Pope Francis clearly believes in a little bit of depravity in each person, just not in total human depravity lol

 

Norah O'Donnell: When you look at the world what gives you hope?

Pope Francis (In Spanish/English translation): Everything. You see tragedies, but you also see so many beautiful things. You see heroic mothers, heroic men, men who have hopes and dreams, women who look to the future. That gives me a lot of hope. People want to live. People forge ahead. And people are fundamentally good. We are all fundamentally good. Yes, there are some rogues and sinners, but the heart itself is good. 

More.

 

Your average American Catholic, however, has faith in a caricature of Jesus of their own making, as gooey and sentimental as any Protestant's, as Samantha Stephenson demonstrates here. Their common Jesus never called anyone to repent, never said few would be saved, never warned of impending wrath.

Between the errors of total depravity and fundamental human goodness lies the correct view, mixed human nature. Like the scholastics of a by-gone era, however, the pope splits hairs in the wrong direction from this, landing on the side of human nature being more of a good mixture than the not totally bad mixture emphasized by Paul:

We know that the law is spiritual; but I am carnal, sold under sin.  I do not understand my own actions. For I do not do what I want, but I do the very thing I hate. Now if I do what I do not want, I agree that the law is good. So then it is no longer I that do it, but sin which dwells within me. For I know that nothing good dwells within me, that is, in my flesh. I can will what is right, but I cannot do it. For I do not do the good I want, but the evil I do not want is what I do. Now if I do what I do not want, it is no longer I that do it, but sin which dwells within me. So I find it to be a law that when I want to do right, evil lies close at hand. For I delight in the law of God, in my inmost self, but I see in my members another law at war with the law of my mind and making me captive to the law of sin which dwells in my members. Wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death?

-- Romans 7:14ff.

For his part Martin Luther, against the Reformed proponents of total depravity, affirmed that the Christian is simul justus et peccator, at the same time just and sinner, because of Christ.

The view was also Shakespeare's:

The web of our life is of a mingled yarn, good and ill together: our virtues would be proud if our faults whipped them not; and our crimes would despair if they were not cherished by our own virtues.

Charitable me would say this is simply laughable ignorance, but I know better

Was Paul a Slave? The surprising argument that Saul of Tarsus was born into bondage. By Mark R. Fairchild and Jordan K. Monson, Christianity Today, April 22, 2024:

But Paul was neither a proponent of slavery nor an abolitionist, despite efforts to use his letter to Philemon to make him out as one or the other. In truth, neither option was available to him.

It’s difficult for modern readers to understand that in the Roman Empire of Paul’s time, abolitionist thought was virtually nonexistent. According to Jeffers, “No Greek or Roman author ever attacked slavery as an institution.”

It was a given that slavery would always exist. Alexis de Tocqueville wrote, “All available evidence suggests that even those ancients who were born slaves and later freed, several of whom have left us very beautiful texts, envisioned servitude in the same light.”

Instead, the first Christians had their minds almost exclusively fixed on the Second Coming, which they believed was imminent. There wasn’t time to reform entrenched Roman injustices.

 

The article is replete with tendentious statements, attempts to redefine words, and special pleading. It's lying by omission.

What will be next from Christianity Today? That Paul was a tranny?

I can't wait.

Meanwhile, free-born Roman citizen, self-described Pharisee from a wealthy family in Tarsus*, Paul the Apostle, not only endorsed freedom from slavery, Second Coming or no, but well understood the possibility of it under the Roman system:

Were you a slave when called? Never mind. But if you can gain your freedom, avail yourself of the opportunity. ... You were bought with a price; do not become slaves of men. 

-- I Corinthians 7:21, 23.

   

*A property qualification of 500 drachmae was fixed for admission to the roll of citizens, perhaps by Athenodorus sometime after 30 B.C. (Dio Chrysostom, Oration 34.23).

-- F. F. Bruce, The Book of the Acts (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988), p. 432.

Jesus' call to extreme discipleship causes exceeding sorrow, but Paul will have none of that

Jesus said to him, "If you would be perfect, go, sell what you possess and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me." And the young man, having heard the word, went away sorrowful [λυπούμενος], for he had many possessions;

-- Matthew 19:21f.

