Is Paul the unimpeachable word of God?

[Scuba Pete]

Now everyone please close your bibles...
and go live.

Which is precisely why I keep saying...

:yes: ALL YOU NEED IS LOVE! :yes:
(La-de-da-de-da-de-da-da-da-da-da)

​

 

[Jeremy Mason]

I think you are missing the big difference between Paul and Peter. Peter was never a Rabbi. All of his schooling was at the feet of Jesus and from his childhood, and yet he was the Apostle for the Jews.

Paul, on the other hand, was Pharisaical scholar and yet he was chosen to be the Apostle for the Gentiles.

Two completely different groups of people so we have two apostles treating each culture completely differently. Is this wrong? No. Christianity was never about social conformity, but rather blending INTO society. Every other social issue PALES by comparison to seeking and saving the lost. Here is Paul's take on this phenomenon:

I Corinthians 9:19 Though I am free and belong to no man, I make myself a slave to everyone, to win as many as possible. 20 To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law. 21 To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God's law but am under Christ's law), so as to win those not having the law. 22 To the weak I became weak, to win the weak. I have become all things to all men so that by all possible means I might save some. 23 I do all this for the sake of the gospel, that I may share in its blessings. NIV

Galatians 2:8 For God, who was at work in the ministry of Peter as an apostle to the Jews, was also at work in my ministry as an apostle to the Gentiles. NIV

Unfortunately, modern day disciples seem to be searching for a rigidity in our collective beliefs. They want to make us CONFORM to their opinions and beliefs and they even try to couch them in Biblical terms. Take the issue of alcohol. How many churches repudiate anyone who inbibes, and yet Jesus was often called a drunkard. They have gone the way of the Pharisee in desiring to set themselves apart by OUTWARD appearances. Rather than being inclusive like Jesus, they draw all sorts of lines in the sand that only serve to STOP belief in those who aren't exactly like them.

It's insidious and can be seen in something as simple as praying before each and every meal. That hearkens back to the Pharisees who prayed where??? IN PUBLIC. Why? So they can be seen as being pious by men. I would suggest that you are doing more HARM than good by creating these false appearances. What is important? Nothing but faith being expressed through love (Galatians 5:6). How is the world SUPPOSED to know we are Christians? It's not supposed to be by our intolerance or hate, and yet this is the very thing we are all known for! No, we are to be known by our LOVE (John 13:35).

I tried fruballing you but I have to spread the wealth. :clap

 

[Scuba Pete]

I tried fruballing you but I have to spread the wealth. :clap

As the guys from Bartles and James would say: Thanks for your support.

 

[logician]

Paul was probably a gnostic from the writings that can be attributed to him, and never knew of an earthly Christ.

 

[Jeremy Mason]

Paul was probably a gnostic from the writings that can be attributed to him, and never knew of an earthly Christ.

The gnostic POV supported many heresies that Paul preached against.

 

[Bennettresearch]

Paul of Tarsus was on the road to Damascus when he had a "vision" of the risen Christ, deliver the gospel to him. In his own words:


This is probably why he never quotes Jesus---he never met the man in life, and was convinced he had received a special revelation from Christ personally, so his mission gave him superior understanding of Jesus, superceding even the original disciples. This leads him to make outrageous statements like how a man should not grow a beard since it offends his face, or a woman speak in church, etc.

I personally have never liked Paul, and have thought Christianity would have been much better without him. :angel2:

Hey, I like it. And a lot of people want to ignore Revelation 21:14 which apparently doesn't include Paul.

Craig

 

[Bennettresearch]

Paul is suspiscious to me...

Love

Dallas

Luv to you Dallas

 

[Bennettresearch]

Well i don't believe 'any' mortal man to be the unimpeachable word of God.Add that to the fact that paul didn't write in english and we dont have many ,if any ,of his original writings in his own hand to know exactly what he did write to be able to know his exact 'take' on everything.

Hi,

You are a discerning reader. Scholars say there are only 7 of the Letters that are written by Paul with the possibilty of two more but not by consensus. If you want I will list them. Too tired right now. I think your phrase "Paul's take on everything" is what this discussion is about. Paul has been elevated to the extent that he is quoted more than Jesus by some and is considered unimpeachable.

Craig

 

[Bennettresearch]

My guess would be that this is because Paul (or whoever wrote the Epistles attributed to him) was not familiar with the sayings of Jesus or the Gospels as we know them.

Hi,

I would only diagree with you that it appears that Paul is the source of the synoptic gospels, this excludes GJohn. It is only an opinion, but I suspect that he is the author of the famous Q Gospel.

