Paul's limited understanding!

[civilwarbuff]

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.

That sounds oxy-moronic.

 

[MWood]

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.

Jesus was a promise of God made to the people of Israel. The first mention of this promise is in Ex.15 and repeated again in Duet. Samuel and all the Prophets that followed after prophesied about Jesus. David wrote about Jesus in the Psalms.
So when Jesus came, He was a fulfilling of that promise, to bring the Nation of Israel back into Covenant relationship with God. As He said, "I was not sent but unto the lost sheep of the House of Israel." So all that He preached and taught, was for, to, and about them, not the Gentiles. But, it is good for our learning, but not for our doing. We were never under a Covenant relationship with God.
Now Paul was sent by Jesus to the "Gentiles, Kings, and the Sons of Israel." He was to explain to them that by the Grace of God Jesus died on the Cross for the forgiving of sins, redemption, reconciliation, sanctification, and justification. NONE OF THIS is preached or taught anywhere in the whole of the Bible except in the letters of Paul. So if you wish to know or understand about any of these things you have seek out Paul.
Jesus preached the Gospel of the Kingdom, Paul preached the Gospel of the Grace of God. Where are we today? We are in the age of Grace.

 

[Righttruth]

That sounds oxy-moronic.

No, it is not.

 

[Righttruth]

Jesus was a promise of God made to the people of Israel. The first mention of this promise is in Ex.15 and repeated again in Duet. Samuel and all the Prophets that followed after prophesied about Jesus. David wrote about Jesus in the Psalms.
So when Jesus came, He was a fulfilling of that promise, to bring the Nation of Israel back into Covenant relationship with God. As He said, "I was not sent but unto the lost sheep of the House of Israel." So all that He preached and taught, was for, to, and about them, not the Gentiles. But, it is good for our learning, but not for our doing. We were never under a Covenant relationship with God.
Now Paul was sent by Jesus to the "Gentiles, Kings, and the Sons of Israel." He was to explain to them that by the Grace of God Jesus died on the Cross for the forgiving of sins, redemption, reconciliation, sanctification, and justification. NONE OF THIS is preached or taught anywhere in the whole of the Bible except in the letters of Paul. So if you wish to know or understand about any of these things you have seek out Paul.
Jesus preached the Gospel of the Kingdom, Paul preached the Gospel of the Grace of God. Where are we today? We are in the age of Grace.

Jesus is the way and the life, not theology of complex words. Paul over taught about grace which is taken as a piece of candy by nominal people without understanding the truth and responsibility of the preaching of Jesus.

 

[ac28]

Great post, MWood! You nailed it.

 

[MWood]

Great post, MWood! You nailed it.

Thank you.

 

[SkyWriting]

Paul never endorsed nor proclaim the virgin birth of Jesus!

He had other flaws as well.

 

[St_Worm2]

The Lord did not mention the virgin birth through the pens of St. Paul, St. Mark, and St. John, so if that is considered to be a "flaw", St. Paul is certainly in good company. I believe the Lord Himself chose to remain silent about the matter of His miraculous birth as well. In fact, Isaiah is the only other Biblical author (if memory serves) who talks about it (I will need to check that fact however)!

Here's an article from the Huffington Post. To say that this is a publication that I do not find myself in line with normally would be an understatement to say the least, so it was no surprise (to me anyway) that I did not agree with most of what this article had to say (especially since the author denies the Virgin Birth), but it does raise an interesting point for our discussion here. Here's an excerpt from it (the title below is linked to the entire article):

Did Paul Invent the Virgin Birth?

I am convinced that the idea of Jesus’ birth from a virgin—without a human father—implicitly goes back to the apostle Paul. Paul’s letters date several decades before our New Testament gospels and it is Paul’s understanding of Jesus as the pre-existent, divine, Son of God, that lays the conceptual groundwork for our Christmas stories.

Paul never explicitly refers to Jesus’ virgin birth nor does he ever name either Mary or Joseph. What he does affirm is that Jesus pre-existed before his human birth and subsequently gave up his divine glory through his birth as a human being. He writes that Jesus “though existing in the form of God” emptied himself and took on human form, “being made in the likeness of humankind” (Philippians 2:6-7). He says further “though he was rich, yet for your sake he became poor, so that you by his poverty might become rich” (2 Corinthians 8:9). He has to be referring here, metaphorically, to the “riches” of Jesus’ pre-existence with God, since all our sources have Jesus born of a poor peasant family. Paul also writes “In the fullness of time God sent forth his Son, made of a woman . . .” (Galatians 4:4). The implication of these texts is that Jesus’ mother was merely the human receptacle for bringing Jesus into the world. It is not a far step from these ideas about Jesus’ pre-existence to the notion of Jesus as the first-begotten Son of God—eliminating any necessity for a human father. Paul’s entire message centers on a divine not a human Jesus—both before his birth and after his death. For Paul he is the pre-existent Son of God, crucified, but now raised to sit at the right hand of God. Like the Christian creeds that jump from Jesus’ birth to his death and resurrection in single phrase, entirely skipping over his life, Paul paves the way for a confessional understanding of what it means to be a Christian.
​

Thoughts?

Yours and His,
David

 

[Righttruth]

He had other flaws as well.

True believers in Jesus will not fall into the trap of flaws of Paul.

 

[Righttruth]

The Lord did not mention the virgin birth through the pens of St. Paul, St. Mark, and St. John, so if that is considered to be a "flaw", St. Paul is certainly in good company. I believe the Lord Himself chose to remain silent about the matter of His miraculous birth as well. In fact, Isaiah is the only other Biblical author (if memory serves) who talks about it (I will need to check that fact however)!

