theology begins with a simple principle: consider the source. Historical context matters. Cultural assumptions matter. Personal formation matters. Every source deserves careful examination, including Paul. One can appreciate his genius and his contributions without deifying his writings.
I find it curious that nearly every Christian creed, from the early ecumenical councils to Roman Catholic and Protestant confessions, is largely a list of doctrinal affirmations. One can recite the Nicene Creed without encountering much of what Jesus actually taught. They tell us what to believe about Jesus far more than they invite us into the way of life Jesus embodied.
This does not make Paul a villain. He deserves compassion rather than condemnation. How could he have imagined that letters dashed off to address disputes in Corinth, Galatia, or Rome would eventually become sacred texts for billions of people? Paul did the best he could with the understanding available to him and within the limitations of his own spiritual development.
The larger responsibility belongs to us. Every religion deserves critical examination. Every theology bears the marks of history, culture, personality, and power. Christianity is no exception.
We painted Jesus white, clothed him in layers of Greek metaphysics and Christian doctrine, and gradually transformed a first-century Jewish prophet into the centerpiece of a vast theological system. Somewhere beneath those layers remains the brown-skinned Middle Eastern Jew who wandered the dusty roads of Galilee, turned religion upside down, and invited people not to worship a doctrine, but to participate in a radically different way of being human.
Jesus did not get lost.
We lost sight of him.
Jim Palmer, Inner Anarchy
|
Tātad visa šī performance ar sevis upurēšanbu sev pašam savu dusmu nomierināšanai ir pāvilisms.
| From: | (Anonymous) |
|---|
| Date: |
21. Jūnijs 2026 - 23:52 |
|---|
|
|
|
|
(Link) |
|
Tikai tā nav taisnība. Ja kāds tiešām lasa grāmatu, nevis vienkārši ielasa tur kaut kādus modernos sapņus, tad starp Pāvilu, Jāni, Jēzu un Veco Derību nav nekādu atšķirību. Jēzus pats saka, ka ir Dieva Jērs, kurš tiek nokauts uz krusta par pasaules grēkiem. Jēzus arī sludina pilnu likumu, pat radikalizē, maksimalizē to, tāpat kā Pāvils, kurš varbūt likuma un bauslības lietās brīžiem pat parādās maigāks. Tu vari šo tuftu repostēt tikai tāpēc, ka neesi lasījis Bībeli, neesi par to padomājis, un tāpat neuztver ne Jēzu, ne Pāvilu nopietni, tikai gribēji iespītēt oficiālajai kristietībai, kura saka, ka tev par dročīšanu pie PC monitora pienākas vieta dziļākajās elles liesmās.
Zin' kā. Ja tu neiedomātos, ka visi citi obligāti veido ierakstus, kuros pauž savu dziļāko ticību, un nemēdz pārpublicēt to, kas vnk šķitis interesants vai pārdomu vērts, tad tu, iespējams, nesāktu fufeli dzīt par to, ko kurš domā, jo saprastu, ka tev nav par to ir tikai vārgs priekšstats.
Atnāk te tāds pašpasludināts zintnieks, kurš visu zina, ko citi domā un dara, un norāda no sava PC monitora. Pis taisni, pirms norādi kas kam pienākas. Palasi, kas Bībelē par to rakstīts.
| From: | (Anonymous) |
|---|
| Date: |
22. Jūnijs 2026 - 00:58 |
|---|
|
|
|
|
(Link) |
|
Pats palasi, kas Bībelē rakstīts, pirms publiski pārpublicē garlaicīgu, pēdējos 300 gados n reizes atspēkotu geju sūdu, kurš turklāt apmelo gan Jēzu, gan Pāvilu, un turklāt to pasniedzot kā kaut ko "interesantu", no sērijas "re, cik viss ir neviennozīmīgi, Jēzus ir hipijs, Pāvils farizejs un wowzies!!" Kaut gan realitāte ir tāda, ka tev sevi aiztikt vietās aizliedz gan Jēzus, gan Pāvils. Tev nebūs Dieva, sava Kunga, vārdu nelietīgi valkāt, un tev nebūs dot nepatiesu liecību par savu tuvāko.
Really nice read! I feel like if only people stopped focusing in everything except what actual Christ wanted people to know/see/hear.
| From: | (Anonymous) |
|---|
| Date: |
22. Jūnijs 2026 - 21:00 |
|---|
|
|
|
|
(Link) |
|
Tu Kristu uzskati tikai par kaut kādu augstas klases hipiju guru, vai tomēr par dzīvo Dieva dēlu un tavu un visas pasaules pestītāju, kurš augšāmcēlās no mirušajiem?
| From: | (Anonymous) |
|---|
| Date: |
22. Jūnijs 2026 - 21:36 |
|---|
|
|
|
|
(Link) |
|
Tu netici tam, ko Jēzus saka un apgalvo par sevi? Nu, ja reiz Bībelē izvēlies šķirot tās patīkamās un nepatīkamās vietas. Labi, pieturies pie Jēzus. Vai tad neredzi, ko Jēzus tur saka par sevi?
