How should we read Paul?

[rakovsky]

The Judaizers caused the conflict by stating one cannot be saved unless they were circumcised. So much for the ladies.

Is circumcision required for salvation?

No. Physical evidence is nothing to do with spiritual requirements.

Glad we could clear that up.

So do you still see Paul as a false teacher?

Redleg, Yes, I don't see what his concept is about paul and what kind of teaching he is proposing instead.

I can tell that you rightly want to cut to the chase instead of being led into the deeper mysteries of anti-Paulism.

The usual reason people go against Paul is because they imagine that he taught a "gentile" version of Christianity. They propose that the "original" version was about following Torah and that Jesus didn't think he was God.

Of course, were that true, why would the Torah-keeping Sadducees want to kill Jesus?

It's like another case of people fitting "original" christianity into their own naturalistic/materialistic/non-supernatural modernist preconceptions.

 

[rakovsky]

No doubt Paul's letters are earlier compared to other letters and the gospel books. That makes us think that the latter writings were clarifying some of the claims Paul was spreading in the Gentile world. Ex: Paul's 'faith alone' was rebutted by James 'faith without works is dead'. The disputed concept 'Once saved is always saved' is not supported by Hebrews. Warning of claim of additional apostleship by Paul was disregarded by John in Revelation. No wonder Martin Luther wanted these books removed from the canon!

What are you talking about Paul's warning and Revelations?

If the latter books were clarifying Paul's claims, then it sounds like the gospels were clarifying the truths that Paul brought to the gentile world.

Personally I find the relationship of jesus to the TOrah is rather ambivalent. He says "YOU HAVE HEARD AN EYE FOR AN EYE", not "God says an eye for an eye". And then Jesus added "BUT I tell you", and then gave them the opposite instruction about forgiveness. He directly counterposed his own teaching with Torah punishment. To simply say that Jesus ordered people to follow Torah is misleading.

We read about Paul sacrificing an animal with Timothy in the Temple, but we don't read about Jesus following Torah sacrifice rituals.

I am not saying Jesus was necessarily disobedient, but let's not portray him as just a good "Torah-keeping" rabbi.

 

[St_Worm2]

Peter calls him only beloved brother.*

Hi Rt, "ONLY beloved brother"

I'm sure you know who/what St. Paul was before he became a Christian and how he persecuted the church. The fact that St. Peter would refer to him as "brother" speaks volumes, but qualifying that with "beloved" tells us just how much he thought of this man and of his ministry. If memory serves, this was St. Peter's only use of the term "BELOVED brother" when speaking of a specific individual in the Bible (and he never referred to anyone directly as, "Apostle").

St. Peter (who was himself rebuked by St. Paul in Galatia .. Galatians 2:11) teaches us that St. Paul is who he claims he is, and that his epistles can be trusted to be what they are touted to be, the word of God. No one who wrote what St. Paul did (i.e. - he referred to himself as an Apostle) or how he did (i.e. - with such authority), would have ever been called a "brother" by St. Peter, much less "beloved", if it wasn't true St. Peter and St. John (as well many others in Acts), certainly had multiple opportunities to let us know about St. Paul. The good news is, they did (and we read nothing from any of them that would cause us to call his character into question, or that he wasn't who he claimed to be).

And we have the testimony of both the Holy Spirit who sent him (i.e. Acts of the Apostles 13:2) and the Lord Jesus who converted him and called him into His service to begin with (Acts of the Apostles 9:1-31).

The Lord said to Ananias, “Go, for he [Paul] is a chosen instrument of Mine, to bear My name before the Gentiles and kings and the sons of Israel.” ~Acts 9:15
​

The word scripture in the NT refers to only the OT verses.

That's not true, as has already been mentioned in this thread, St. Peter called St. Paul's epistles (which are certainly part of the NT), "Scripture" (2 Peter 3:15-16). St. Paul also referred to St. Luke's Gospel as such.

Yours and His,
David
p.s. - there's also the testimony of the Early Church Fathers to consider (Clement, Ignatius, and Polycarp all writing what they did in the late 1st to mid 2nd centuries) concerning St. Paul and his Epistles.

*Re-posted from earlier in this thread. Minor additions/improvements made.

 

[Righttruth]

Correct. However, Paul had perhaps better opportunities and greater advantages than the other Apostles: Galatians 1:11-12; Galatians 1:17-18; 2 Corinthians 12:2-4

Of course, in learning Paul had advantage. It was easy to convince Gentiles, who had no knowledge of one true God, with his compromise formulas.

Correct. The church has been doing this according to the noble Berean spirit for the past two millenia. Acts of the Apostles 17:10-12. The church has answered many a friend or foe on this very issue to see for ourselves whether these things were so.