I totally agree with your stance that Paul acted on his own and was not representing what Jesus actually said. Or this might be what I'm reading into your statement.

Craig

 

[Bennettresearch]

I don't think Paul was really trying to win a popularity contest anyway.....just speak what he believed to be the message of Jesus Christ as Savior.

Hi,

This would be fine if Paul weren't elevated to such a degree that he is. Jesus kind of got pushed aside.

Craig

 

[Bennettresearch]

Paul is much despised because he's much misunderstood. He's accused of everything from antisemitism to misogyny, but neither charge sticks if you understand his theology on its own terms rather than importing your own.

Well,

As it is, Paul is the importation into Christianity. His has pretty much a Pharisitic viewpoint except for his antinomianism, which in a way wasn't a bad thing. Jesus violated the sabbath also. Like I said, no one is wrong all of the time. The issue here is that Paul is quoted like he is the word of God and this gets on people's nerves.

Craig

 

[Bennettresearch]

It is true that it is easy to misunderstand Paul and other scriptures because they were written in a radically different time and culture; words also become distorted with time through translation and changes in language. Also, some concepts are difficult to understand without a historical/cultural background, much of which gets lost. Add to that interpolations, writings attributed to Paul that weren't really his, etc.

That being said, there are still things Paul says that I cannot agree with, such as his belief that it is the natural order of things for a woman to submit to her husband or that anyone with a differing message from his own is cursed.

Even if Paul was an infallible authority -- a concept I find ridiculous -- as I said, there have been so many changes in the credibility of the scriptures through changes in language, translation, loss of history and culture, interpolations and other corruptions in the texts, and pseudo-Pauline writings, that we cannot possibly rely on his writings as infallible.

James

Hi,

I can't really disagree with this. I wouldn't be so concerned about him being misquoted as I would with the way his writings are treated as the word.

Craig

 

[Bennettresearch]

Scriptures never ever claim to be the Word of God: only Jesus is the Word. They also never claim to be perfect, as they are written by men who were inspired by God. Both Peter and Paul add "laws" on us, and so obviously they missed the point of Freedom in Christ from time to time. HOWEVER, both were painfully aware of their inadequacies. God works through the humble, for when we are weak we can be STRONG!

Hi Scuba,

Can't you at least give me something to argue with???

Craig

 

[Bennettresearch]

I think you are missing the big difference between Paul and Peter. Peter was never a Rabbi. All of his schooling was at the feet of Jesus and from his childhood, and yet he was the Apostle for the Jews.

Paul, on the other hand, was Pharisaical scholar and yet he was chosen to be the Apostle for the Gentiles.

Two completely different groups of people so we have two apostles treating each culture completely differently. Is this wrong? No. Christianity was never about social conformity, but rather blending INTO society. Every other social issue PALES by comparison to seeking and saving the lost. Here is Paul's take on this phenomenon:

I Corinthians 9:19 Though I am free and belong to no man, I make myself a slave to everyone, to win as many as possible. 20 To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law. 21 To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God's law but am under Christ's law), so as to win those not having the law. 22 To the weak I became weak, to win the weak. I have become all things to all men so that by all possible means I might save some. 23 I do all this for the sake of the gospel, that I may share in its blessings. NIV

Galatians 2:8 For God, who was at work in the ministry of Peter as an apostle to the Jews, was also at work in my ministry as an apostle to the Gentiles. NIV

Unfortunately, modern day disciples seem to be searching for a rigidity in our collective beliefs. They want to make us CONFORM to their opinions and beliefs and they even try to couch them in Biblical terms. Take the issue of alcohol. How many churches repudiate anyone who inbibes, and yet Jesus was often called a drunkard. They have gone the way of the Pharisee in desiring to set themselves apart by OUTWARD appearances. Rather than being inclusive like Jesus, they draw all sorts of lines in the sand that only serve to STOP belief in those who aren't exactly like them.

It's insidious and can be seen in something as simple as praying before each and every meal. That hearkens back to the Pharisees who prayed where??? IN PUBLIC. Why? So they can be seen as being pious by men. I would suggest that you are doing more HARM than good by creating these false appearances. What is important? Nothing but faith being expressed through love (Galatians 5:6). How is the world SUPPOSED to know we are Christians? It's not supposed to be by our intolerance or hate, and yet this is the very thing we are all known for! No, we are to be known by our LOVE (John 13:35).

