The Authenticity of Paul and his Epistles.

[ThatWhichIsnt]

I have been seeing a growing theme on this site about a good number of people doubting the apostleship and authority of Paul and his writings. What is the basis of this?

Personally, I see people who personally do not like his theology so they discredit him.

So come get it out of your system. Tell me your reasoning and use Scripture to back up your claims.

 

[Yarddog]

Maybe you should ask them why there are no scriptures where the Apostles refute Paul's teaching, by directly stating it, since he was teaching and living amongst them before they wrote many of their works.

Where are the writings condemning Paul?

 

[Harry3142]

I have been seeing a growing theme on this site about a good number of people doubting the apostleship and authority of Paul and his writings. What is the basis of this?

Personally, I see people who personally do not like his theology so they discredit him.

So come get it out of your system. Tell me your reasoning and use Scripture to back up your claims.

It has been my experience in both the 'real world' and online that whenever I have encountered those who either wanted to severely curtail the epistles of Paul or ban them from the Holy Bible altogether, they have either had a personal agenda that needed to have Paul's epistles set aside in order for it to be seen as legitimate, or they have been members of one of the radical denominations or sects whose harangues are condemning everyone to hell except for those who blindly and without question follow the dictates of their particular heirarchy.

 

[Gnarwhal]

It has been my experience in both the 'real world' and online that whenever I have encountered those who either wanted to severely curtail the epistles of Paul or ban them from the Holy Bible altogether, they have either had a personal agenda that needed to have Paul's epistles set aside in order for it to be seen as legitimate, or they have been members of one of the radical denominations or sects whose harangues are condemning everyone to hell except for those who blindly and without question follow the dictates of their particular heirarchy.

A very astute observation, I believe I've seen that many places as well.

 

[Nekoda]

I have been seeing a growing theme on this site about a good number of people doubting the apostleship and authority of Paul and his writings. What is the basis of this?

Usually the doubt stems from an honest look at Paul's writings themselves. There are, for instance, numerous places where Paul either misquotes the Hebrew Scriptures, or cherry picks them from all over the place and presents it as a unity. A good example of such stringing together verses is found in Romans 3:10-18, where Paul presents it as a unity "as it is written" - when really he is drawing quotes from numerous sources.

Another basis on which people doubt Paul is that Jesus, at least in His time on earth, never indicated that such an important person would later come on the scene and deliver his message. It's logical to wonder why He would have given his great commission to the disciples, only to have the biggest and most important part of it fall to Paul of Tarsus, formerly Saul - who spent his early biblical career butchering Christians, making them blaspheme etc.

A few other little things:

Most Christians think that the whole of the NT is "God breathed" (2 Tim 3:16) and yet:

Paul isn't sure in giving his advice on a certain matter whether or not he even has the Spirit of God: 1 Cor 7:40

Paul writes prolifically about his sufferings, and how he has suffered more than anyone else. Upon reading 2Cor 11 I find it hard to stomach that such boasting is from the Spirit of God - the greatest apostle can't seem to stop telling everyone how great of a servant he is for Christ - better than all the rest.

Personally, I see people who personally do not like his theology so they discredit him.

I think what you are doing is trying to label or categorize different people's reasons for doubting Paul by assuming ill motive.

Anyone checking Paul's OT quotes has reason to doubt him.

So come get it out of your system. Tell me your reasoning and use Scripture to back up your claims.

I gave a little. But that will be it. I think there is a Paul thread in Unorthodox Theology - you will probably find more there.

 

[Frogster]

The biggest problem that the anti Paul people have is Luke. This is an old post of mine, a rebutt that was on another thread, to an anti Paul person, who was was shown by me that luke supports Paul. So does Peter.




Read this, and tell me if Luke does not witness Paul. Luke records Peter and James saying not to burden the church with the yoke of law in Acts 15, same as how Paul referred to the law and it being a yoke. Peter also called Paul scripture in 2 Peter 3:16.

So when Luke says the Holy Spirit in Acts 13, sent out Paul, along with the prophets sending him, that does not WITNESS Paul?

When Luke says Paul was a chosen instrument, as spoken by the Lord in acts 9:15, that does not WITNESS Paul?

Does Luke record Ananias a disciple witness not WITNESS Paul in Acts 9?
A Jewish prophet named Silas, started churches with Paul. There is a good WITNESS.

When the demons in acts 19, recognized the same Spirit in Paul, as Jesus, that does not WITNESS Paul?

When the very respected Barnabas, the man of faith in Acts 4 and 11, went to get Paul, that does not WITNESS Paul?

When Luke records Jesus in acts 18, 22, 23, telling Paul to keep going, without any correction TO HIS MESSAGE, that does not WITNESS Paul?

When an angel in acts 27 supports Paul, that does not WITNESS Paul?

