Is Paul the unimpeachable word of God?

[Jeremy Mason]

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.

Here the Biblical account of Saul's conversion:


Acts 9:1-18 (NIV)
Saul's Conversion

1Meanwhile, Saul was still breathing out murderous threats against the Lord's disciples. He went to the high priest 2and asked him for letters to the synagogues in Damascus, so that if he found any there who belonged to the Way, whether men or women, he might take them as prisoners to Jerusalem. 3As he neared Damascus on his journey, suddenly a light from heaven flashed around him. 4He fell to the ground and heard a voice say to him, "Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?" 5"Who are you, Lord?" Saul asked.
"I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting," he replied. 6"Now get up and go into the city, and you will be told what you must do."
7The men traveling with Saul stood there speechless; they heard the sound but did not see anyone. 8Saul got up from the ground, but when he opened his eyes he could see nothing. So they led him by the hand into Damascus. 9For three days he was blind, and did not eat or drink anything.
10In Damascus there was a disciple named Ananias. The Lord called to him in a vision, "Ananias!"
"Yes, Lord," he answered.
11The Lord told him, "Go to the house of Judas on Straight Street and ask for a man from Tarsus named Saul, for he is praying. 12In a vision he has seen a man named Ananias come and place his hands on him to restore his sight."
13"Lord," Ananias answered, "I have heard many reports about this man and all the harm he has done to your saints in Jerusalem. 14And he has come here with authority from the chief priests to arrest all who call on your name."
15But the Lord said to Ananias, "Go! This man is my chosen instrument to carry my name before the Gentiles and their kings and before the people of Israel. 16I will show him how much he must suffer for my name."
17Then Ananias went to the house and entered it. Placing his hands on Saul, he said, "Brother Saul, the Lord—Jesus, who appeared to you on the road as you were coming here—has sent me so that you may see again and be filled with the Holy Spirit." 18Immediately, something like scales fell from Saul's eyes, and he could see again. He got up and was baptized, 19and after taking some food, he regained his strength.

 

[Heneni]

Well,

The issue here is that Paul is quoted like he is the word of God and this gets on people's nerves.

Craig

Something like I just did? Quote you? Paul was one of us. His letters are like journals.

Its not like Paul is to blame that people quote him more than Jesus. It wasnt his intention im sure. Even the disciples did not have a clear understanding of what Jesus was on about until the end when he was said to 'open' their eyes of perception. Those 'opening' ups were never recorded, only the fact that it happened, instead a historical account of what jesus said and did was recorded in the gospels.

Paul on the other hand, wrote some profound stuff regarding spirituality. These are the books that opens up at least as much as it can our door of perception regarding many spiritual things, touching on what jesus must have shown the disciples when he 'opened' up their eyes.

I dont care if Paul ever walked and talked with jesus, neither have I! It comforts me to know that those who have not had the priviledge of walking and talking with jesus, can also be enlightened.

 

[Napoleon]

Paul had some "interesting" views on multiple subjects but, on numerous occasions, but many of those views and his deeds were in direct conflict with Mosaic Law and/or the teachings of Jesus Christ so, IMO, Paul is irrelevant. The fact that what Paul did and had to say was found to be deserving of canonization is nothing short of shocking.

 

[blackout]

Paul had some "interesting" views on multiple subjects but, on numerous occasions, they conflict with Mosaic Law and/or the teachings of Jesus Christ so, IMO, Paul is irrelevant. The fact that what Paul had to say was found to be deserving of canonization is nothing short of shocking.

I don't know why I like that so much.
Paul is irrelevant.
Go tell that to your preacher!

He certainly is completely and totally irrelevant to my life anyway.

 

[Napoleon]

Go tell that to your preacher!

I have yet to see anyone demonstrate otherwise and I've said it to many a preacher/priest.

 

[NoahideHiker]

Paul had some "interesting" views on multiple subjects but, on numerous occasions, but many of those views and his deeds were in direct conflict with Mosaic Law and/or the teachings of Jesus Christ so, IMO, Paul is irrelevant. The fact that what Paul did and had to say was found to be deserving of canonization is nothing short of shocking.

When reading through the four gospels there are few things really out of whack as far as the Jewish religion are concerned but when Paul couldn't hook in the Jews and went to the Gentiles; that's when we start seeing some of the pagan concepts leaking in.

 

[Fazl Ahmad]

When reading through the four gospels there are few things really out of whack as far as the Jewish religion are concerned but when Paul couldn't hook in the Jews and went to the Gentiles; that's when we start seeing some of the pagan concepts leaking in.

I don't think it started with Paul not getting success with Jewish converts, it started when he had a so called "vision" (which he probably made up). Paul was not an average Jew, he lived in the Hellenized part of the world and was greatly impressed with Hellenic philosophy and beliefs. And that is the ideological origin of orthodox Christianity.

 

[tomspug]

Challenge Paul, and people get upset. While it’s true that no one is totally wrong all of the time in what they say, on the same hand, can we say that someone is totally right all of the time? The only time that Jesus is quoted by Paul is to say the he was appointed as an Apostle. Even this was third party through the book of Acts. Paul was a trained Pharisee and he only seems to quote scriptures and not Jesus. Why is this?