Hi Scuba,

Well, I disagree here. Revelation 2:2 followed by 21:14 are not going along with Paul being an Apostle.Why do we call it Christianity if it is not the teachings of Jesus? We have been struggling with how little we actually have of Him in scriptures. Peter was a putz and Paul was a megalomaniac. The despised Pharisees weren't totally wrong in their teachings and we can spot spiritual principles in almost any religious writing. The problem is that Paul seems to represent Christianity more than Jesus in some religions that I won't name. This is the problem.

Craig

 

[Bennettresearch]

Is it "Paulianity"?
or "CHRISTianity"?

If you read Y'shua's kingdom teachings and such
WITHOUT the "Paul" filter....
a whole "new" wealth of meaning opens up there.

It's almost as if Paul stepped in to subvert the deeper meaning.
(or he was purposely "inserted" in, there at the end,
to keep people from reaching inside/within
to understand the Christ teachings FOR THEMSELVES.)

Hi,

I like it.

Craig

 

[Bennettresearch]

...so Paul's writings only apply to the people they were written for? If he was all things to all people, doesn't it follow that his words cannot be taken to apply to anyone he wasn't directly speaking to?

Essentially he was the first catholic.

OMG!!! Is this why some Pope's have declared themselves Paulists instead of Jesusists? ( massacreing words here)

Craig

 

[Bennettresearch]

That is so true SB. There are some self-help books on the shelf, that does not help at all.

He had a very clear understanding of the other 'I' thats in all of us. (ego)And he constantly talked about putting to death certain things. Which I believe is the ego and things associated with it.

As far as I'm concerned the man was truly one of us...going through what we would have to in order to obtain spiritual enlightenment. His books is like a blog. Even the stuff that seems rediculous, is not less rediculous than what we will tend to think or do at times.

I'm glad the bible does not depict him as perfect. He himself did not attempt to hide himself and his insecurities. But if we look closely, his teachings are pretty powerful to become perfectly in harmony with god. What impresses me most about paul, is that for a man that persecuted 'Jesus' one day, to a man that loved him deeply, he showed and demonstrated how a grand turn around in personality is possible.

Whatever happened to paul, was life changing, and for that reason, his books certainly deserves a few highlights!

Heneni

Hi Heneni,

Well, I would agree if his writing were included with others like Origen, but they are not. They have been held in high authority and have not been considered as having any flaws, this is the issue.

Let me state my position here. There is an important issue that Revelation takes against Paul that most people try and dismiss. Paul's viewpoint on the Crucifixion is repeated daily but it is unfortunately wrong. It is based on OT scripture which is spurious (Isaiah 51-53) and is Judaizing at its worst. This should have been corrected a long time ago. I can cut Paul some slack because it is not his fault that his writings have gone unchallenged for so long. Everyone is allowed some mistakes but his was a real doosie.

Craig

 

[MoonWater]

My main gripe with paul is that These days my experience with Christianity is that it seems to be more about following the teachings/sayings of paul then the teachings/sayings of Christ. Christians claim to follow Christ yet so many seem to be more focused on what Paul said then what Jesus said. And the trouble with that is it seems as though this is where all the dogma and strictness of fundamentalism/extremism comes in, with paul. It reminds me of a quote from Jesus christ superstar where Judas says "you've(Jesus) begun to matter more than the things you've said." And it's true, many Christ "followers" focus so much on salvation through Christ that they seem to have forgotten to follow what he taught.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Hi,

I would only diagree with you that it appears that Paul is the source of the synoptic gospels, this excludes GJohn. It is only an opinion, but I suspect that he is the author of the famous Q Gospel.

I've never heard that suggested before. What led you to that conclusion?

I totally agree with your stance that Paul acted on his own and was not representing what Jesus actually said. Or this might be what I'm reading into your statement.

My thought wasn't so much that, but that Paul seems to have been familiar with some aspects of the Gospel story (with the death and resurrection of Christ, at minimum), but the writings attributed to him don't really show knowledge of the details of the specific events or sayings in the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John as we have them today.

Whether Paul's teachings can be reconciled with Jesus' is a separate issue, I think. I just think that if Paul were familiar with the details of the Gospel story, he would have used it; for instance, (IMO) it would have helped to reinforce the message of Romans 14 to throw in a "man was not made for the Sabbath, but the Sabbath was made for man." The fact that the writer of the Epistles didn't do this indicates to me that he didn't know that saying of Jesus.

 

[NoahideHiker]

Paul was a trained Pharisee and he only seems to quote scriptures and not Jesus.

This is interesting as Paul was sent out by the Jewish Sadducee to deal with christians. Why would a Pharisee be working for the Sadducee? They were both theologically and politically opposed to each other.