• EpeeGnome@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    6 months ago

    Jesus: I came not to enforce the law, but to fulfill it.

    Paul: Well, what he AKSTUALLY meant is blah blah ceremonial law vs moral law blah blah sex is yucky, I mean sinful!

    I mean, it’s more complex than that, but Paul wrote like he understood the necessity of reproduction, but didn’t really comprehend what sexual urges actually feel like. He also wrote such long rambling sentences that he makes Charles Dickens look concise and clear.

    • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      6 months ago

      Matthew was just trying to repair the damage to James, very likely.

      Paul: OT is gone except the parts I like

      James: OT is still there even oral parts drifting around it.

      A huge difference in how the religion should be practiced.

      Now if you were a writer 5 decades later and needed to redeem the image of James, while still showing that he was wrong, this could be a good way to do it. It wasn’t that James was super wrong, he just misunderstood something Jesus said at one point. Could happen to anyone.