Questioning Paul?

[Yada Yah]

First, I ask your forgiveness for being new and I'm not sure if this is even the correct folder to ask this question, as I consider myself to be more Messianic than traditionally Christian, but this seems like the safer place to begin.

I have been troubled by enough aspects of Paul's writings and message to question whether these should truly be regarded as divine Scripture or if Paul's letters are Paul's letters. This is especially so when I compare his low regard for Yahweh's Torah compared to the high view expressed by David and the Messiyah.

I was discussing in a thread in Theology and Scripture Paul's view on election and predistination and the lack of a role human desire / free will has in relating to God. It appears to me that God desires love, and the adoption of a human family, but for love to be authentic, it must be freely given and chosen. Forced love, is not love at all.

I'll await word on whether it is appropriate to discuss this topic here or if should continue elsewhere, before continuing.

Respectfully,

-Yada Yah

 

[hedrick]

If it's valid at all in one of the Christian groups (I recall moderators objecting to criticisms of Paul in the past) this would be a reasonable place. Otherwise it may have to be unorthodox theology.

I take a middle position: Jesus and Paul certainly spoke in different terms. But in most cases you can find corresponding views. They're just expressed very differently.

You can find the same kind of predestinarian statements in John, e.g. 17:12, though of course both Paul and John have been interpreted in a non-predestinarian sense. (Of course this assumes you're willing to accept John as an accurate reflection of Jesus' teachings.)

Paul didn't show a low regard for Torah. First, his clearest statements on the Law were about the Law as a marker, i.e. things like circumcision that weren't moral but rather marked off the Jewish people. Jesus also tended not to value the Law as a marker of who is out. See e.g. Mark 7:19, and his acceptance of "sinners" -- who in context were typically people who couldn't keep the specific laws valued by the Pharisees.

Jesus said in Mat 5 that the Law would never pass away. But that was followed immediately by interpretations of the Law that nearly ignored the letter in favor of intent. I believe that Jesus' affirmation of the intent of the Law and Paul's denial of the Law but affirmation of basic ethics (e.g. his treatment of sexual immortality in 1 Cor, and his lists of sins in a couple of places) are different ways of describing what is in effect the same thing. The Law as a boundary between Jews and Gentile is being rejected but the Law as an embodiment of God's basic moral principles is being affirmed.

You can argue reasonably that the difference is because Paul was speaking to Gentiles and Jesus to Jews. Thus Jesus listeners were committed to following the Law, and Paul's were not. I think Paul agreed that Jews were still under the Law, though he denied that the aspect of the Law that was specific to Jews (and arguably the Law as a whole) was relevant for salvation. I think however that Jesus and Paul had different habits of thought, and that some difference in how they expressed things would have been present no matter what. Paul retained some aspects of his background as a Pharisee. Jesus rejected the Pharisee's approach more radically. But in most cases the content of what they said, if you can separate it from the way they thought and talked about it, corresponds at least roughly.

The one place where I think there is real tension is in Paul's concept of purity, particularly sexual purity. Jesus cared passionately about doing right, but I don't think he expressed it in terms of purity, and in fact I think he rejected it as Pharisaic. Of course in many ways purity is simply obedience, which obviously Jesus taught. But purity adds to obedience the concept of the person being pure, which I think he denied as being possible. Of course Paul did so in principle as well. But he still resorted to purity, particularly when dealing with sexual immorality. Jesus would not have said 1 Cor 5:9 ff. Indeed Jesus' willingness to consort with immoral people was one of the things that got him killed. This Pharisaic aspect of Paul of course was magnified in later Christianity.

 

[Nails74]

Hey Yada! It's me from the other thread
I thought I might try to follow up on your trouble with Paul in here, if that is OK.

It appears to me that God desires love, and the adoption of a human family

Can you give some verses that support this?

 

[Faulty]

Peter affirmed Paul's writings as scripture.

And count the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures.
2 Peter 3:15-16
​

Please note it's the ignorant and unstable who end up twisting the teachings of Paul.

 

[Xpistis sopheiaX]

From what I understand, a lot of Biblical scholars seem to agree that some of the texts attributed to Paul are considered forgeries written in the name of Paul. I've also read some interesting theories that Simon Magus was a cipher for Paul. I don't know how I stand on either (as I don't pretend to be a scholar and neither issues make much of a difference to me one way or another), and I don't I say these things to start a flame-war, but simply to say if you feel like questioning something attributed to Paul then you wouldn't be the only one.