When Torah knowing Aquila and Priscilla travel with Paul, that does not WITNESS Paul?

When the council in acts 15 agreed with Paul, and his gospel, as per recorded in Galatians 2, that does not WITNESS Paul? They also called him “our beloved brother Paul”, who risked his life for the Lord.

When Torah knowing Timothy travels with Paul, along with Luke himself, that does not WITNESS Paul?

Do the miracles recorded by Luke, Acts 19:11 etc, saying GOD did miracles through Paul, WITNESS Paul?
The churches of Judea, praised God, because of Paul, Galatians 1:24, and they weren’t even Gentiles.

 

[Lysimachus]

Problem is Frogster, most of the anti-Pauline people I know lump Luke with Paul.

The following they deny as part of scripture usually:

1. Paul's writings
2. Mark
3. Luke
4. 2nd Peter

So they're "covered", you see.

 

[SolomonVII]

Usually the doubt stems from an honest look at Paul's writings themselves. There are, for instance, numerous places where Paul either misquotes the Hebrew Scriptures, or cherry picks them from all over the place and presents it as a unity. A good example of such stringing together verses is found in Romans 3:10-18, where Paul presents it as a unity "as it is written" - when really he is drawing quotes from numerous sources.

Psalms 14
All have gone astray;
all alike are perverse.
Not one does what is good,
not even one.


Eccl
20d yet there is no one on earth so just as to do good and never sin.


Ps53
2The fool says in his heart,a
“There is no God.”b
They act corruptly and practice injustice;
there is none that does good.
3God looks out from the heavens
upon the children of Adam,c
To see if there is a discerning persond
who is seeking God.
4All have gone astray;
each one is altogether perverse.
There is not one who does what is good, not even one.e

Yup.
Multiple biblical sources for that one.
The scoundrel.

 

[LaSpino3]

Nekoda, I am going to respond to only one of your comments.

You wrote, "Usually the doubt stems from an honest look at Paul's writings themselves. There are, for instance, numerous places where Paul either misquotes the Hebrew Scriptures, or cherry picks them from all over the place and presents it as a unity."

Phil replies, "Honest look," so are you saying that people that believe in Paul's writings are dishonest? I don't believe that's what you meant, but it sure sounds like it.

Variations are immaterial, consisting occasionally of added words,

1. At times used to render the sense more explicit to the Gentiles.

Paul was the apostle to the Gentles. Rom.11:13.

2. Of omissions of words, where the insertion of them was not necessary to prove the point for which they were adduced.

3. Of synonymous changes, substituting other words of the same importance for the exact words of the Septuagint, which might easily be done, citing, as the Apostles sometimes did, from memory.

4. Of transpositions of words.

5. Of changes of proper names into appellatives;

6. Of occasional alterations in the divisions of sentences. But in all these sentences the sense in invaluably given.

I hope this helps you to understand that Paul did not maliciously misquotes the Hebrew Scriptures, or cherry picks them from all over the place and presents it as a unity.

Phil LaSpino

 

[God's Word]

Paul writes prolifically about his sufferings, and how he has suffered more than anyone else. Upon reading 2Cor 11 I find it hard to stomach that such boasting is from the Spirit of God - the greatest apostle can't seem to stop telling everyone how great of a servant he is for Christ - better than all the rest.

Are you serious?

Paul said:

II Corinthians 11:17

"That which I speak, I speak it not after the Lord, but as it were foolishly, in this confidence of boasting."

Paul was actually rebuking the Corinthians because they allowed themselves to be brought into bondage by boasting, false apostles. As such, Paul behaved himself foolishly, in this confidence of boasting, just to show that he wasn't a whit behind anyone else.

Sheesh...

 

[God's Word]

Paul isn't sure in giving his advice on a certain matter whether or not he even has the Spirit of God: 1 Cor 7:40

What?!?

I Corinthians 7:40

"But she is happier if she so abide, after my judgment: and I think also that I have the Spirit of God."

This was Paul's closing comment in regard to his judgment concerning virgins. Paul began his judgment by stating:

I Corinthians 7:25

"Now concerning virgins I have no commandment of the Lord: yet I give my judgment, as one that hath obtained mercy of the Lord to be faithful."

Paul hadn't received any specific commandment from the Lord in this regard, so he gave his Spirit of God inspired judgment. Far from saying that "he wasn't sure whether or not he had the Spirit of God", he gave what he believed was from the Spirit of God.

 

[Frogster]

Problem is Frogster, most of the anti-Pauline people I know lump Luke with Paul.

The following they deny as part of scripture usually:

1. Paul's writings
2. Mark
3. Luke
4. 2nd Peter

So they're "covered", you see.

well...then at least most would see through it all, as Paul said...