All religions tend to deviate from the teaching of the founder with the passage of time. Christianity is not an exception.

Not merely the Gospels (plural), but also the entire OT canon (since Paul quoted extensively from there), and the Epistles written by other Apostles, and compare Paul's own Epistles for consistency among themselves, too.
But, as I already mentioned, this has been going on for two millenia. You are not proposing anything new. Consequently, there are many helps available to aid you in this noble 'Berean' task.

Certainly not. As I have mentioned earlier to quote one example from that James opposes Paul.

 

[Righttruth]

Hi Rt, if the later Epistles and Gospels "clarified" some of the claims St. Paul made in his Epistles, why were they not quoted, or St. Paul "singled out"? St. Peter called St. Paul, "our beloved brother", and his Epistles, "Scripture", but outside of that high praise for the man and for what he wrote/taught, I don't remember any big issues being raised among the other Apostles with him (or with what he wrote and taught). Do you (if so, please tell us where we can find it)

Peter has called Paul a beloved brother, not an apostle. None of the apostles including the chosen vessel never considered their letters as scripture. It is only later thought of forming a canon.

Also, please tell us where St. John "disregarded" St. Paul in Revelation.

Paul and Luke count more than 12 apostles. There are only 12 foundations for 12 apostles. Where can Paul sit to judge the 12 tribes unless he is prepared to sit on the lap of Peter?

Revelation 2
2 'I know your deeds and your toil and perseverance, and that you cannot tolerate evil men, and you put to the test those who call themselves apostles, and they are not, and you found them to be false;

Revelation 21
14 And the wall of the city had twelve foundation stones, and on them were the twelve names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.

As for a discussion of what St. Paul and St. James meant by "faith", and how what they meant differed, such a thing should be tabled for another thread (you are certainly welcome to start one if you'd like to ), or this thread's intended discussion would never recover

Yet, we may churn out something relevant to the OP.

Finally, Martin Luther questioned a number of the books in the Canon, but the fact is, in the end, his Bible containes every book we have in our Bibles today, including the DC's (in his appendix).

Which canon you are referring to? Catholic, Protestant, Oriental, etc.?

​

 

[Righttruth]

What do you believe make up the qualifications "to be considered an apostle"? (or please point me to the post # if you mentioned this earlier in your thread)

Thanks!

--David

Acts 1:21 "Therefore it is necessary that of the men who have accompanied us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us--
22 beginning with the baptism of John until the day that He was taken up from us--one of these must become a witness with us of His resurrection."
23 So they put forward two men, Joseph called Barsabbas (who was also called Justus), and Matthias.
24 And they prayed and said, "You, Lord, who know the hearts of all men, show which one of these two You have chosen
25 to occupy this ministry and apostleship from which Judas turned aside to go to his own place."
26 And they drew lots for them, and the lot fell to Matthias; and he was added to the eleven apostles.

 

[Righttruth]

If there is a contradiction between Acts 9 and Acts 22, point it out instead of just claiming it's there. Here, I'll even help you out:

Acts 9:
But Saul, still breathing threats and murder against the disciples of the Lord, went to the high priest 2 and asked him for letters to the synagogues at Damascus, so that if he found any belonging to the Way, men or women, he might bring them bound to Jerusalem. 3 Now as he went on his way, he approached Damascus, and suddenly a light from heaven shone around him. 4 And falling to the ground he heard a voice saying to him, “Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me?” 5 And he said, “Who are you, Lord?” And he said, “I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting. 6 But rise and enter the city, and you will be told what you are to do.” 7 The men who were traveling with him stood speechless, hearing the voice but seeing no one. 8 Saul rose from the ground, and although his eyes were opened, he saw nothing. So they led him by the hand and brought him into Damascus. 9 And for three days he was without sight, and neither ate nor drank.

Acts 22:
As I was on my way and drew near to Damascus, about noon a great light from heaven suddenly shone around me. 7 And I fell to the ground and heard a voice saying to me, ‘Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me?’ 8 And I answered, ‘Who are you, Lord?’ And he said to me, ‘I am Jesus of Nazareth, whom you are persecuting.’ 9 Now those who were with me saw the light but did not understand[c] the voice of the one who was speaking to me. 10 And I said, ‘What shall I do, Lord?’ And the Lord said to me, ‘Rise, and go into Damascus, and there you will be told all that is appointed for you to do.’ 11 And since I could not see because of the brightness of that light, I was led by the hand by those who were with me, and came into Damascus.

Now where is the contradiction that you would like to point out?

I rely on KJV:

Acts 9:7 And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man.