For me the idea that a loving, merciful, and perfect God would pre-determine that someone be sent to Hell before they are born is ridiculous. However if God "selects" certain people to be saved, and they have no choice in the matter, then that isn't something I find upsetting in the least.

I think if you're chosen to serve God than loving God is still love.

 

[hedrick]

From what I understand, a lot of Biblical scholars seem to agree that some of the texts attributed to Paul are considered forgeries written in the name of Paul. I've also read some interesting theories that Simon Magus was a cipher for Paul. I don't know how I stand on either (as I don't pretend to be a scholar and neither issues make much of a difference to me one way or another), and I don't I say these things to start a flame-war, but simply to say if you feel like questioning something attributed to Paul then you wouldn't be the only one.

For me the idea that a loving, merciful, and perfect God would pre-determine that someone be sent to Hell before they are born is ridiculous. However if God "selects" certain people to be saved, and they have no choice in the matter, then that isn't something I find upsetting in the least.

I think if you're chosen to serve God than loving God is still love.

You're correct that many scholars think some of the letters are not by Paul. The ones that have been questioned are roughly Ephesians, Colossians, 2 Thessalonians, Timothy and Titus. Hebrews is on the list but as far as I'm concerned it doesn't even claim to be from Paul. The other letters should be safe to consider from Paul. (There are, as always, a few people who think all of the letters were forged, just as there are people who think Jesus never existed. You have to draw a line somewhere.) I've never run into the claim about Simon Magnus in any mainstream commentary. This sounds like a fringe view to me.

The problem is that the issues raised by the OP are present in the undisputed letters. The main issue I know of raised in the disputed letters is the role of women. However there is a plausible translation of 2 Tim that makes its view of women's role compatible with Paul's views in the undisputed letters, so even that may not be so critical.

 

[Lukaris]

Our free will is vast & whatever God predestines is that of the outcomes of His saving grace as the Lord Jesus Christ sums up in John:
John 5:28-29

King James Version (KJV)



28Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, 29And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.




It is not for us to tell anyone ultimately whether they have salvation or not but to point them to the Gospel so that person may be saved. As Christians we have to bow to the sovereignty of God & realize that He will save who He chooses:

Romans 9:14-18

King James Version (KJV)



14What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid.
15For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.
16So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.
17For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth. 18Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.

 

[razeontherock]

Welcome to CF, Mr OP.

This thread can already go in several directions, but it seems to me your thrust is if Paul is legit, and where did he get his ideas?

First off I'll say I've seen other threads tackle this, and if it draws moderator attention they can move it where they think it's appropriate. I think it's a VITAL issue to our Faith! That it needs to be discussed is self-evident.

I take it that Paul knew the OT very well. He isn't "anti Torah," but understood Jesus' fulfillment of it; His "finished work on the Cross," as it has come to be said in our times. Every bit of insight the Lord has granted me within Torah, has shown me that Paul invented nothing, but merely broadcast the Lord's intent.

Next up, you have to contend with, how did Paul become an Apostle? He knew what could not have been known, and the other Apostles verified he got this from the Lord, just like they did. I understand the MJ thrust, and see it as a good thing. To say that the Apostles were wrong to accept Paul, goes too far, IMHO. Their acceptance of him happened so early in the development of the Church, as to still be corruption-free.

What you see in Paul is a Torah observant Jew, that largely reached out to Gentiles.

 

[Yada Yah]

Hey Yada! It's me from the other thread
I thought I might try to follow up on your trouble with Paul in here, if that is OK.


Can you give some verses that support this?

That's fine with me Nails74.

Please do see that other thread in which I addressed your request.

 

[GrayAngel]

First, I ask your forgiveness for being new and I'm not sure if this is even the correct folder to ask this question, as I consider myself to be more Messianic than traditionally Christian, but this seems like the safer place to begin.

I have been troubled by enough aspects of Paul's writings and message to question whether these should truly be regarded as divine Scripture or if Paul's letters are Paul's letters. This is especially so when I compare his low regard for Yahweh's Torah compared to the high view expressed by David and the Messiyah.

