In article <Q6YGj.6128$Pc2.2017@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>, DKleinecke says...
>But it is a misreading of scripture.
Not necessarily. It might not be a misreading if you understand that
even the mere use of the word 'vengeful' in 'vengeful God' is an
anthropomorphism.
>Combing Paul and Isaiah is not helpful because they speak from such
>different contexts.
Yes, they do speak "from different contexts", but this does not mean
combining them is _necessarily_ "not helpful". It only means that
'combining' them is difficult. But if done carefully, with full
respect to their respective contexts, you can learn something from it.
>It is Paul who said that "For sin pays its wage - death. But God's
>free gift is eternal life." and it is Isaiah who more or less says
>the rest but he says only that "It is your sins that separate you
>from God when you try to wor****p him".
>It is not obvious even that Paul, writing in Greek, and (Third?)
>Isaiah, speaking in Hebrew, meant the same thing by sin.
They didn't even always mean the same thing by the same word. AMARTIA
already has multiple meanings. It can refer to individual tresp*****
as well as to the abstract meaning.
>Isaiah goes on to list a number of things I would call crimes. Paul
>nowhere makes explicit what sin meant to him. But his writings
>generally imply he is thinking in moral terms and, I believe, favor
>the idea that, to him, sin means rejecting God - not any particular
>actions.
Then what do you believe he implies _is_ the relation between the
abstract idea "rejecting God" and the particular actions?
>In one sense the original post was correct. It seems clear that Paul
>was very insecure
No, that is not 'clear' at all. Paul had the confidence of the
righteous as described in Proverbs 3:23 and Pro 10:9:
He that walketh uprightly walketh securely; but he that perverteth his
ways shall be found out. (Pro 10:9 JPS)
>in the sense that he felt he was a great sinner and that his
>salvation was hard won.
"Hard won"? Now this is the most amazing misreading of Paul I have
ever seen! No, he did _not_ believe it was "hard won". How could he,
when he wrote the entire epistles of Romans and Galatians to prove it
could not be 'won' in the first place? Salvation is, as you yourself
quoted him saying above, a "free gift".
>But we must not confuse Paul's personal psychological problems
You would be better off not believing he has "personal psychological
problems" in the first place.
>with a universal statement about mankind. People, who like Paul, are
>convinced of their own unworthiness will always admire a judgmental
>God.
Well now, I suppose I have to take back waht I said about "hard
won". For _this_ misreadin go Paul is even more amazing;)
>Nowadays wallowing in one's own unworthiness has largely gone out of
>style.
That 'wallowing' was never the correct interpretation of 'repentance'
in the first place. The irony is that there is a lot more of the
unworthiness now running around.
>Hence there is less talk about damnation and vengeance. But many
>people are not ready to give up their old beliefs and follow the new
>trendy ones.
Since the "new trendy ones" are worse, it is good that they are
reluctant to give up the old.
--
------------------------------
Subducat se sibi ut haereat Deo
Quidquid boni habet tribuat illi a quo factus est
(Sanctus Aurelius Augustinus, Ser. 96)
|