And Jesus looking upon him loved him, and said to him, "You lack one thing; go, sell what you have, and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me." And he was sad at that saying, and went away grieved [λυπούμενος]: for he had great possessions.

-- Mark 10:21f.

"Sell your possessions, and give alms; provide yourselves with purses that do not grow old, with a treasure in the heavens that does not fail, where no thief approaches and no moth destroys."

-- Luke 12:33

"So then, none of you can be My disciple who does not give up all his own possessions."

-- Luke 14:33 

And when Jesus heard it, he said to him, "One thing you still lack. Sell all that you have and distribute to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me."And when he heard this, he was very sorrowful [περίλυπος]: for he was very rich.

-- Luke 18:22f.

Each one must do just as he has decided in his heart, not out of sorrow [λύπης] or out of necessity, for God loves a cheerful giver.

-- II Corinthians 9:7

 

A Hellenized Jew might well recognize in Paul's three descriptions of his conversion experience and of his life in general a man judged by God according to Greek Deuteronomy

The LORD shall smite thee with madness (παραπληξίᾳ, stunned confusion), and blindness (ἀορασίᾳ, sightlessness), and astonishment of heart (ἐκστάσει, being out of one's mind): And thou shalt grope at noonday, as the blind gropeth in darkness, and thou shalt not prosper in thy ways: and thou shalt be only oppressed and spoiled evermore, and no man shall save thee. 

-- Deuteronomy 28:28f. 

Stunned confusion

And he [Saul] said, Who art thou, Lord? And the Lord said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest: it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks. 

-- Acts 9:5

And I answered, Who art thou, Lord? And he said unto me, I am Jesus of Nazareth, whom thou persecutest.

-- Acts 22:8

And I said, Who art thou, Lord? And he said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest. 

-- Acts 26:15

Sightlessness

And Saul arose from the earth; and when his eyes were opened, he saw no man: but they led him by the hand, and brought him into Damascus. And he was three days without sight, and neither did eat nor drink. ... And immediately there fell from his eyes as it had been scales: and he received sight forthwith, and arose, and was baptized.  

-- Acts 9:8f.,18

And when I could not see for the glory of that light, being led by the hand of them that were with me, I came into Damascus.  And one Ananias, a devout man according to the law, having a good report of all the Jews which dwelt there, Came unto me, and stood, and said unto me, Brother Saul, receive thy sight. And the same hour I looked up upon him.  

-- Acts 22:11ff.

Being out of one's mind

And [Saul] hath seen in a vision (ὁράματι) a man named Ananias coming in, and putting his hand on him, that he might receive his sight.  

-- Acts 9:12

And it came to pass, that, when I was come again to Jerusalem, even while I prayed in the temple, I was in a trance (ἐκστάσει);  

-- Acts 22:17

And there arose a great cry: and the scribes that were of the Pharisees' part arose, and strove, saying, We find no evil in this man: but if a spirit or an angel hath spoken to him, let us not fight against God.  

-- Acts 23:9

Whereupon, O king Agrippa, I was not disobedient unto the heavenly vision (ὀπτασίᾳ):  

-- Acts 26:19

And as he thus spake for himself, Festus said with a loud voice, Paul, thou art beside thyself (Μαίνῃ); much learning doth make thee mad (μανίαν). But he said, I am not mad (μαίνομαι), most noble Festus; but speak forth the words of truth and soberness.  

-- Acts 26:24ff.

Are they servants of Christ? I am a better one--I am talking like a madman (παραφρονῶν)--with far greater labors, far more imprisonments, with countless beatings, and often near death. Five times I have received at the hands of the Jews the forty lashes less one. Three times I have been beaten with rods; once I was stoned. Three times I have been shipwrecked; a night and a day I have been adrift at sea; on frequent journeys, in danger from rivers, danger from robbers, danger from my own people, danger from Gentiles, danger in the city, danger in the wilderness, danger at sea, danger from false brethren; in toil and hardship, through many a sleepless night, in hunger and thirst, often without food, in cold and exposure. 

 -- II Corinthians 11:23ff.

Then said Agrippa unto Festus, This man might have been set at liberty, if he had not appealed unto Caesar.  