Here's an article from the Huffington Post. To say that this is a publication that I do not find myself in line with normally would be an understatement of massive proportions, so it's no surprise that I do not agree with most of what this article has to say (especially since the author denies the Virgin Birth), but it does raise an interesting point for this discussion. Here's an excerpt from it (the title below is linked to the entire article):

Did Paul Invent the Virgin Birth?

I am convinced that the idea of Jesus’ birth from a virgin—without a human father—implicitly goes back to the apostle Paul. Paul’s letters date several decades before our New Testament gospels and it is Paul’s understanding of Jesus as the pre-existent, divine, Son of God, that lays the conceptual groundwork for our Christmas stories.

Paul never explicitly refers to Jesus’ virgin birth nor does he ever name either Mary or Joseph. What he does affirm is that Jesus pre-existed before his human birth and subsequently gave up his divine glory through his birth as a human being. He writes that Jesus “though existing in the form of God” emptied himself and took on human form, “being made in the likeness of humankind” (Philippians 2:6-7). He says further “though he was rich, yet for your sake he became poor, so that you by his poverty might become rich” (2 Corinthians 8:9). He has to be referring here, metaphorically, to the “riches” of Jesus’ pre-existence with God, since all our sources have Jesus born of a poor peasant family. Paul also writes “In the fullness of time God sent forth his Son, made of a woman . . .” (Galatians 4:4). The implication of these texts is that Jesus’ mother was merely the human receptacle for bringing Jesus into the world. It is not a far step from these ideas about Jesus’ pre-existence to the notion of Jesus as the first-begotten Son of God—eliminating any necessity for a human father. Paul’s entire message centers on a divine not a human Jesus—both before his birth and after his death. For Paul he is the pre-existent Son of God, crucified, but now raised to sit at the right hand of God. Like the Christian creeds that jump from Jesus’ birth to his death and resurrection in single phrase, entirely skipping over his life, Paul paves the way for a confessional understanding of what it means to be a Christian.
​

Thoughts?

Yours and His,
David

This is a typical approach to defend Paul at any cost by blowing up Paul's ignorance and inappropriateness. I question the belief of Christians if they don't accept the virgin birth.

 

[St_Worm2]

The Apostle Paul wrote down the very words of God (i.e. 2 Timothy 3:16; 2 Peter 3:15-16). Better be careful not to get caught in a "trap" of your own making

 

[civilwarbuff]

This is a typical approach to defend Paul at any cost by blowing up Paul's ignorance and inappropriateness. I question the belief of Christians if they don't accept the virgin birth.

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.

Would you like to get on one side of the fence or the other so people know where you are coming from?

 

[St_Worm2]

This is a typical approach to defend Paul at any cost by blowing up Paul's ignorance and inappropriateness. I question the belief of Christians if they don't accept the virgin birth.

Defending St. Paul was HARDLY the author's intent (read the article). I would also think that you would be well advised to consider carefully Whose words you are flippantly calling ignorant and inappropriate!!

As for questioning the beliefs of a Christian who does not accept the virgin birth, I certainly agree with that!

Yours and His,
David

 

[St_Worm2]

Paul never endorsed nor proclaim the virgin birth of Jesus!

Neither did the vast majority of the OT and NT human authors. So does that mean you'll need to throw the Gospels of Mark and John out with all of Paul's Epistles as a result It's seems there must be other Biblical authors with "limited understanding" as well then (if mentioning the Virgin Birth is a necessary condition for the proving of a true and complete understanding of all things Christian)!*

Did the Lord take time to talk about His miraculous birth while He was here among us?

*(I don't believe I ever replied directly to the OP, so I thought I finally should )

Yours and His,
David

 

[ac28]

"Did the Lord take time to talk about His miraculous birth while He was here among us?"

Good point!

 

[SkyWriting]

True believers in Jesus will not fall into the trap of flaws of Paul.

This is the first I've heard. Seems like a valid cause.

 

[SkyWriting]

Neither did the vast majority of the OT and NT human authors. So does that mean you'll need to throw the Gospels of Mark and John out with all of Paul's Epistles as a result It's seems there must be other Biblical authors with "limited understanding" as well then (if mentioning the Virgin Birth is a necessary condition for the proving of a true and complete understanding of all things Christian)!*Did the Lord take time to talk about His miraculous birth while He was here among us?Yours and His,David

No harm in checking:
11 Now the Berean Jews were of more noble character than those in Thessalonica, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true. 12 As a result, many of them believed, as did also a number of prominent Greek women and many Greek men.

 

[SkyWriting]

Paul never endorsed nor proclaim the virgin birth of Jesus!

We don't need everyone to cover every topic.
But I feel multiple support is needed on
important topics. If there is only one
source, then it's not central to Christianity.

 

[Righttruth]

The Apostle Paul wrote down the very words of God (i.e. 2 Timothy 3:16; 2 Peter 3:15-16). Better be careful not to get caught in a "trap" of your own making

Not the reliable sources to defend your point that is biased to Paul. One cannot defend a person solely based on his version and another with disputed authorship and human logic that can work either way.

 

[Righttruth]

Would you like to get on one side of the fence or the other so people know where you are coming from?

St. Paul qualified as a saint and disciple of Jesus. Pope of Catholics also qualifies as a saint and disciple. Then why don't accept all of Pope's dictum? Paul desired celibacy and did not recommend marriage. Why don't you accept his preference and recommendation? Paul also said to desire better spiritual gifts instead of speaking gibberish. Why do people go after lower order gifts then as a big deal?