Paul's limited understanding!

[Righttruth]

I have to ask at this point: What exactly did Jesus write? Do you have access to some secret writings that the rest of us Christians don't? If so, please lay them out for us so that we can read and evaluate them also. If you don't have any of "Jesus' writings" just admit it and move on and quit wasting people's time over something that does not exist.

We don't know what Jesus wrote on the ground when adulterous woman was brought to Him. Jesus did not write anything for us. Letter kills. The spirit brings life.

 

[civilwarbuff]

We don't know what Jesus wrote on the ground when adulterous woman was brought to Him. Jesus did not write anything for us. Letter kills. The spirit brings life.

So are you saying you don't read the Bible you just depend on the Holy Spirit to give you God's word?

 

[MoonofIsaiah]

Paul never endorsed nor proclaim the virgin birth of Jesus!

No he didn't. Nor did he speak of those times when Jesus himself delivered his message personally.
There's many a Christian that has an issue with Paul.
There is the implication in the metaphorical allusion to his having encountered the light on the road to Damascus, reported in Acts.
Saul is traveling with two companions. In one account Paul says they saw a light and heard a voice speak claiming itself to be Jesus. In another account in Acts, Paul saw the light but his companions did not hear the voice that was speaking to Saul.
After this encounter Saul was struck blind with scales over his eyes.
Jesus in his earthly ministry healed the blind, he did not strike people blind.
In later scriptures Paul states that even the Devil can quote scripture and appear as an angel of light. Referring to different scriptures, not his writings in one verse there.



This is what leads some to believe that Saul was an agent of that which was adverse to Christ's ministry. And that is why there are so many contradictions in Paul's writings to that of Jesus earthly ministry.
It doesn't matter that Luke thought Paul was an Apostle because he was Paul's scribe.
Paul avoided encountering the Disciples for years after Damascus road. And not all of them accepted him as a Disciple.
In fact, it is often argued that when Jesus anointed his Disciples feet, including Judas, that was his ritual for appointing them to carry forth, on their feet, his ministry.

And his warning also that there would be those who would say Christ is here, Christ is seen there, long after he'd returned to Heaven. And the Saints were not to believe them.

Paul fulfilled that exact warning of Jesus, unawares I believe, when he claimed "there was Christ" on that Damascus road.
This is why there are Christians who will say they are Jesus followers, not subscribers to Pauline Doctrine. Or, "Paulianity".

 

[Jason Sanders]

You know, I've noticed that those who argue against Paul and his teachings all seem to be against the belief of the Holy Spirit being, you know, actually in us. It's funny really- if you take out what Paul wrote from the NT (and Luke's account of his deeds in Acts), you're left with a very vague, extremely difficult to understand concept of just what the Spirit is/does in us believers, not to mention having almost zero explanation of just what grace is and does for us.

Its funny how those are the very things that satan has tried to keep the Church from grasping ahold of for over two millennia now, isn't it?

 

[lesliedellow]

Paul never endorsed nor proclaim the virgin birth of Jesus!

Perhaps he had no need to.

 

[civilwarbuff]

And that is why there are so many contradictions in Paul's writings to that of Jesus earthly ministry.

Let's take some of the "contradictions you speak of....Which is the most egregious contradiction you see and why?

Paul avoided encountering the Disciples for years after Damascus road. And not all of them accepted him as a Disciple.

Peter accepted him.

In fact, it is often argued that when Jesus anointed his Disciples feet, including Judas, that was his ritual for appointing them to carry forth, on their feet, his ministry.

You can "argue" anything. Jesus did this to show them that as He was their servant so should they be a servant to others; no annointing here.

And his warning also that there would be those who would say Christ is here, Christ is seen there, long after he'd returned to Heaven. And the Saints were not to believe them.

Paul fulfilled that exact warning of Jesus, unawares I believe, when he claimed "there was Christ" on that Damascus road.

Jesus said that to warn people not to follow those who claimed to be Him. Paul's claim is that he had a vision of Messiah, with resulting evidence, not that there was someone claiming to be Him and everyone should go follow.

You seem to have a strange interpretation of scripture when it is right there before you unless you don't understand what you are reading.

 

[Righttruth]

So are you saying you don't read the Bible you just depend on the Holy Spirit to give you God's word?

All writings are meant to show the way, the life and the truth. The Holy Spirit helps to remind us of the preaching of Jesus. Anything that contradicts that is personal understanding that may lead to destruction.

 

[Righttruth]

No he didn't. Nor did he speak of those times when Jesus himself delivered his message personally.
There's many a Christian that has an issue with Paul.
There is the implication in the metaphorical allusion to his having encountered the light on the road to Damascus, reported in Acts.
Saul is traveling with two companions. In one account Paul says they saw a light and heard a voice speak claiming itself to be Jesus. In another account in Acts, Paul saw the light but his companions did not hear the voice that was speaking to Saul.
After this encounter Saul was struck blind with scales over his eyes.
Jesus in his earthly ministry healed the blind, he did not strike people blind.
In later scriptures Paul states that even the Devil can quote scripture and appear as an angel of light. Referring to different scriptures, not his writings in one verse there.