-- Acts 26:32

 

Jesus' gospel was about something good coming to you now, not about you going somewhere good later

 

The Gospel Is About Going to Heaven When You Die

Mitch East, Mere Orthodoxy 

 

 

Jesus taught no one to pray "If I should die before I wake, I pray the Lord my soul to take", but

After this manner therefore pray ye: Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven. 

 

-- Matthew 6:9f.

 

Now after that John was put in prison, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God, And saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel.

 

-- Mark 1:14f.

 

 

The enthusiasts for Paul's other gospel, a private revelation of his individual ecstatic religious experience, for that is what it is (Galatians 1), know this truth, they simply subordinate it to Paul the fox, putting the disciple above his master (Matthew 10:24; Luke 6:40).

And the word of the LORD came unto me, saying, Son of man, prophesy against the prophets of Israel that prophesy, and say thou unto them that prophesy out of their own hearts, Hear ye the word of the LORD; Thus saith the Lord GOD; Woe unto the foolish prophets, that follow their own spirit, and have seen nothing! O Israel, thy prophets are like the foxes in the deserts. 

 

-- Ezekiel 13:1ff.

 

Paul is the jackal of Zion, the scavenger of the failed Jesus movement scattered by the crucifixion.

 

For this our heart has become sick, for these things our eyes have grown dim, for Mount Zion which lies desolate; jackals prowl over it. 

 

-- Lamentations 5:17f. 

The genius of Paul is seen in how he appropriated Jesus' death to make Pharisaism safe for the whole world

 Wherefore remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands; That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world: But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ. 

-- Ephesians 2:11ff.

LOL, leave it to WaPo to stir up trouble over the Phoenix baptism story

(((Michelle Boorstein))) right out of the box whips out her pilpul, here:

Their marriages, confessions, promises of salvation — all of these things ceased to exist for thousands of Catholics baptized by an Arizona priest who, it turns out, was saying the sacrament script wrong. ... diocesan officials ... said last month that people who Arango baptized aren’t technically Catholic. That means they weren’t eligible, from a Catholic point of view, for other sacraments.

 

Except the diocese didn't actually say so:

According to the Diocese of Phoenix, Arango remains in "good standing" as a priest and "has not disqualified himself from his vocation and ministry." As of right now, other sacraments performed by Arango are considered valid, the diocese said.

More. 

Still, ex opere operato is having a bad week.

The diocese is obviously confused because the bishop is. He evidently doesn't understand that doctrine. Though defending the "other sacraments performed" by the errant priest, the bishop nevertheless has said, "You will need to be baptized."

St. Augustine would have disagreed.

The bishop of Hippo in North Africa taught the church in the Donatist Controversy that the validity of sacraments doesn't depend on the character of the priest, or on his theology. The sacraments work by themselves as long as they are reasonably Christian and the individuals come under the jurisdiction of the Catholic church.

All the attention here is misplaced on the personal pronouns used, "I baptize you" vs. "We baptize you", in keeping with the spirit of the current age, when the triune formula "in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost" plus the corporate idea is the important thing according to Augustine. Arguably "We baptize you" emphasizes the latter, in good Augustinian manner.

Augustine's principles are charitable and Pauline. The bishops could learn from them.

Some indeed preach Christ from envy and rivalry, but others from good will. The latter do it out of love, knowing that I am put here for the defense of the gospel; the former proclaim Christ out of partisanship, not sincerely but thinking to afflict me in my imprisonment. What then? Only that in every way, whether in pretense or in truth, Christ is proclaimed; and in that I rejoice. 

-- Philippians 1:15ff.

 

 

 

The revenge of Bishop Krister Stendahl's ecumenism against Lutheran Sweden

In 1985 Krister Stendahl infamously advised leaving room for "holy envy" in response to the uproar over the Mormons' plan to build a temple in Stockholm. 

Sweden ended up getting fewer than 10,000 Mormons, but got 800,000 Muslims instead.

Stendahl, who repudiated his own faith tradition in favor of "ecumenism", wasn't careful in what he wished for.

Here he was in 1997, blaming both (Pauline) Christianity and Islam for the trouble caused by their "universal claims": 

But there can be no doubt that it is exactly the universal claim of Christianity (or Islam) that makes for trouble rather than for peace. 