I was discussing in a thread in Theology and Scripture Paul's view on election and predistination and the lack of a role human desire / free will has in relating to God. It appears to me that God desires love, and the adoption of a human family, but for love to be authentic, it must be freely given and chosen. Forced love, is not love at all.

I'll await word on whether it is appropriate to discuss this topic here or if should continue elsewhere, before continuing.

Respectfully,

-Yada Yah

Yada Yah, where did you get the idea that Paul has a low regard for the Torah?

Paul did not invent Predestination. Evidence of it is all over the Bible: http://www.christianforums.com/t7623233/

NOTE: Predestination does not equal forced love. Without God, there is no love period.

 

[lucaspa]

I have been troubled by enough aspects of Paul's writings and message to question whether these should truly be regarded as divine Scripture or if Paul's letters are Paul's letters. This is especially so when I compare his low regard for Yahweh's Torah compared to the high view expressed by David and the Messiyah.

First, Paul had a high view of Torah. Much of the convolution within Paul's theology comes because he wants his gentile converts to read and appreciate the Torah even tho:
1. The Torah never mentions Jesus or his gospel
2. Paul views the Law within the Torah to be no longer valid as a means to get to salvation.

I was discussing in a thread in Theology and Scripture Paul's view on election and predistination and the lack of a role human desire / free will has in relating to God. It appears to me that God desires love, and the adoption of a human family, but for love to be authentic, it must be freely given and chosen. Forced love, is not love at all.

You do realize that most of Christianity doesn't hold to predestination/election, right? That is confined to Calvinism, and even there it is the most radical and extreme Calvinism. Many Reformed churches don't even mention it any more.

When you read Paul you need to be careful trying to find an overarching theology. Paul is writing his letters in response to very specific problems within specific churches. Also, Paul isn't concerned about an overarching consistent theology. Paul is eschatelogical in that he believes God is going to end the world in his generation. Therefore, Paul is in a tearing hurry to bring as many people to Jesus as possible beause "the end is nigh".

Between those 2 constraints, Paul makes a lot of contradictory (and sometimes silly from our point of view) statements within his letters. Since the Corinthians are facing different problems than the Romans than the Galatians, and they don't communicate, the letters were not contradictory to the recipient congregations. Put together, however they can be confusing. But Paul never thought he was writing scripture.

Paul did have a basic theology: that Jesus' suffering and death provided atonement for everyone's sin thru all of space and time. That theology has become standard within Christianity. I would suggest focussing on that and ignoring predestination/election, the role of women in church, etc.

 

[Yada Yah]

where did you get the idea that Paul has a low regard for the Torah?

I am still assessing this, but he appears to say it is a curse or passe. I'm hoping that you're correct, given the high regard Messiyah gives it.

NOTE: Predestination does not equal forced love.

An unsought / not freely choosen eternal covenant relationship would though and would not equate to authentic love.

Respectfully,

-Yada Yah

 

[GrayAngel]

I am still assessing this, but he appears to say it is a curse or passe. I'm hoping that you're correct, given the high regard Messiyah gives it.

Paul never dismissed the law. In fact, he stressed very heavily that Christians should follow the law. However, the New Covenant changed things for us, as was first made clear in Acts when Peter (of whom Jesus had given the "keys to the kingdom") saw the sheet filled with unclean animals, which Peter was commanded to eat.

The law was never meant to save us. It shows us how much we need grace.

An unsought / not freely choosen eternal covenant relationship would though and would not equate to authentic love.

Respectfully,

-Yada Yah

God doesn't grab us by the arm and force us to love Him. But without God, we're all dead in our transgressions, and all we can do is hate God. Scripture tells us that God transforms our hearts, enabling us to love. Without God's power, it is impossible.

It's not forced at all. But when God calls us, the only natural response to love God. And He accomplishes this by "opening the eyes of our hearts" so that we can understand scripture. He does it by using other people to spread God's message. Never once has God taken someone and forced them to wake up out of bed loving Him. He does it the right way, and His foreknowledge allows Him the resources to save anyone He wants.

 

[Nails74]

That is confined to Calvinism, and even there it is the most radical and extreme Calvinism. Many Reformed churches don't even mention it any more.

Can you please cite a source for this?

When you read Paul you need to be careful trying to find an overarching theology. Paul is writing his letters in response to very specific problems within specific churches. Also, Paul isn't concerned about an overarching consistent theology.