This is what leads some to believe that Saul was an agent of that which was adverse to Christ's ministry. And that is why there are so many contradictions in Paul's writings to that of Jesus earthly ministry.
It doesn't matter that Luke thought Paul was an Apostle because he was Paul's scribe.
Paul avoided encountering the Disciples for years after Damascus road. And not all of them accepted him as a Disciple.
In fact, it is often argued that when Jesus anointed his Disciples feet, including Judas, that was his ritual for appointing them to carry forth, on their feet, his ministry.

And his warning also that there would be those who would say Christ is here, Christ is seen there, long after he'd returned to Heaven. And the Saints were not to believe them.

Paul fulfilled that exact warning of Jesus, unawares I believe, when he claimed "there was Christ" on that Damascus road.
This is why there are Christians who will say they are Jesus followers, not subscribers to Pauline Doctrine. Or, "Paulianity".

Excellent analysis!

"After this encounter Saul was struck blind with scales over his eyes.
Jesus in his earthly ministry healed the blind, he did not strike people blind."

Thanks for the above additional insight I was not aware of.

 

[Righttruth]

Perhaps he had no need to.

Like he had no need of Jesus' words to push his agenda with his Pharisaic mindset.

 

[Righttruth]

You know, I've noticed that those who argue against Paul and his teachings all seem to be against the belief of the Holy Spirit being, you know, actually in us. It's funny really- if you take out what Paul wrote from the NT (and Luke's account of his deeds in Acts), you're left with a very vague, extremely difficult to understand concept of just what the Spirit is/does in us believers, not to mention having almost zero explanation of just what grace is and does for us.

Its funny how those are the very things that satan has tried to keep the Church from grasping ahold of for over two millennia now, isn't it?

The preaching of Jesus and His words on the role of the Holy Spirit are sufficient for us to lead a simple and straightforward holy life leading to salvation. We don't need the appendix of Paul to get appendicitis. Presumptions galore for 'ear tickling' theories with Paul mania.

 

[lesliedellow]

Like he had no need of Jesus' words to push his agenda with his Pharisaic mindset.

And what might that Phatisaic mindset be? I thought the Pharisees were hot for the minutest observance of the Mosaic Law.

 

[civilwarbuff]

All writings are meant to show the way, the life and the truth.

So, if I sit down and write out what I believe then that is meant to show the way, the life and the truth? How about the Book of Mormon, you good there? The Early Church Fathers.....how about them? The Gospel of Thomas....that one OK? I mean, you did say "All writings..." right?

 

[ac28]

Here's the deal.

In Psalms 12:6-7, it says that God would preserve His Word from this (that) generation forever. According to you, He didn't have enough power to get that done. He didn't have enough power to influence the selecting of the Canon. You're saying that God failed. You're saying that God is weak, along with the other 4 or 5 people in the world that believe like you do.

Due to His incompetence, He allowed some books get into the Canon that He shouldn't have. Of course, this error produced some confusion in understanding of the scriptures, although God is not supposed to be the author of confusion 1 Corinthians 14:33. And, the end result was, He lied.

Sure snowballs when you don't believe God.

 

[Righttruth]

And what might that Phatisaic mindset be? I thought the Pharisees were hot for the minutest observance of the Mosaic Law.

He abandoned the Mosaic Law as if treating that as something bad to introduce sweet candies, ignoring the preaching of Jesus, to ignorant Gentile world with his suppositions.

 

[Righttruth]

So, if I sit down and write out what I believe then that is meant to show the way, the life and the truth? How about the Book of Mormon, you good there? The Early Church Fathers.....how about them? The Gospel of Thomas....that one OK? I mean, you did say "All writings..." right?

I have read some of them. For example, Gospel of Thomas is of no value. How can I say that? I always look for other sources for supporting evidence. Similarly, one need to check on Paul with other sources for all 'ear tickling' concepts one generates with his part or full verse/verses.

 

[Righttruth]

Here's the deal.

In Psalms 12:6-7, it says that God would preserve His Word from this (that) generation forever. According to you, He didn't have enough power to get that done. He didn't have enough power to influence the selecting of the Canon. You're saying that God failed. You're saying that God is weak, along with the other 4 or 5 people in the world that believe like you do.

Due to His incompetence, He allowed some books get into the Canon that He shouldn't have. Of course, this error produced some confusion in understanding of the scriptures, although God is not supposed to be the author of confusion 1 Corinthians 14:33. And, the end result was, He lied.