That's my whole point dude, tas ko begemots iepostoja - atcereeties, ka viens ir ko cilveeki ir rakstiijushi un staastiijushi, un pavisam cits - galvenais, ko Jeezus paveestiija.
| From: | (Anonymous) |
|---|
| Date: |
22. Jūnijs 2026 - 22:02 |
|---|
|
|
|
|
(Link) |
|
Bet Jēzus pats saka, apgalvo un apsola, ka visi viņa teiktie vārdi ir skaidri un uzticami, un viņš pats sūta savu garu mācekļiem, lai viņi varētu droši, skaidri un uzticami atcerēties un apliecināt pārējai pasaulei visu, ko Jēzus pats ir mācījis un teicis par sevi. Ja tu nezini, "ko Jēzus tiešām pavēstīja" ārpus pierakstītā starpniecības, tad jau tu nevari arī citēt tās wholesome chungus hippie Jēzus vārdus pasāžas, ko varbūt kāds wholesome chungus woke liberation peace love hipijs ir tikai iebāzis Jēzus mutē. Ja tu atsakies ticēt jau 2000 gadus tālāk nodotam un pierakstītajam par Jēzu, ja atsakies pieņemt Jēzus pirmo mācekļu liecību par Jēzu kā drošticami, tad kāds ir tavs īstais uzticamais avots, pie kā pieķerties, lai noskaidrotu, ko tad 1. gs. m.ē. vēsturisks personāžs ir teicis un darījis?
Nez, man tas raksts overall shkjita pozitiivs un optimistisks pret kristietiibu, so i don't relate to your beef. Then again es neesmu kristietiibas eksperts bet gan random mietpilsonis so your passion is clearly misguided.
| From: | (Anonymous) |
|---|
| Date: |
23. Jūnijs 2026 - 01:15 |
|---|
|
|
|
|
(Link) |
|
Nošķelt Pāvilu no Jēzus ir viens no tipiskākajiem liberāļu, libertīņu un dažādu kristietības kritiķu trikiem, līdz ar to nekā pozitīva tur nav. Tu neesot kristietības eksperts (lai vai kas tas būtu?), un tomēr katrā trešajā ierakstā jau gadiem piesauc Dieviņu vai Jēzuliņu (based on what? Just feels n vibes?). Kas tie par cop-outiem? Tev nav neviena stingra, noturīga uzskata vai pārliecības? Saņemies! Šie ir visnopietnākie dzīves jautājumi, no kuriem ir atkarīgs viss. Piedēvēt Jēzum kaut ko tādu, kas viņš nav, vai ko viņš nav teicis, ir negodīgi un ar potenciāli ļoti letālām sekām.
Es tieshaam domaaju ka teologjija ir a waste of time, man reaali pietiek ar Jeezus teikto prieksh ticiibas.
| From: | (Anonymous) |
|---|
| Date: |
24. Jūnijs 2026 - 14:35 |
|---|
|
|
|
|
(Link) |
|
Vairums teoloģijas tiešām ir waste of time, bet kā Tu zini, ko Jēzus ir vai nav teicis? Your source?
Es vnk uzticos jaunajai deriibai. If its a fake text then godspeed us all into indifferent universe
Kapēc herētiķis? Principā kaut kā tā arī varētu būt, tik vēl būtu visam prātojumam jāpievieno tas ka mēs dzīvojam postapgaismības laikmetā un attiecībā pret kristietību tas ir kā diena pret nakti ar sākotnējo uzstādījumu.
Man tik palika stipri neskaidrs aiz kam Jezum tiek piedēvēta brūna ādas krāsa...
Nu, ādas krāsas interpretācija gan riktīgi mainās pa gadsimtiem un sabiedrībām. Un plus laikam tas Džims Palmers ir amerikānis, tur vēl citādāk nekā citur.
19.gs. beigās un 20gs sākumā, ja pareizi esmu sapratis, arī īri neskaitījās baltie, piemēram. Nu, un mūsdienās Tuvo Austrumu arābi -- kam ir baltie, kam nav.
Nē, nu jā :D
Par to jau arī smīklis, jo šis ir viens no visnepierādāmākajiem apgalvojumiem, lai nu kas bet Jēzus vizuālais apraksts nav dokumentēts tieši nekur.
| From: | (Anonymous) |
|---|
| Date: |
22. Jūnijs 2026 - 21:01 |
|---|
|
|
|
|
(Link) |
|
Tads ir herētiski, jo neviena normāla baznīca nekad nav mācījusi, ka starp Kristu un Pāvilu pastāvētu kaut kāda mistiska plaisa vai pretrunas.
|
|
![[info]](http://klab.lv/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small}