The Problem of Paul for All Faiths/Outlooks

[Simplelogic]

Taken from (www.Jesuswordsonly.com)

-Paul is a problem for Jews from following Jesus.
-Paul is a problem for Atheists from following Jesus.
-Paul is a problem for Muslims from following Jesus.
-Paul is a problem for Deists like Jefferson from following Jesus.
-Paul is a problem for Christians from following Jesus.


When there are so many people who would take Jesus' claims more seriously BUT FOR THE PRESENCE OF PAUL in canon/doctrine, is not this a good reason to critically examine why so many who profess Christ insist on Paul's doctrines being held onto despite the encumbrance they represent on Jesus' messsage?
If you are interested to see how everyone but Pauline Christians recognize Paul is blocking the world from accepting Jesus with His full authority, please read this PDF file entitled the Problem of Paul.

I highly recommend the link below which will make the case for how Paul's letters are a problem to each of these faiths/beliefs.

http://jesuswordsonly.com/images/stories/Lessons/The Problem of Paul.pdf

 

[Tarheeler]

Paul isn't a problem for us. Like the rest of the authors of the Christian Bible, he has no influence on our religion.
It's a egregious error to think that Jews would "follow Jesus" if it weren't for Paul's writings.

 

[Bunyip]

I think that many theologians cling to Paul simply because he is the only contemporary source, his testimony is the only testimony by a person claiming to have interacted with Jesus from Jesus time.

Sure it is problematic, but it is essential because it is all there is in terms of direct testimony. That it is testimony of a non-physical Jesus, as opposed to the living Jesus is certainly an obstacle.

 

[InChrist]

I have no problem with Paul and millions of born again believers have had no problem with Paul. Peter, James, John and the other apostles had no problem with Paul. Jesus had no problem with Paul as He chose him to be the apostle to the Gentiles. I am looking forward to eternity when I can meet Paul and talk to him. His life is an incredible example of a life totally turned around and given completely to Christ.

 

[Simplelogic]

Paul isn't a problem for us. Like the rest of the authors of the Christian Bible, he has no influence on our religion.
It's a egregious error to think that Jews would "follow Jesus" if it weren't for Paul's writings.

I disagree. The majority of Jews I know believe that Jesus taught against the law of Moses. This is ONLY because Paul's logic is always being read into Yeshua's words. I don't believe Jews need to "follow Jesus" in the same way that Christians teach. What the writer of the article is talking about is Yeshua's stance on returning to Torah observance with sincerity. Though I agree there are other issues to deal with, especially for Orthodox Jews. Yeshua was staunchly against the Pharisaic religion because of their man mad traditions and commandments.

 

[Tarheeler]

I disagree. The majority of Jews I know believe that Jesus taught against the law of Moses. This is ONLY because Paul's logic is always being read into Yeshua's words. I don't believe Jews need to "follow Jesus" in the same way that Christians teach. What the writer of the article is talking about is Yeshua's stance on returning to Torah observance with sincerity. Though I agree there are other issues to deal with, especially for Orthodox Jews. Yeshua was staunchly against the Pharisaic religion because of their man mad traditions and commandments.

I don't doubt that you disagree; the primary focus of many messianic groups is to convert Jews to their brand of Christianity, and they typically do so by trying to say that it doesn't violate Torah for a Jew to so. Your posts here and the website you link to seem to share that focus. Unfortunately, the author of the article seems to have gotten a hold of some very bad information regarding how Jews view Jesus, and ran with no holds barred. Our rejection of Christianity has just as much to do with Jesus' teachings as it does with Paul's.

Jesus was just one of a number of people who claimed to be the messiah and failed. To hold him as anything other than a man is idolatry, and to put him between man and God is heresy.

 

[Pegg]

Taken from (Jesus' words Only - Jesus' words as the sole inspired portion of the New Testament Scripture.)

-Paul is a problem for Jews from following Jesus.
-Paul is a problem for Atheists from following Jesus.
-Paul is a problem for Muslims from following Jesus.
-Paul is a problem for Deists like Jefferson from following Jesus.
-Paul is a problem for Christians from following Jesus.


When there are so many people who would take Jesus' claims more seriously BUT FOR THE PRESENCE OF PAUL in canon/doctrine, is not this a good reason to critically examine why so many who profess Christ insist on Paul's doctrines being held onto despite the encumbrance they represent on Jesus' messsage?
If you are interested to see how everyone but Pauline Christians recognize Paul is blocking the world from accepting Jesus with His full authority, please read this PDF file entitled the Problem of Paul.

I highly recommend the link below which will make the case for how Paul's letters are a problem to each of these faiths/beliefs.

http://jesuswordsonly.com/images/stories/Lessons/The Problem of Paul.pdf

Here is the Apostle Peters view of Paul and what people do with Pauls teachings:

2 Peter 3:15 Furthermore, consider the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote you according to the wisdom given him, 16 speaking about these things as he does in all his letters. However, some things in them are hard to understand, and these things the ignorant and unstable are twisting, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction.


If the Apostle Peter supports Paul and his teachings, then I don't see any reason not to accept Pauls teachings.

But as Peter says, many people twist Pauls words and that is the problem... there is no problem with Paul.

 

[Sees]

I don't like the words attributed to Paul nearly as much as those attributed to Jesus, yet it doesn't mean much in the way of my non-belief/adherence to Christianity.

Besides, if it wasn't for monotheistic prophets, kings, henchmen, preachers....you would all have no problem with polytheism.