Sweden liberalized under the influence of his ilk, invited in the world, and was repaid with soaring immigrant crime. Twenty-five years later there is no doubt that such multiculturalism has also made for trouble rather than for peace:

Crime has become the number one issue in Sweden; before she said a word about migration, Andersson boasted that her party added 7,000 new police officers, built more prisons, and drafted laws creating 30 new crimes. She decried “those who claim that it is certain cultures, certain languages, certain religions that make people more likely to commit crimes”—yet her own government has substantiated those claims.

The law is light and life, but Paul the Apostle thought it only a light . . . on sin

Mosaic of Christ before Pilate, Basilica of Sant'Apollinare Nuovo in Ravenna, early sixth century. Pilate washes his hands in a bowl held by a figure on the right. "I find no fault in this man".

 

 

All the commandments which I command thee this day shall ye observe to do, that ye may live, and multiply, and go in and possess the land which the LORD sware unto your fathers.

 

-- Deuteronomy 8:1

 

In that I command thee this day to love the LORD thy God, to walk in his ways, and to keep his commandments and his statutes and his judgments, that thou mayest live and multiply: and the LORD thy God shall bless thee in the land whither thou goest to possess it.  

-- Deuteronomy 30:16

 

He taught me also, and said unto me, Let thine heart retain my words: keep my commandments, and live.

 

-- Proverbs 4:4

 

For the commandment is a lamp; and the law is light; and reproofs of instruction are the way of life:

 

-- Proverbs 6:23

 

Keep my commandments and live;

 

-- Proverbs 7:2

 

The law of the wise is a fountain of life, to depart from the snares of death. 

 

-- Proverbs 13:14

He that keepeth the commandment keepeth his own soul;

-- Proverbs 19:16

 

And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.  

-- Matthew 19:17

If there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law.

 

-- Galatians 3:21

 

I had not known sin, but by the law ... For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died.  And the commandment, which was ordained to life, I found to be unto death. For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it slew me. 

 

-- Romans 7:7, 9ff.

Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.

 

-- Revelation 22:14

LOL, Calvinist John Piper says you are free to obey The Emperor and get vaccinated

And you thought "freedom is slavery" was an Orwellian idea. The inspiration is thoroughly Christian, and "The question is", said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master, that's all".

 

The apostle Peter said,

This is the will of God, that by doing good you should put to silence the ignorance of foolish people. Live as people who are free, not using your freedom as a cover-up for evil, but living as slaves of God. Honor everyone. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honor the emperor. (1 Peter 2:15–17)

“Live as people who are free.”

Peter had just said, “Be subject for the Lord’s sake to every human institution, whether to the emperor as supreme, or to governors” (1 Peter 2:13). So how can you “be subject” and “be free” at the same time?

Peter’s answer is that Christians are “slaves of God.” In other words, when you submit to a “human institution” (1 Peter 2:13), you don’t do it as the slave of that institution. You do it in freedom, because you are slaves of God, not man. God owns his people — by creation and redemption. ...

When we submit, we do so for the Lord’s sake. Because he said to. God’s ownership of his people strips every decisive entitlement from human authority. It turns every act of human compliance into worship. When we submit, we do so for the glory of our one Owner and Master. Life is radically Godward.

More.

 

Every act of compliance is worship, eh?

In the 3rd century many Christians found one act of compliance utterly beyond the pale. They refused to comply with an edict of Decius requiring everyone to perform a sacrifice to the gods in the presence of a Roman magistrate, which was deemed sufficient to demonstrate one's loyalty to the empire.

Some Christians at the time thought such sacrifices to be idolatrous. Many were killed for refusing to offer them.

Many people today, and not just Christians, think that the vaccines can cause harm, to their children and/or to themselves, and refuse to take them or allow them. Some people are losing their jobs as a result.

Many wonder what happened to the ideas we grew up with, that in America health decisions are between the individual and her doctor and are no one else's business, especially not the government's business. Many today wonder what happened to the "first, do no harm" line in the Hippocratic oath.

