Christianity without Paul

[Biblicist]

I consider Jesus speaking to Paul on the road to Damascus choosing him. The other apostles did too

As per my post #240, I am convinced that any assault against the Commissioning of Paul by Christ never has its foundations founded on a theological position; where any offence is not so much with Paul but with Christ himself.

 

[Righttruth]

Then how does Jesus fit in?

He won't fit in if you relied blindly and totally on Paul.

 

[Righttruth]

How do you know what scripture is? How did you come by it?

I consider all writings, not bound by a few books that form part of the Bible.

So who is this "Jesus" fellow we've heard about? I guess you reject Jesus entirely.

We have not one but four Gospel books to know Him to a great extent.

 

[expos4ever]

I have given already. To repeat, Paul instituted the ritual of communion with his Pharisaic background by using the word 'remembrance' which Jesus did not utter. This is one of many examples.

You do not know that Jesus did not say "This do in remembrance of me" - the gospels never claim to document every statement that Jesus made.

 

[RDKirk]

I consider all writings, not bound by a few books that form part of the Bible.

All writings by everyone? Which do you know were written by Apostles? How do you know which may have been written by impostors?

 

[Standing Up]

One has to satisfy the spirit of the Law which is more difficult than satisfying the letter of the Law

Still falling short, but hoping your works can make the grade.

 

[Righttruth]

You do not know that Jesus did not say "This do in remembrance of me" - the gospels never claim to document every statement that Jesus made.

Jesus, who put an end to redundant rituals of the OT, wouldn't have started a ritual. John makes it clear the spiritual significance of communion. We are not permitted to add words.

 

[Righttruth]

All writings by everyone? Which do you know were written by Apostles? How do you know which may have been written by impostors?

The Holy Spirit will bring to remembrance the preaching of Jesus no matter what you read; that helps in staying on the way of Jesus.

 

[Righttruth]

Still falling short, but hoping your works can make the grade.

Our faith is built on hope, not a guaranteed feeling based on some verses. Only those who endure till the end will be saved. Nobody can buy easy salvation packages with a sealed assurance.

 

[Biblicist]

All writings by everyone? Which do you know were written by Apostles? How do you know which may have been written by impostors?

He's could very well be including writings such as the Star Wars Trilogy and the Hobbits as being contendors for God's Word as well.

 

[RDKirk]

He could very well be including writings such as the Star Wars Trilogy and the Hobbits as being contenders for God's Word as well.

Well, he did say:

The Holy Spirit will bring to remembrance the preaching of Jesus no matter what you read; that helps in staying on the way of Jesus.

 

[expos4ever]

Jesus, who put an end to redundant rituals of the OT, wouldn't have started a ritual.

I do not think this reasoning is valid. Yes, Jesus did indeed put an end to many Old Testament practices. But that is hardly grounds for concluding that He could not start new "rituals" to mark the beginning of the New Covenant. In fact, it would be profoundly surprising if He did not - if God is initiating a new covenant, it makes perfect sense that He (God) would initiate rituals to celebrate this new covenant.

 

[Standing Up]

Our faith is built on hope, not a guaranteed feeling based on some verses. Only those who endure till the end will be saved. Nobody can buy easy salvation packages with a sealed assurance.

OhOh now you're paraphrasing Paul.

Romans 5:2
Gal. 5:5
Col. 1:23
1 Cor. 1:8
Rom. 2:7

 

[bbbbbbb]

I do not think this reasoning is valid. Yes, Jesus did indeed put an end to many Old Testament practices. But that is hardly grounds for concluding that He could not start new "rituals" to mark the beginning of the New Covenant. In fact, it would be profoundly surprising if He did not - if God is initiating a new covenant, it makes perfect sense that He (God) would initiate rituals to celebrate this new covenant.

Obviously both baptism and communion were established by Jesus Christ. Whether or not one defines them as "rituals" does not mean that they are not part and parcel to the Christian life.

 

[expos4ever]

Obviously both baptism and communion were established by Jesus Christ. Whether or not one defines them as "rituals" does not mean that they are not part and parcel to the Christian life.

Of course! I have seen nothing in this thread that remotely supports the notion that Paul in any sense contradicts Jesus.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Of course! I have seen nothing in this thread that remotely supports the notion that Paul in any sense contradicts Jesus.

Nor have I. I find it odd that some would set Paul against Jesus.

 

[expos4ever]

Only those who endure till the end will be saved.

Indeed. And, in fact, I know someone who agrees with this. That person wrote these words:

God “will repay each person according to what they have done.” To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality he will give eternal life.

...and these words as well:

And if the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead is living in you, he who raised Christ from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies because of his Spirit who lives in you. Therefore, brothers and sisters, we have an obligation—but it is not to the flesh, to live according to it. For if you live according to the flesh, you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the misdeeds of the body, you will live.

These words were written by, yes, Paul. And both these teachings clearly express the position that endurance to the end is needed for salvation.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Indeed. And, in fact, I know someone who agrees with this. That person wrote these words:

God “will repay each person according to what they have done.” To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality he will give eternal life.

...and these words as well:

And if the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead is living in you, he who raised Christ from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies because of his Spirit who lives in you. Therefore, brothers and sisters, we have an obligation—but it is not to the flesh, to live according to it. For if you live according to the flesh, you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the misdeeds of the body, you will live.

These words were written by, yes, Paul. And both these teachings clearly express the position that endurance to the end is needed for salvation.

Yes, Paul also wrote -

Philippians 2:12 So then, my beloved, just as you have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your salvation with fear and trembling; 13 for it is God who is at work in you, both to will and to work for His good pleasure.

We are utterly incapable to endure to the end by our own efforts, but by God's grace we are empowered to work out our salvation.

 

[expos4ever]

We are utterly incapable to endure to the end by our own efforts, but by God's grace we are empowered to work out our salvation.

We are yet again in violent agreement. I think "Righttruth" is arguing thus:

1. Jesus teaches that we need to "endure to the end" to be saved;
2. Paul teaches that we are saved on the basis of a one-time commitment.
3. Therefore, Paul contradicts Jesus.

Well, that logic is correct, but I suggest premise 2 is mistaken or, to be more precise, is deeply underspecified and needs to be greatly elaborated on. And when it is, there is indeed no contradiction.

Unfortunately, in my opinion, many evangelicals will assert point number 2 "as is", thus enabling righttruth to make what I suggest is, in fact, a fallacious argument.

 

[Sophrosyne]

We are yet again in violent agreement. I think "Righttruth" is arguing thus:

1. Jesus teaches that we need to "endure to the end" to be saved;
2. Paul teaches that we are saved on the basis of a one-time commitment.
3. Therefore, Paul contradicts Jesus.

Well, that logic is correct, but I suggest premise 2 is mistaken or, to be more precise, is deeply underspecified and needs to be greatly elaborated on. And when it is, there is indeed no contradiction.

Unfortunately, in my opinion, many evangelicals will assert point number 2 "as is", thus enabling righttruth to make what I suggest is, in fact, a fallacious argument.

Or Jesus contradicts himself when he says simply believe in me and when he tells the woman who washed his feet that her faith saved her.. SAVED. Simply put Jesus equates those who ARE saved as enduring to the end to SHOW (fruit) their faith not to "be saved".