So Paul is an inconsistent theologian?

Therefore, Paul is in a tearing hurry to bring as many people to Jesus as possible beause "the end is nigh".

Do you have a verse to back this up?

Between those 2 constraints, Paul makes a lot of contradictory (and sometimes silly from our point of view) statements within his letters. Since the Corinthians are facing different problems than the Romans than the Galatians, and they don't communicate, the letters were not contradictory to the recipient congregations. Put together, however they can be confusing. But Paul never thought he was writing scripture.

Which of Paul's statements are contradictory?

Paul did have a basic theology: that Jesus' suffering and death provided atonement for everyone's sin thru all of space and time. That theology has become standard within Christianity.

The atonement of Christ was for everyone?

 

[GrayAngel]

Paul's writings were revered and preserved by the church long before they were officially canonized. And there is not a single contradiction in Paul's writings. They are all consistent with the rest of scripture.

BTW, Peter himself acknowledged Paul's writings as scripture:

2 Peter 3:16 - He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.

And if Paul's writings are scripture, then we know that every word is God-breathed and perfect.

2 Peter 3:16-17 - All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

 

[dbcsf]

I have been troubled by enough aspects of Paul's writings and message to question whether these should truly be regarded as divine Scripture or if Paul's letters are Paul's letters. This is especially so when I compare his low regard for Yahweh's Torah compared to the high view expressed by David and the Messiyah.

I was discussing in a thread in Theology and Scripture Paul's view on election and predistination and the lack of a role human desire / free will has in relating to God. It appears to me that God desires love, and the adoption of a human family, but for love to be authentic, it must be freely given and chosen. Forced love, is not love at all.


-Yada Yah

I would go with Hedrick on Pauline authorship. There are seven letters which almost everyone agrees were written by Paul. If you want to support a Pauline position, those are the ones to use.

As far as regarding the letters as scripture, I think most everyone regards them as scripture, regardless of authorship.

In terms of predestination and election, my personal opinion is that we may be reading too much into Paul. I do not believe Paul had a very well developed idea of predestination or election. I think there are rudimentary ideas there which have formed the basis for theological development later on.

I would definitely agree with gray angel, Paul had the utmost respect for Old Testament writings, Torah included.

 

[InSpiritInTruth]

First, I ask your forgiveness for being new and I'm not sure if this is even the correct folder to ask this question, as I consider myself to be more Messianic than traditionally Christian, but this seems like the safer place to begin.

I have been troubled by enough aspects of Paul's writings and message to question whether these should truly be regarded as divine Scripture or if Paul's letters are Paul's letters. This is especially so when I compare his low regard for Yahweh's Torah compared to the high view expressed by David and the Messiyah.

I was discussing in a thread in Theology and Scripture Paul's view on election and predistination and the lack of a role human desire / free will has in relating to God. It appears to me that God desires love, and the adoption of a human family, but for love to be authentic, it must be freely given and chosen. Forced love, is not love at all.

I'll await word on whether it is appropriate to discuss this topic here or if should continue elsewhere, before continuing.

Respectfully,

-Yada Yah

Luke 5:36-39

King James Version (KJV)



36And he spake also a parable unto them; No man putteth a piece of a new garment upon an old; if otherwise, then both the new maketh a rent, and the piece that was taken out of the new agreeth not with the old.
37And no man putteth new wine into old bottles; else the new wine will burst the bottles, and be spilled, and the bottles shall perish.
38But new wine must be put into new bottles; and both are preserved. 39No man also having drunk old wine straightway desireth new: for he saith, The old is better.

Saul/Paul was a sign given of the latter day children of Israel.

Saul was like the old vessel(natural law), and Paul was like the new vessel(spiritual law.)

Saul did not desire the new wine(New Covenant) because he thought the old wine (old covenant) was better.

But when Saul was made a new creature(new vessel) in Christ by way of the revelation of Jesus Christ and the anointing of the Holy Spirit, he was then able to recieve the New Wine being made a new vessel in Paul.

Truly the Lord has saved the best wine for last.

 

[Yada Yah]

First, I do wish to sincerely thank each of you for your thoughtful replies. You’ve truly given me much to consider as I (maybe we) continue to seek a better understanding. My intention at the moment is to respond briefly to some of what was posted and hope to add more as I can.