Circumstances likewise changed a great deal between the composition of I Peter and the 3rd century. There was no formal empire-wide persecution of Christians before the Decian edict of 250 AD. In the absence of official edicts requiring apostasy, obeying the law was not at issue and was promoted in the interests of evangelism and comity, especially in the 1st century.

Similarly Paul in I Corinthians 8 knew that eating meat offered to idols was nothing because no other gods actually exist, but that weak minds found it offensive, for which reason he said that one should not eat meat offered to idols to protect their feelings.

This advice had unintended consequences. The weak minds proliferated, to the point that by the 3rd century the Christians were literally a people living apart from the wider Roman society, attracting suspicion and ultimately the ire of the authorities for failing to behave like Romans. Rod Dreher fans should take note. His prescription in The Benedict Option might be more cause than effect of the troubles he believes are coming, and may prove to be a self-fulfilling prophecy.  

Today vaccine compliance earns you a proof of vaccination card. With it you can go about the normal business of living, including going to work. In the 3rd century, sacrifice earned you a libellus, a proof of sacrifice card. With it you could escape execution.

You would expect that in a liberal society, a free society such as that bequeathed to us by the Protestant founders of America who inherited the ideas of Paulinism, the, if you will, weak-minded anti-vaxxers among us would be cut the same slack Paul cut those who were superstitious about idol meat.

But we don't live in that world any longer. We live in an absurd world where the vaccinated, the protected, promote fear of the unvaccinated, which is superstition. It's getting to be more and more like the 3rd century world of suspicion and compulsion.

John Piper has as little to say to the one as to the other. But the 3rd century speaks volumes.

 

 

John Locke, no New Testament scholar, correctly understood 350 years ago that St. Paul's religion was entirely a matter of private interpretation

Saint Paul was miraculously called to the ministry of the gospel, and had the whole doctrine of the gospel from God by immediate revelation; and was appointed the apostle of the Gentiles for propagating it in the heathen world.

-- John Locke

That he accepted this enthusiasm as a miracle is beside the point, making him but a child of his time and therefore not the radical he is sometimes made out to be.

LOL, Jews are really upset with Pope Francis for having the temerity to insist with St. Paul that the written code kills

 

At the audience, the pope, who was reflecting on what St. Paul said about the Torah in the New Testament, said: "The law (Torah) however does not give life.

"It does not offer the fulfilment of the promise because it is not capable of being able to fulfil it ... Those who seek life need to look to the promise and to its fulfilment in Christ."

Rabbi Arousi sent the letter on behalf of the Chief Rabbinate - the supreme rabbinic authority for Judaism in Israel - to Cardinal Kurt Koch, whose Vatican department includes a commission for religious relations with Jews.

"In his homily, the pope presents the Christian faith as not just superseding the Torah; but asserts that the latter no longer gives life, implying that Jewish religious practice in the present era is rendered obsolete," Arousi said in the letter.

More.

"Gee Mr. Pope, sir, you should disavow the core tenets of your religion because we think they are insulting and denigrating, even if they were written by one of us".

Is the law then against the promises of God? God forbid: for if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law.

-- Galatians 3:21

For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died.

-- Romans 7:9

who has made us competent to be ministers of a new covenant, not in a written code but in the Spirit; for the written code kills, but the Spirit gives life.

-- 2 Corinthians 3:6

LOL, let's just pretend Saul of Tarsus and the Pharisees never existed, nevermind the other sects of the "chosen" people

It is later Christians, rather than first century Jews, who seek to exclude others based on interpretive disagreements.

-- Candida Moss 

Yeah, those guys at Qumran weren't exclusionary at all, and salvation was never "of the Jews".

Imagine how unreliable "eyewitness" accounts from antiquity must be when normal vision not requiring correction is such a rarity anyway

 

 

 

Reported here: 

In 2016, approximately 76 percent of adults in the U.S. stated they wore some form of vision correction.  

Widespread use of eyeglasses is an outgrowth of their late invention, during the Italian Renaissance, with ubiquitous production with plastic lenses dating only from the 1980s. Before that, things looked, well, kind of grim for an overwhelming majority of people.

St. Paul, who probably had very bad eyes from birth, yet boasted that he had seen the Lord.