Sure snowballs when you don't believe God.

You don't have to use the name of the mighty God to bring credit for the men's work. Why are different canons and different versions? Do you have number of Holy Spirits and gods? What was going on before the canon was established? So work before the canon is a big waste and spurious?

 

[St_Worm2]

Who is the authority for you? God the Father, the Son or the Holy Spirit? It appears that you hold Paul to be authoritative.

Who is the authority for you Rt? God or Matthew? ... or is your true authority actually engineer Devaprakash R. Shampur?

Concerning Luke 22:19 you wrote:

...many old manuscripts don't contain those statements.

Unfortunately for the anti-Pauline "scholars", the earliest of the ECF both referenced and directly quoted Luke 22:19. St. Justin Martyr, for instance (who died in 165 AD), used the phrase, "This do in remembrance of me", as well as the rest of Luke 22:19 in his First Apology/ Chpt 66/"Of the Eucharist". Considering when he lived and who he was, he may well have had his hands on the autograph itself.

You are denying even the words of Paul. There is nothing like an apostle for Gentiles.

Romans 11
13 But I am speaking to you who are Gentiles. Inasmuch then as I am an apostle of Gentiles, I magnify my ministry,

Acts 18
6 But when they resisted and blasphemed, he shook out his garments and said to them, "Your blood be on your own heads! I am clean. From now on I will go to the Gentiles."

If I have denied what St. Paul "said", then you've denied what he "did" But as has been previously demonstrated (at some length I might add), you neither knew what St. Paul did, nor do you properly understand what he said (unless you are "intentionally" misrepresenting him, that is).

The famous atheist Madalyn Murray O'Hair said that part of the reason she was an atheist is because even the Bible says, "there is no God". You know, taken completely out of context, the Bible does say that, several times actually.

Don't be another Madalyn Murray O'Hair Rt, context is crucial if it is your goal to understand what God is actually saying in the Bible!!

Perhaps it's finally time to put down your engineer's little book on how and why you should hate St. Paul and read the Biblical account about him instead

Gospel is meant for all. Paul was chosen for that purpose only.

The Lord told Ananias what He had in mind for the Apostle Paul, "to bear His name before the Gentiles, kings, and the sons of Israel" (Acts 9:15) and that is exactly what he did, throughout the balance of his life. Of course, that would be the "Biblical" account of his life (which I cannot recommend strongly enough as the immediate and permanent replacement for your engineer's little "book").

An infinite God cannot limit Himself to more or less 66 books.

God can do anything He wants to do Rt God is infinite, we are not. All there is to know about Him cannot be contained in a book the size of our Bibles (obviously), but while there is much that we do not and cannot know about Him, He has revealed all that we "need" to know.

"The secret things belong to the Lord our God, but the things revealed belong to us and to our sons forever, that we may observe all the words of this law" Deuteronomy 29:29​

St. Luke stands in a better position than St. Paul in understanding the Gospel.

Why do you say that

It is my duty like a child to show that the king is naked or the tail is wagging the dog!

As it is mine, I suppose, to point out to you that your master's little book (which I will rename 101 Ways to Hate the Apostle Paul) is not telling you the truth, well, not according to the Bible anyway. You need to bury that book Rt and start reading the Bible instead, all of it

Yours and His,
David

 

[Righttruth]

Who is the authority for you Rt? God or Matthew? ... or is your true authority actually engineer Devaprakash R. Shampur?

My authority is the Son for knowing the way, the life and the truth.

Concerning Luke 22:19 you wrote:
Unfortunately for the anti-Pauline "scholars", the earliest of the ECF both referenced and directly quoted Luke 22:19. St. Justin Martyr, for instance (who died in 165 AD), used the phrase, "This do in remembrance of me", as well as the rest of Luke 22:19 in his First Apology/ Chpt 66/"Of the Eucharist". Considering when he lived and who he was, he may well have had his hands on the autograph itself.

One need not beat around the bush to arrive at the truth, nor use complex theories to prove something that is not there. The two witnesses of the Last Supper, namely, Matthew and John don't bring in this 'remembrance' stuff to begin a Pharisaic ritual . So you want to rely on two absentees as perfect witnesses! A simplest common sense will throw out the claim of Paul without a whimper as one of his self-claims among many!

If I have denied what St. Paul "said", then you've denied what he "did" But as has been previously demonstrated (at some length I might add), you neither knew what St. Paul did, nor do you properly understand what he said (unless you are "intentionally" misrepresenting him, that is).

None of us know what really Paul said and did. People are trying to build a mountain out of a molehill from one sided letters of Paul like listening to one side of a conversation over a phone at one end and building castles in the air on the things on the other side.

The famous atheist Madalyn Murray O'Hair said that part of the reason she was an atheist is because even the Bible says, "there is no God". You know, taken completely out of context, the Bible does say that, several times actually.