 

[Simplelogic]

Here is the Apostle Peters view of Paul and what people do with Pauls teachings:

2 Peter 3:15 Furthermore, consider the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote you according to the wisdom given him, 16 speaking about these things as he does in all his letters. However, some things in them are hard to understand, and these things the ignorant and unstable are twisting, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction.


If the Apostle Peter supports Paul and his teachings, then I don't see any reason not to accept Pauls teachings.

But as Peter says, many people twist Pauls words and that is the problem... there is no problem with Paul.

The biggest problem with 2nd Peter is that it wasn't written by Peter himself. There are numerous Christian scholars who have attested to this reality. Peter doesn't even spell his name right in 2 Peter! Its also important to not that even if this letter is valid (which it is not) Peter is still not referring to Paul as an apostle. And more importantly, NONE of the 12 apostles ever refer to Paul as an apostle!

If you want to see more on the canonicity of 2 Peter I recommend:

Second Peter: Reference to Paul

 

[Sariel]

I'd argue Paul was not against Torah. You can pull just as many verses that imply Paul was pro-Torah as you can that that he was against it. With that in mind, the rest of the apostles never wrote against Torah and would have warned against Paul had he been teaching a contrary theology.

 

[Pegg]

The biggest problem with 2nd Peter is that it wasn't written by Peter himself. There are numerous Christian scholars who have attested to this reality. Peter doesn't even spell his name right in 2 Peter! Its also important to not that even if this letter is valid (which it is not) Peter is still not referring to Paul as an apostle. And more importantly, NONE of the 12 apostles ever refer to Paul as an apostle!

If you want to see more on the canonicity of 2 Peter I recommend:

Second Peter: Reference to Paul

I trust the bible is Gods word. I dont trust modern scholars who strive to cast doubt on its authenticity.

 

[arthra]

I doubt that for Baha'is Paul is an important issue or problem.

We would suggest that later church doctrines rather than Paul are more problematic ...

"In is indisputable, however, that many erroneous teachings have entered into Christianity, obscured the pure Gospel and caused disunity and schism. This is explained by the Guardian on pages 20 and 21 of the compilation entitled The World Order of Bahá'u'lláh, where he points out that
...the fundamental reason why the unity of the Church of Christ was irretrievably shattered, and its influence was in the course of time undermined, was that the Edifice which the Fathers of the Church reared after the passing of His First Apostle was an Edifice that rested in no wise upon the explicit directions of Christ Himself."

Apostle Paul, a "False Teacher"?

It's also true that we give more weight to later revelations.

 

[Simplelogic]

I trust the bible is Gods word. I dont trust modern scholars who strive to cast doubt on its authenticity.

I do too. I just don't agree with every NT book which was added. Are you aware of how these books were chosen?

 

[Simplelogic]

I have no problem with Paul and millions of born again believers have had no problem with Paul. Peter, James, John and the other apostles had no problem with Paul. Jesus had no problem with Paul as He chose him to be the apostle to the Gentiles. I am looking forward to eternity when I can meet Paul and talk to him. His life is an incredible example of a life totally turned around and given completely to Christ.

I am willing to debate every statement you have made here.

 

[Pegg]

I do too. I just don't agree with every NT book which was added. Are you aware of how these books were chosen?

My understanding is that the critera for being selected was whether the writing was written during the time of the Apostles, and whether it was used by them for instruction.

Remember Jesus only selected 12 Apostles to lay down the basis of his teachings. They did so in the first century by means of the 4 gospels and the letters they sent around to the congregations. But by the 3rd century, there were many things written about Jesus and about what he said and did by people who were not even eye witnesses of the events....and many of them contradicted what the Apostles had taught.

so the cannon was selected on the basis of which writings reflect eyewitness accounts and had the authority of the Apostles behind them.

 

[Zardoz]

I am willing to debate every statement you have made here.

...but not here in the DIR. Debate is not allowed here.

 

[Simplelogic]

...but not here in the DIR. Debate is not allowed here.

Yes. I didn't mean "here" as in the dir.

 

[te_lanus]

My understanding is that the critera for being selected was whether the writing was written during the time of the Apostles, and whether it was used by them for instruction.

Remember Jesus only selected 12 Apostles to lay down the basis of his teachings. They did so in the first century by means of the 4 gospels and the letters they sent around to the congregations. But by the 3rd century, there were many things written about Jesus and about what he said and did by people who were not even eye witnesses of the events....and many of them contradicted what the Apostles had taught.

so the cannon was selected on the basis of which writings reflect eyewitness accounts and had the authority of the Apostles behind them.

sadly it's not that easy, according to the muritan(probably misspelled) canon, the Revelation of Peter was part of the Bible, but it state that certaiN people didn't want it read in church.

It also depends on what Bible your talking of, and no I'm not talking about translations. I'm talking like the Etheopian Bible, which contains 6+- books more than modern translations. The Pe****ta contains 5 less books.

 

[Akivah]

I'd argue Paul was not against Torah. You can pull just as many verses that imply Paul was pro-Torah as you can that that he was against it. With that in mind, the rest of the apostles never wrote against Torah and would have warned against Paul had he been teaching a contrary theology.

Judaism doesn't go with a majority approach. If a person says one thing against Torah and 99 things for Torah, then we would view that person as being anti-Torah. All of our prophets were 100% for the Torah.

 

[Simplelogic]

Judaism doesn't go with a majority approach. If a person says one thing against Torah and 99 things for Torah, then we would view that person as being anti-Torah. All of our prophets were 100% for the Torah.

Exactly. The very fact that people think they can compare anti- Torah verses to Pro- Torah verses is completely illogical. Deut 13 is clear on this issue.