2 Tim 3:9 But they will not get very far, for their folly will be plain to all, as was that of those two men.

 

[Frogster]

Usually the doubt stems from an honest look at Paul's writings themselves. There are, for instance, numerous places where Paul either misquotes the Hebrew Scriptures, or cherry picks them from all over the place and presents it as a unity. A good example of such stringing together verses is found in Romans 3:10-18, where Paul presents it as a unity "as it is written" - when really he is drawing quotes from numerous sources.

Another basis on which people doubt Paul is that Jesus, at least in His time on earth, never indicated that such an important person would later come on the scene and deliver his message. It's logical to wonder why He would have given his great commission to the disciples, only to have the biggest and most important part of it fall to Paul of Tarsus, formerly Saul - who spent his early biblical career butchering Christians, making them blaspheme etc.

A few other little things:

Most Christians think that the whole of the NT is "God breathed" (2 Tim 3:16) and yet:

Paul isn't sure in giving his advice on a certain matter whether or not he even has the Spirit of God: 1 Cor 7:40

Paul writes prolifically about his sufferings, and how he has suffered more than anyone else. Upon reading 2Cor 11 I find it hard to stomach that such boasting is from the Spirit of God - the greatest apostle can't seem to stop telling everyone how great of a servant he is for Christ - better than all the rest.



I think what you are doing is trying to label or categorize different people's reasons for doubting Paul by assuming ill motive.

Anyone checking Paul's OT quotes has reason to doubt him.



I gave a little. But that will be it. I think there is a Paul thread in Unorthodox Theology - you will probably find more there.

Your 1 Cor 7:40 citation is weak, and as far as Paul speaking for Christ, you may want to learn what an ambassador is, and how one functions as such.


2 cor 5:20 Therefore, we are ambassadors for Christ, God making his appeal through us. We implore you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God.

Also, you may want to know what spirit is behind the anti Paul doctrine, it is the same one that tried to kill Paul over and over again, because his letters are still leading thousands to Christ, 20 centuries later.


The false apostles, the messengers of satan tried to convince his church that Paul was not speaking for Christ also...one would want to see where this doctrine comes from.

 

[Nekoda]

Yup.
Multiple biblical sources for that one.
The scoundrel.

See, this is part of the problem. If you or I were to draw Scriptures out of context to make a theology - we'd be called on it. Anyone reading Romans 3 knows what Paul is teaching - which is - that aside from Christ - all are sinners - all astray - and none seek God.

This presents certain problems with the Gospels and even the words of Christ - because this teaching call's Christ's own words a lie.

Matt 13:17 For truly I tell you, many prophets and righteous people longed to see what you see but did not see it, and to hear what you hear but did not hear it.

Whoa!! Did Jesus get it wrong?? Clearly He was calling some people righteous - and not only that - they were people that came before Him! But Paul says there aren't any.

And again:

Matt 23:35
And so upon you will come all the righteous blood that has been shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah son of Berekiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar.

What the heck is Jesus talking about? Paul says none are righteous...but Jesus refers to a multitude. This Jesus cat - maybe he should've listened to Paul eh?

Luke 1:5-6

In the time of Herod king of Judea there was a priest named Zechariah, who belonged to the priestly division of Abijah; his wife Elizabeth was also a descendant of Aaron. 6Both of them were righteous in the sight of God, observing all the Lord’s commands and decrees blamelessly

Guess the above is untrue as well, since according to Paul, they couldn't have been.

Shall I go on?

 

[Frogster]

See, this is part of the problem. If you or I were to draw Scriptures out of context to make a theology - we'd be called on it. Anyone reading Romans 3 knows what Paul is teaching - which is - that aside from Christ - all are sinners - all astray - and none seek God.

This presents certain problems with the Gospels and even the words of Christ - because this teaching call's Christ's own words a lie.

Matt 13:17 For truly I tell you, many prophets and righteous people longed to see what you see but did not see it, and to hear what you hear but did not hear it.

Whoa!! Did Jesus get it wrong?? Clearly He was calling some people righteous - and not only that - they were people that came before Him! But Paul says there aren't any.

And again:

Matt 23:35
And so upon you will come all the righteous blood that has been shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah son of Berekiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar.

What the heck is Jesus talking about? Paul says none are righteous...but Jesus refers to a multitude. This Jesus cat - maybe he should've listened to Paul eh?

Luke 1:5-6

In the time of Herod king of Judea there was a priest named Zechariah, who belonged to the priestly division of Abijah; his wife Elizabeth was also a descendant of Aaron. 6Both of them were righteous in the sight of God, observing all the Lord’s commands and decrees blamelessly

Guess the above is untrue as well, since according to Paul, they couldn't have been.

Shall I go on?

Not really, because there can be a relative righteousness. I have a good neighbor, who is better than my other neighbor, but both are dead in sin, both are still in Adam.

If they were righteouss, in it's truest sense, then you're saying the above mentioned did not need a savior. Yes?