Paul himself denounces himself as not being an authority for belief. Remember when he criticized people for baptizing in his name instead of Jesus? We have to remember that while there is some good stuff in Paul's letters... they're LETTERS! They were never intended to be read on the scale that they are now, and we have to constantly be aware of the context in which each individual letter was written.

I'm going through Ephesians right now, and honestly, I'm really not feeling any sense that it is the divine word of God. I could be wrong, as always, but that's the impression I'm getting.

 

[Bennettresearch]

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


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.

Hi,

I'm probably the only brave enough to say it. In the scholarly world one must prove things, so it can only be my suspicion.

I've heard a lot of biblical scholars identify both Mark and Luke as associates of Paul. The disparities you talk of are interesting points. The problem is that all of the works are copies of copies of copies. No originals to analyze and compare. You have made me think of my main complaint against Paul. He never quotes Jesus. He claims to have been given the truth from Jesus but doesn't seem to be on the same page.

Craig

 

[Bennettresearch]

Paul himself denounces himself as not being an authority for belief. Remember when he criticized people for baptizing in his name instead of Jesus? We have to remember that while there is some good stuff in Paul's letters... they're LETTERS! They were never intended to be read on the scale that they are now, and we have to constantly be aware of the context in which each individual letter was written.

I'm going through Ephesians right now, and honestly, I'm really not feeling any sense that it is the divine word of God. I could be wrong, as always, but that's the impression I'm getting.

Hey TP,

I'm on the same page with you. It is the programming of believers to follow Paul that seems to be the issue. Paul isn't wrong about everything, he's just not right about everything. It is the fact that the early church fathers were Paulists that has elevated his status. Who knows, Paul might have edited some of his works had he known they would be treated the way they were.

 

[Bennettresearch]

I don't think it started with Paul not getting success with Jewish converts, it started when he had a so called "vision" (which he probably made up). Paul was not an average Jew, he lived in the Hellenized part of the world and was greatly impressed with Hellenic philosophy and beliefs. And that is the ideological origin of orthodox Christianity.

Hi,

I'll give a heads up to this statement. Rev 2:2 and 21:14 are also pointing to this situation with Paul. Paul also introduces the concept of a human sacrifice to cleanse sins as an explanation of the crucifixion. This is something that should not have found its way into Christianity.

Craig

 

[Bennettresearch]

Something like I just did? Quote you? Paul was one of us. His letters are like journals.

Its not like Paul is to blame that people quote him more than Jesus. It wasnt his intention im sure. Even the disciples did not have a clear understanding of what Jesus was on about until the end when he was said to 'open' their eyes of perception. Those 'opening' ups were never recorded, only the fact that it happened, instead a historical account of what jesus said and did was recorded in the gospels.

Paul on the other hand, wrote some profound stuff regarding spirituality. These are the books that opens up at least as much as it can our door of perception regarding many spiritual things, touching on what jesus must have shown the disciples when he 'opened' up their eyes.

I dont care if Paul ever walked and talked with jesus, neither have I! It comforts me to know that those who have not had the priviledge of walking and talking with jesus, can also be enlightened.

Hi Heneni,

I agree that his letters were writings and not scripture. I also agree that he was not wrong about everything. He was a trained Pharisee and had knowledge of religion. The complaint is that he has been elevated to such a degree that he actually does overshadow Jesus in orthodox christianity. Everything in its proper place.

Craig

 

[Bennettresearch]

I have yet to see anyone demonstrate otherwise and I've said it to many a preacher/priest.

Oh oh, I sense a bonding here. UV and Napoleon, I'm with you guys here.

Craig

 

[Bennettresearch]

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.

Yep:bow:

Craig

 

[crystalonyx]

It's not even certain that Paul was a real person. It is certain that many of the books in the bible attributed to this man were not written by him. Taken as a whole, all of his supposed works make him a very shizophrenic person.

 

[Bennettresearch]

It's not even certain that Paul was a real person. It is certain that many of the books in the bible attributed to this man were not written by him. Taken as a whole, all of his supposed works make him a very shizophrenic person.

Hey Crystal,

Well, I can't really argue about the rampant amount of mythology that we face in our lives. And looking into the way information was passed on in the first century, we indeed are dealing with some myths surrounding important people, even Jesus. Most people do say however, that there is usually a kernal of truth behind a myth. It is only seven letters that are considered to be written by Paul. People like him had to exist to have such an impact. Still, our biggest obstacle in this area is the paper trail. This ironically is why Paul was able to overshadow the other apostles because he could write and have his material passed on. Who could compete with you if they didn't have an internet connection? You could blog yourself silly and they wouldn't be able to refute anything that you said. If it was a subject that others didn't know about, then none of them would be refuting this information either, especially if you had a following. Any objectors would be simply ignored.

In Revelation, John and Jesus have serious issues about Paul. Rev 13:4

Craig