Acts 22:9 And they that were with me saw indeed the light, and were afraid; but they heard not the voice of him that spake to me.

 

[Righttruth]

Please post up the contradiction for all to examine.

Thank you.

Please see my reply no. 127

 

[Righttruth]

Muslims like to use this one by claiming a contradiction between the people attending Saul "hearing the voice" and "did not understand". The argument is that if they heard the voice how could they not understand it.

Please see my reply no. 127

 

[Righttruth]

The Judaizers caused the conflict by stating one cannot be saved unless they were circumcised. So much for the ladies.

Is circumcision required for salvation?

No. Physical evidence is nothing to do with spiritual requirements.[/QUOTE]

Glad we could clear that up.

So do you still see Paul as a false teacher?[/QUOTE]

In his enthusiasm to gather more flock, he came up with all pleasing concepts with immature believers which cannot be accepted now in general as of relevance.

 

[Righttruth]

This is simply false. Paul's epistles are used a lot due to most of the NT are his writings.

You use 'crafty ' and 'manipulate ', does this mean you see Paul as a false teacher?

Without considering the context and preaching of Jesus, Paul's letters become irrelevant now.

 

[Righttruth]

Because Jesus Christ commissioned Paul.

Not as an apostle. The Great Commission included baptism. He stopped doing that on his own!

 

[Righttruth]

What are you talking about Paul's warning and Revelations?

It is not Paul's; it is of John in Revelation. Sorry for not making it clear.

If the latter books were clarifying Paul's claims, then it sounds like the gospels were clarifying the truths that Paul brought to the gentile world.

Gospel doesn't call Paul an apostle!

Personally I find the relationship of jesus to the TOrah is rather ambivalent. He says "YOU HAVE HEARD AN EYE FOR AN EYE", not "God says an eye for an eye". And then Jesus added "BUT I tell you", and then gave them the opposite instruction about forgiveness. He directly counterposed his own teaching with Torah punishment. To simply say that Jesus ordered people to follow Torah is misleading.

We read about Paul sacrificing an animal with Timothy in the Temple, but we don't read about Jesus following Torah sacrifice rituals.

I am not saying Jesus was necessarily disobedient, but let's not portray him as just a good "Torah-keeping" rabbi.

He made clear that keeping the spirit of Law is more important and difficult than keeping the letter of it!

 

[Righttruth]

Hi Rt, "ONLY beloved brother"

I'm sure you know who/what St. Paul was before he became a Christian and how he persecuted the church. The fact that St. Peter would refer to him as "brother" speaks volumes, but qualifying that with "beloved" tells us just how much he thought of this man and of his ministry. If memory serves, this was St. Peter's only use of the term "BELOVED brother" when speaking of a specific individual in the Bible (and he never referred to anyone directly as, "Apostle").

Did Peter address another chosen apostle as an apostle or simply by name? I don't think we have a verse for that to refer.

St. Peter (who was himself rebuked by St. Paul in Galatia .. Galatians 2:11) teaches us that St. Paul is who he claims he is, and that his epistles can be trusted to be what they are touted to be, the word of God. No one who wrote what St. Paul did (i.e. - he referred to himself as an Apostle) or how he did (i.e. - with such authority), would have ever been called a "brother" by St. Peter, much less "beloved", if it wasn't true St. Peter and St. John (as well many others in Acts), certainly had multiple opportunities to let us know about St. Paul. The good news is, they did (and we read nothing from any of them that would cause us to call his character into question, or that he wasn't who he claimed to be).

Jesus spoke profound truth through parables. Apostles had similar approach. No direct attacks as Paul did to Peter without knowing the Gospel of mercy!

And we have the testimony of both the Holy Spirit who sent him (i.e. Acts of the Apostles 13:2) and the Lord Jesus who converted him and called him into His service to begin with (Acts of the Apostles 9:1-31).

The Lord said to Ananias, “Go, for he [Paul] is a chosen instrument of Mine, to bear My name before the Gentiles and kings and the sons of Israel.” ~Acts 9:15​

Yes, as a chosen instument, not as an apostle!​

That's not true, as has already been mentioned in this thread, St. Peter called St. Paul's epistles (which are certainly part of the NT), "Scripture" (2 Peter 3:15-16). St. Paul also referred to St. Luke's Gospel as such.

Man's logic will not qualify something as scripture. Has Paul referred to Luke's gospel anywhere?

p.s. - there's also the testimony of the Early Church Fathers to consider (Clement, Ignatius, and Polycarp all writing what they did in the late 1st to mid 2nd centuries) concerning St. Paul and his Epistles.

As writings OK.

 

[nomadictheist]

I rely on KJV:

Acts 9:7 And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man.