 

[Nekoda]

Nekoda, I am going to respond to only one of your comments.

You wrote, "Usually the doubt stems from an honest look at Paul's writings themselves. There are, for instance, numerous places where Paul either misquotes the Hebrew Scriptures, or cherry picks them from all over the place and presents it as a unity."

Phil replies, "Honest look," so are you saying that people that believe in Paul's writings are dishonest? I don't believe that's what you meant, but it sure sounds like it.

I don't assume someone who believes everything Paul writes or quotes from the OT is dishonest - mostly what I assume is that most bible readers trust him to be quoting it accurately and a great deal of them aren't even aware of enough of the OT to see not only when he doesn't quote them accurately, but when he gets the entire story wrong as well!

A perfect example is Paul's talking about gifts:

Eph 4: 7 But to each one of us grace has been given as Christ apportioned it. 8 This is why it[a] says:“When he ascended on high,
he took many captives
and gave gifts to his people.”


Big error on this. Paul basis the next vital verses (9-13), which deal with "gifts" - pastors, evangelists, teachers, apostles, prophets on the above verse.



Problem 1: It doesn't say that. Psalms 68:18 is the complete opposite - in it God, not man, is the receiver of the gifts.



Small boo boo? It can't be. Because if people were familiar with what Psalms 68 :18 is referring to, namely:



Exodus 25:1-8 - God receives gifts from men to have the tabernacle built - not the other way around.



Someone who is reading Psalms 68:17-18 and knows the Exodus story knows it's referring to the Exodus (the captives)being led to Sinai (vrs 17), where among other things, such as the law being given - the people are asked to present gifts for the building of the tabernacle!


But Paul twists it all around and is counting on the Gentile reader not to look too closely. And why should he? Gentiles back then, and even largely today - weren't and aren't too concerned with the OT in detail. So, like then, they read Paul's quoting and call it Scripture, even when Paul's words completely twist it.

 

[Frogster]

Interesting, this is the exact same thing another poster was saying, almost verbatim a few months ago. Small world.

 

[Frogster]

I don't assume someone who believes everything Paul writes or quotes from the OT is dishonest - mostly what I assume is that most bible readers trust him to be quoting it accurately and a great deal of them aren't even aware of enough of the OT to see not only when he doesn't quote them accurately, but when he gets the entire story wrong as well!

A perfect example is Paul's talking about gifts:

Eph 4: 7 But to each one of us grace has been given as Christ apportioned it. 8 This is why it[a] says:“When he ascended on high,
he took many captives
and gave gifts to his people.”


Big error on this. Paul basis the next vital verses (9-13), which deal with "gifts" - pastors, evangelists, teachers, apostles, prophets on the above verse.



Problem 1: It doesn't say that. Psalms 68:18 is the complete opposite - in it God, not man, is the receiver of the gifts.



Small boo boo? It can't be. Because if people were familiar with what Psalms 68 :18 is referring to, namely:



Exodus 25:1-8 - God receives gifts from men to have the tabernacle built - not the other way around.



Someone who is reading Psalms 68:17-18 and knows the Exodus story knows it's referring to the Exodus (the captives)being led to Sinai (vrs 17), where among other things, such as the law being given - the people are asked to present gifts for the building of the tabernacle!


But Paul twists it all around and is counting on the Gentile reader not to look too closely. And why should he? Gentiles back then, and even largely today - weren't and aren't too concerned with the OT in detail. So, like then, they read Paul's quoting and call it Scripture, even when Paul's words completely twist it.

Jews often looked for the allegorical meaning in the text also, so the boo boo is on u. With all due respect.

William Barclay, one of the most repsected and often quoted scholars ever, said there were many levels of interp of the text, in Judaism.

 

[Harry3142]

As I have said before, there are certain people and sects who strive to get Paul's epistles set aside because their own agendas conflict with them. But if they think that they wil convince us to throw out over half of the New Testament in order to favor their objectives, they need to think again.

 

[ananda]

I have been seeing a growing theme on this site about a good number of people doubting the apostleship and authority of Paul and his writings. What is the basis of this? Personally, I see people who personally do not like his theology so they discredit him.So come get it out of your system. Tell me your reasoning and use Scripture to back up your claims.

I've wrote on this issue under many threads, so I'll just list one here:

A failed/false prophecy is attributed to Paul; compare: "And [Paul] said ... Sirs, I perceive that this voyage will be with hurt and much damage, not only of the lading and ship, but also of our lives." Acts 27:10. And the result? ".. so it came to pass, that they escaped all safe to land." Acts 27:44

Be careful! If one claims that Paul is not speaking under inspiration in Acts 27:10, then there is nothing to stop me from claiming that Paul is not speaking under inspiration in the rest of his epistles.

"When a prophet speaketh in the name of YHWH, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which YHWH hath not spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him." Deu 18:22