That is exactly what is being done with Paul's letters taken out of context and the people involved and the crafty strategy used by Paul to arrive at a solution, like, in notorious Corinth.

Don't be another Madalyn Murray O'Hair Rt, context is crucial if it is your goal to understand what God is actually saying in the Bible!!

I read Bible, and I don't accept any important concept based one author, one book, one chapter and one verse

Perhaps it's finally time to put down your engineer's little book on how and why you should hate St. Paul and read the Biblical account about him instead

Once one person suggested me to rely on scholarly Paul, not on the writings we find in the Gospel books by Matthew, Mark and John. In effect, he questioned the wisdom of Jesus in choosing simple folks as His apostles. So you want to listen to people who have made gospel learning as a profession for livelihood, not persons who are seeking the truth whether engineer, doctor, economist, et al?

The Lord told Ananias what He had in mind for the Apostle Paul, "to bear His name before the Gentiles, kings, and the sons of Israel" (Acts 9:15) and that is exactly what he did, throughout the balance of his life. Of course, that would be the "Biblical" account of his life (which I cannot recommend strongly enough as the immediate and permanent replacement for your engineer's little "book").

Then why did he call himself as an apostle of the Gentiles? Division is his forte! Truth brings unity.

God can do anything He wants to do Rt God is infinite, we are not. All there is to know about Him cannot be contained in a book the size of our Bibles (obviously), but while there is much that we do not and cannot know about Him, He has revealed all that we "need" to know."The secret things belong to the Lord our God, but the things revealed belong to us and to our sons forever, that we may observe all the words of this law" Deuteronomy 29:29

It is revealing to know that Paul took his own path if you accepted Jesus as the truth.

Why do you say that

Because that is what it results if you allowed tail to wag the dog.

As it is mine, I suppose, to point out to you that your master's little book (which I will rename 101 Ways to Hate the Apostle Paul) is not telling you the truth, well, not according to the Bible anyway. You need to bury that book Rt and start reading the Bible instead, all of it

Yours and His,
David

I agree with the points by the book, it doesn't mean, I have given up studying the Bible.

 

[St_Worm2]

My authority is the Son for knowing the way, the life and the truth.

One need not beat around the bush to arrive at the truth, nor use complex theories to prove something that is not there. The two witnesses of the Last Supper, namely, Matthew and John don't bring in this 'remembrance' stuff to begin a Pharisaic ritual . So you want to rely on two absentees as perfect witnesses! A simplest common sense will throw out the claim of Paul without a whimper as one of his self-claims among many!

None of us know what really Paul said and did. People are trying to build a mountain out of a molehill from one sided letters of Paul like listening to one side of a conversation over a phone at one end and building castles in the air on the things on the other side.

That is exactly what is being done with Paul's letters taken out of context and the people involved and the crafty strategy used by Paul to arrive at a solution, like, in notorious Corinth.

I read Bible, and I don't accept any important concept based one author, one book, one chapter and one verse

Once one person suggested me to rely on scholarly Paul, not on the writings we find in the Gospel books by Matthew, Mark and John. In effect, he questioned the wisdom of Jesus in choosing simple folks as His apostles. So you want to listen to people who have made gospel learning as a profession for livelihood, not persons who are seeking the truth whether engineer, doctor, economist, et al?

Then why did he call himself as an apostle of the Gentiles? Division is his forte! Truth brings unity.

It is revealing to know that Paul took his own path if you accepted Jesus as the truth.

Because that is what it results if you allowed tail to wag the dog.

I agree with the points by the book, it doesn't mean, I have given up studying the Bible.

Hello Rt, I'm not going to reply to this because it's become clear that you have no desire to have a reasonable conversation about anything, Biblical or extra-Biblical, that contradicts your, #nevereverPaulnomatterwhattheBiblesays, presupposition. So I will not engage you directly in the future, but I will continue to address your points (when need be) for the sake of those who may be confused and mislead by them.

--David

 

[Righttruth]

Hello Rt, I'm not going to reply to this because it's become clear that you have no desire to have a reasonable conversation about anything, Biblical or extra-Biblical, that contradicts your, #nevereverPaulnomatterwhattheBiblesays, presupposition. So I will not engage you directly in the future, but I will continue to address your points (when need be) for the sake of those who may be confused and mislead by them.

--David

I don't totally reject Paul. I consider him to be a saint and disciple of Jesus. But his superiority complex and boastful attitude did not help in projecting the sublime truth of Jesus, instead he hoodwinked the ignorant with his scholarship and Pharisaic background. Without the support from Peter, he wouldn't have achieved much. That's what happened immediately after his conversion. So he forced his way by self-claims of apostleship, visions, etc. to deviate the people who like shortcuts.