Am I not an apostle? am I not free? have I not seen Jesus Christ our Lord? are not ye my work in the Lord? 

-- 1 Corinthians 9:1

Paul's conversion, however, bespeaks a probably lifelong preoccupation with his poor eyesight. It specifically involves being blinded, and then scales falling from his eyes when he recovers his sight well enough to be considered normal again, and this again miraculously (Acts 9:8f., 18, 27).

But evidently this was not a full restoration of his sight.

According to Acts 23:1ff. Paul still could not spot the high priest in a crowd of people he was addressing. He says the Galatians would have given him their own eyes if they could have (Galatians 4:15), admitting that he is infirm (Galatians 4:13), and that he must write to them using "large letters" (Galatians 6:11). The Galatians knew the man and the truth about the man.

By the time he is dictating Romans, he is now older and his eyes have grown so bad that he requires an assistant to write the epistle. This person even makes an appearance at the end of it in order to explain why the penmanship doesn't match Paul's (I Tertius, the writer of this letter, greet you in the Lord. -- Romans 16:22).

We are to believe Paul was granted a miracle of an appearance of Jesus, but not a complete healing.

Like so much else outside the miracles recounted in the Synoptic tradition performed by the historical Jesus, one cannot help but feel let down by these details involving the achievements of the risen Saviour.

And a post-conversion St. Paul who could not see well enough to recognize the high priest may reasonably be doubted to have been able to recognize Jesus pre-conversion, risen or otherwise.

Isn't that obvious from Paul's own testimony?

Who art thou, Lord? -- Acts 9:5

Who art thou, Lord? -- Acts 22:8

Who art thou, Lord? -- Acts 26:15

The finisher-offer of the religion of Jesus

He, full of fraudful arts,

This well-invented tale for truth imparts.

-- John Dryden

Paul v Jesus: Just who will judge what?

In our ongoing examination of the differences between Paul and Jesus up pops an incidental remark of Paul's which shows again just how far Paul is from the thought-world of the historical Jesus.

Do ye not know that the saints shall judge the world? and if the world shall be judged by you, are ye unworthy to judge the smallest matters?

-- I Corinthians 6:2

It shows that Paul knows nothing of The Twelve sitting on thrones and judging The Twelve Tribes of Israel. In fact he has completely replaced the idea by the logic of his missionary calling to make disciples of all nations, so that he can say to the Corinthians that they, the believers, will judge the world, the unbelievers. The Jewish apocalyptic nationalism of Jesus has been completely and utterly replaced, in keeping with Paul's idea that the church has replaced Israel. The church, the "Israel of God", is a "new creature" where nothing counts but being in Christ crucified (Galatians 6:14ff.). 

And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.  

-- Matthew 19:28

And I appoint unto you a kingdom, as my Father hath appointed unto me; That ye may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom, and sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel.

-- Luke 22:29f.

The Corinthians in fact had gotten so high on the idea that they were kangs already that Paul must spill quite a bit of ink in I Corinthians 4 mocking their "reign".

Now ye are full, now ye are rich, ye have reigned as kings without us: and I would to God ye did reign, that we also might reign with you.

-- I Corinthians 4:8

Now where'd they get that idea?

Paul's ideas of imitation, from which we get Imitatio Christi, are quite contrary to the teaching and intent of Jesus

Paul's idea of imitation is a repudiation of Jesus' radical ideas of eschatological repentance, which involved flight from traditional social conventions in order to escape the imminently coming judgment. In point of fact Jesus' idea left nothing positive to imitate. This is why Schweitzer could speak of Jesus' ethic as a negation of ethics.

Paul's "way" on the other hand was a rationalization of those conventions after the failure of the eschaton and the impending failure of the parousia. Instead of rejecting traditional social roles he simply accepted them and invested them with new meaning.

For though you have countless guides in Christ, you do not have many fathers. For I became your father in Christ Jesus through the gospel. I urge you, then, be imitators of me. Therefore I sent to you Timothy, my beloved and faithful child in the Lord, to remind you of my ways in Christ, as I teach them everywhere in every church.