You do realize that most of Christianity doesn't hold to predestination/election, right? That is confined to Calvinism, and even there it is the most radical and extreme Calvinism. Many Reformed churches don't even mention it any more

[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]I do indeed understand this to be the case ended up replying to Nails74 here, but hope we can restrict that topic to with him to a thread in the theology folder already on the topic of God choosing us (and/) or people choosing God. [/FONT]

Of course this assumes you're willing to accept John as an accurate reflection of Jesus' teachings.

This is a larger topic than I immediately intended, but is a matter I’m also weighing. Where it clearly aligns with the Torah, Prophets and Psalms, I have less reason to question than areas that appear to contradict the Tanakh.

Paul didn't show a low regard for Torah. First, his clearest statements on the Law were about the Law as a marker, i.e. things like circumcision that weren't moral but rather marked off the Jewish people. Jesus also tended not to value the Law as a marker of who is out. See e.g. Mark 7:19, and his acceptance of "sinners" -- who in context were typically people who couldn't keep the specific laws valued by the Pharisees.

But is this accurate? Yahweh calls His adopted human family Yahuwdim meaning related to Yah (not Jews, there was no “J” in biblical Hebrew, Aramaic or Greek, nor even English until the 1600s). Yisara’el means struggles/ endures with even empowered by God. Is this not who and what we seek to become and be engrafted into?


I agree that circumcision is a sign of Yah’s covenant, but like mechanically following any of the Torwah prescriptions, is useless without also carefully examining and observing Yah’s words and understanding how these reveal the Torwah’s author. The Pharisees error was to replace Yah’s written Torwah with Rabbinical traditions, Talmud and Mishna precepts effectively burying and prohibiting understanding God’s instructions with ones they created and preferred.


I suspect it was Messiyah’s boldness in opening challenging and condemning the Jewish religious leaders misapplication of the Torwah, His not then completing the fulfillment of the Torwah with the ushering in of the Messianic global reign, and possibly His willingness to use Yahweh’s name that enraged Messiyah’s Jewish opponents to the point of execution.

“Peter affirmed Paul's writings as scripture.”

I’m less certain if this is true, but will address soon.

I take it that Paul knew the OT very well.

If that is correct, then Paul would accurately quote the Tanakh, and pass the Towrah’s test of a prophet of Yah, both aspects, I’m currently examining and hope to discuss in time.

The law was never meant to save us. It shows us how much we need grace.”

David’s Psalms indicate, though not by mechanically performing them, but by carefully examining and understanding them and who they reveal the author to be. That is also why the Towrah explains what Messiyah was fulfilling on Passover, Unleavened Bread, and FirstFruits on 33CE and ultimately His yet future fulfillments of Kippurim – Reconciliations and Sukot –Tenting out with God.

God doesn't grab us by the arm and force us to love Him. But without God, we're all dead in our transgressions

True He does not. Our souls are mortal and dying absent being born anew from above in Yah’s Qodesh Ruwach - set-apart and cleaning Spirit.


Respectfully,


-Yada Yah

 

[razeontherock]

Where it clearly aligns with the Torah, Prophets and Psalms, I have less reason to question than areas that appear to contradict the Tanakh.

I agree that circumcision is a sign of Yah’s covenant, but like mechanically following any of the Torwah prescriptions, is useless without also carefully examining and observing Yah’s words and understanding how these reveal the Torwah’s author.

Notice how I have put these two snippets you wrote side to side? In the second one, you are talking about the outward signs of Moses speaking of deeper things. This is what you want to look for as you examine your first statement here. How did Jesus fulfill the law? How is it fulfilled in us?

Not with outward signs, but via the hidden man of the heart ...

That is how you will reconcile the two, and see no contradiction but "one new man."

Shalom

 

[lucaspa]

Can you please cite a source for this?

Predestination - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Calvinism: A Christian belief system about salvation

I attended a Presbyterian Church USA in Macon GA for 7 years and predestination was never preached. In adult Sunday School we discussed it as part of Calvin's original theology but the consensus was dismissal.

Nails74, the rules for this forum state that we are not supposed to be discussing theology among. If you want to discuss Paul and disagree with what I said, you need to start a thread, or point us to an existing thread, in General Theology.