Acts 22:9 And they that were with me saw indeed the light, and were afraid; but they heard not the voice of him that spake to me.

So you're saying you rely on your own interpretation of the verses for the contradiction.

But then, Jesus must have contradicted Himself, as He said...

"So that seeing they may not see, and hearing they may not hear..."

Your confusion comes from the fact that the same Greek word can mean "hear" and "understand" or "perceive the meaning of..." (See 1 Corinthians 14:2, for example). This is best translated by context, which is why some versions translate the verse in Acts 22 to say "Understand" to help readers who are confused about this meaning. Based on the context and what we already know, it's easy to see that it means "understand" in Acts 22. So they heard, but they didn't understand. Hmm... Kind of sounds like something Jesus said...

 

[nomadictheist]

Did Peter address another chosen apostle as an apostle or simply by name? I don't think we have a verse for that to refer.

Argument from silence is no argument at all.

Jesus spoke profound truth through parables. Apostles had similar approach. No direct attacks as Paul did to Peter without knowing the Gospel of mercy!

No, the apostles did not speak in parables. Jesus spoke profound truth in parables for a purpose - one which He reveals to His disciples (and through His word to us also).

His purpose in speaking parables was so that the Jews would not understand what He was saying to them. This was no longer necessary after they had rejected and killed their Messiah.

Also, correcting someone who is in sin is not an "attack." You mischaracterize Paul's correction of Peter.

Yes, as a chosen instument, not as an apostle!​

So it is your claim that a "chosen instrument" of Jesus is a liar, false prophet, and took upon himself the office of apostle?

Man's logic will not qualify something as scripture. Has Paul referred to Luke's gospel anywhere?

So the testimony of an apostle is not sufficient for you? Who's attacking Peter now? According to you, by equating Paul's epistles to scripture Peter was promoting a false prophet in the church.

As writings OK.

We don't pick and choose what to believe in the Bible. If we did, it wouldn't be God's word.

 

[MoonofIsaiah]

How can a person who doesn't even qualify to be considered an apostle, claim such a status and write letters that form the appendices of the NT? Can a tail wag the dog?

Matthew 10:2-4.

 

[expos4ever]

Furthermore, any important theological concept cannot be based on Paul's epistles alone. Gospel is the filter one has to apply to his letters.

I don't follow your reasoning. I suggest that Paul's writing adds an important theological dimension to the material in the gospels. To be more specific: Paul argues, convincingly in my view, that Jesus' life, death, and resurrection constitute an entirely appropriate, if surprising, climax to the covenant story of God and Israel. I suggest this important truth is not really presented in the gospels.

So why can Paul not be seen as independently contributing "theological concepts" to the Christian worldview?

 

[Righttruth]

So you're saying you rely on your own interpretation of the verses for the contradiction.

But then, Jesus must have contradicted Himself, as He said...

"So that seeing they may not see, and hearing they may not hear..."

Your confusion comes from the fact that the same Greek word can mean "hear" and "understand" or "perceive the meaning of..." (See 1 Corinthians 14:2, for example). This is best translated by context, which is why some versions translate the verse in Acts 22 to say "Understand" to help readers who are confused about this meaning. Based on the context and what we already know, it's easy to see that it means "understand" in Acts 22. So they heard, but they didn't understand. Hmm... Kind of sounds like something Jesus said...

People go all out to defend Paul--quite out of the way!

 

[Righttruth]

Argument from silence is no argument at all.

No, the apostles did not speak in parables. Jesus spoke profound truth in parables for a purpose - one which He reveals to His disciples (and through His word to us also).

So Paul had no opportunity to know the revealed truth!

His purpose in speaking parables was so that the Jews would not understand what He was saying to them. This was no longer necessary after they had rejected and killed their Messiah.

Even direct communication would not have helped the people who had become blind and deaf for spiritual truths.

Also, correcting someone who is in sin is not an "attack." You mischaracterize Paul's correction of Peter.

It is against the approach Jesus told to correct a person who has gone astray.

So it is your claim that a "chosen instrument" of Jesus is a liar, false prophet, and took upon himself the office of apostle?

Undoubtedly, he was not hesitant to tell white lies to push his agenda!

So the testimony of an apostle is not sufficient for you? Who's attacking Peter now? According to you, by equating Paul's epistles to scripture Peter was promoting a false prophet in the church.

Peter was speaking of Scripture of the OT and also the writings of Paul. It not correct to equate the two.

We don't pick and choose what to believe in the Bible. If we did, it wouldn't be God's word.

Who picked up the books? Where was the need for Jesus to send the Holy Spirit if He could employ Paul to speak on His behalf?