-- I Corinthians 4:15ff. (RSV)

And you became imitators of us and of the Lord, for you received the word in much affliction, with joy inspired by the Holy Spirit;

-- I Thessalonians 1:6 (RSV)

As ye know how we exhorted and comforted and charged every one of you, as a father doth his children,

-- I Thessalonians 2:11

Paul is, in fact, all over the map on this, spilling a lot of ink on the patriarchs Abraham, Isaac and Jacob as fathers even though he knows we have but one father, God. He seems completely ignorant of the teaching of Jesus, which rejected all human fathers in favor of the fatherhood of God. Paul notably also does not use the language of "following" as found in the gospels ("come after me", "follow me"). Instead he speaks of mimesis, which in its turn is foreign to the gospels.

Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace; to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed; not to that only which is of the law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham; who is the father of us all, 

-- Romans 4:16

And not only this; but when Rebecca also had conceived by one, even by our father Isaac; 

-- Romans 9:10

As concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your sakes: but as touching the election, they are beloved for the fathers' sakes.

-- Romans 11:28

... all our fathers were under the cloud ...

-- I Corinthians 10:1

But ye know the proof of him [Timothy], that, as a son with the father, he hath served with me in the gospel.

-- Philippians 2:22

The whole thing degenerates into the familial as the pressure of the delay of the parousia re-invigorates traditional human social roles:

Unto Timothy, my own son in the faith: Grace, mercy, and peace, from God our Father and Jesus Christ our Lord.

-- I Timothy 1:2

Rebuke not an elder, but intreat him as a father; and the younger men as brethren;

-- I Timothy 5:1

To Timothy, my dearly beloved son: Grace, mercy, and peace, from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Lord.

-- II Timothy 1:2

To Titus, mine own son after the common faith: Grace, mercy, and peace, from God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ our Saviour.

-- Titus 1:4

--------------------------------------------------------------------

And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.

-- Matthew 23:9

If Gnostic ideas are "essentially apostate" and "heretical", the question of their necessary and actual origin in Paul, for example, is simply being begged

The Gnostic heresy’s political successors :

First, they are all essentially apostate projects, enterprises that have arisen in the midst of Christian civilization with the aim of supplanting it.  And they could have arisen only within the Christian context, because, second, these projects are all heretical in the broad sense of that term.  That is to say, they are all founded on some idea inherited from Christianity (the dignity of the individual, human equality, a law-governed universe, a final consummation, etc.) but removed from the theological framework that originally gave it meaning, and radically distorted in the process. ... the key marks of the Gnostic mindset – the positing of unseen malign forces, the hermeneutics of suspicion and “dream world” theorizing, Manicheanism and shrill intolerance of all dissenters, even something like an immanentized eschaton (“The Storm”). 

For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places. -- Ephesians 6:12

Howbeit we speak wisdom among them that are perfect: yet not the wisdom of this world, nor of the princes of this world, that come to nought: But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory: Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory. But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him. But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God. For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God. Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God. Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual. But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man. For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ. -- I Corinthians 2:6ff. 

Be not ye therefore partakers with them. For ye were sometimes darkness, but now are ye light in the Lord: walk as children of light: ... And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them. ... Wherefore he saith, Awake thou that sleepest, and arise from the dead, and Christ shall give thee light.  -- Ephesians 5:7f.,11,14

Giving thanks unto the Father, which hath made us meet to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in light: Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son:  -- Colossians 1:12f.

Catholic apologist for the faith Dave Armstrong tries to wriggle out of renunciation as the essence of discipleship

  Who Must Renounce All Possessions to Follow Jesus?:

To start with, it’s very important to consider to whom Jesus’ words apply in this instance. I deny that it is required of every Christian to leave their families, or to be single and celibate. That is the higher calling of what Catholics call the “evangelical counsels.” Some are called to that; most of us are not. St. Paul makes these distinctions very clear in 1 Corinthians 7.

I contend that what is being referred to in the passages above is the “above and beyond” discipleship of those who are apostles: a select group of individuals that were present and required only during the period of the very early Church. Not all disciples are apostles. In fact, 99.99% are not. The Bible repeatedly refers to the initial group of the disciples of Jesus, as “the twelve.”

Armstrong of course avoids Luke 14:33 altogether, which is part of the discourse addressed to the "great multitudes" beginning in vs. 25 (which includes "If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple"):

So likewise, whosoever he be of you that forsaketh not all that he hath, he cannot be my disciple.

There is no idea of a "higher calling" here. The Twelve already exist, yet the "great multitudes" are called just as they were. There is only one standard of discipleship, and it applies to all equally, from high to low, from the rich young ruler to the lowly fisherman and every one in between.

Armstrong's other arguments tend to fall in the "is is ought" category of fallacy. Just because the disciples fell asleep in the Garden of Gethsemane despite Jesus' request that they watch and pray with him doesn't make it right! The disciples', not to mention Paul's, many instances of bad behavior making them bad disciples isn't proof that Jesus' retreated from his conceptions. How silly.

The guy argues like a proof-texter with nary a hint of subtlety.

Perhaps he was a former fundamentalist. The idea that certain things "were present and required only during the period of the very early Church" sounds like he had been a Baptist dispensationalist before he became a Catholic.

On a final note, apocalyptic eschatology, which is the sine qua non for understanding this and all of the New Testament, is, well, you guessed it, not in view.

Paul in Romans 3: Let God be found true, though every man be found a liar

 This whole thing is priceless, but this is perhaps the most telling part:

Stephens-Davidowitz analyzed data from the General Society Survey which is one of the authoritative sources for information on the behavior of Americans. Extrapolating data from that survey, men said they use 1.6 billion condoms every year while women claimed to use 1.1 billion. If 2.7 billion condoms every year sounds like a big number that’s because it is. Unfortunately, the actual number of condoms sold is just 600 million per year.

The upshot is that people exaggerate a lot, and in large numbers ("Man, I have a lot of sex! Look at all these condoms I use! Yeah, I practice safe sex!"), which may help explain why the presidential race between Donald Trump and Joe Biden is as close as it is.

The polls clearly demonstrated exaggerated support for Joe Biden and exaggerated distaste for Donald Trump, except for a couple of firms' product which showed a tight race in the final days of the campaign.

Rasmussen Reports, for example, in its daily poll conducted only in the last week before the election, found either Trump or Biden ahead nationally, flip-flopping from day to day but only to +1 or +2. The final Rasmussen poll had Biden +1, whereas the final national average of polls calculated by Real Clear Politics had Biden +7.2. 

The provisional outcome Biden +2.9 is more consistent with the narrower polling spread from the final week than with the final "lying" national average of Biden +7.2: Biden/Harris 50.6% (253 Electoral College) vs. Trump/Pence 47.7% (214 EC).

On the other hand, Biden's average predicted support of 51.2% was nearly dead on, overshooting by only 0.6 points. But Trump's predicted support of 44% undershot by 3.7 points (47.7%).

Exaggerated support for Biden was the lie which dominated the predicted polling spread, and exaggerated lack of support for Trump was the lie which dominated the predicted share of the vote.

So there were two "lies".

For whatever reasons it was more fashionable to express support for Biden than for Trump. That so-called "shy Trump supporter" phenomenon much talked about in the final days of the campaign appears to be confirmed and on display. More people appear to have lied when they said they supported Biden than when they said they supported Trump. A fair number of Americans who actually supported Trump may have lied and said they supported Biden.

Or . . . 

maybe it wasn't exactly a lie and they just changed their minds.

Or maybe they just didn't vote. I mean, c'mon, in Michigan there was a huge turnout but nearly 2 million people who still could have voted didn't. What about that? Could be a lot of Biden supporters not voting in the end, right?

Or maybe the pollsters tampered with the polling and lied about it to promote Biden! A lot of these polls are in fact overweighted AWFL anyway (affluent, white, female, liberal), so arguably some of them overstate support for Biden. 

Or maybe someone is tampering with the voting results and the results saying Biden won by +2.9 are a lie! Maybe Biden really did win by more.

Or maybe he actually lost! What about that?! Software glitches. Ballots in ditches. Military ballots in dumpsters. Antifa faggots beating up Trumpsters.

How will we ever know for certain?!

I don't think we will. Somebody's lying about something, and only God knows who, what, when, where and why.

At least I hope so. And I do mean that. I honestly do.

That's my story and I'm sticking to it.

Because the Bible tells me so.