Paul's limited understanding!

Righttruth · Dec 27, 2015

St_Worm2 said:
Please elaborate. Which 1st Century "group in Jerusalem" rejected St. Paul's Epistles? Also, how did the Gentiles wreak havoc on the understanding of the Gospel?

Thanks!

--David

There are number of sources. To quote a few:

Opposition to Paul from the Jerusalem Church
After the incident at Antioch, the historical evidence shows that the Jerusalem Church, headed by the pillars (James, Peter and John) sent out missionaries of their own to combat the teachings of Paul. Thus the people who were most familiar with the teachings of the earthly Jesus-his brother (James) and the apostles (e.g. Peter and John)- openly opposed Paul's mission and his version of the gospel.

Apostle Thomas who came to India came with only Hebrew version of the Gospel according to Matthew and so on......

Trinity concept is a brain child of the Gentiles!

Righttruth · Dec 27, 2015

The Boxer said:
The context supports me. Jesus told Ananias that Paul would proclaim his name to the Gentiles, kings and the children of Israel. This CLEARLY indicates the scope and superiority of Paul's authority. The apostle John didn't have that scope of authority. He was an apostle to Jews alone.

So you are the one with the fancy my friend.

That is again your extrapolated fanciful thought! The Great Commission that was spelled out to the eleven apostles included all nations (Matthew 28:16 to 20)

Righttruth · Dec 27, 2015

Strong in Him said:
He didn't. He told the Corinthians that there shouldn't be divisions among them; that Paul and Silas were nothing, or of no importance because they only planted seeds. It was, and is, God who makes those seeds grow.

Yes, he did:

Acts 15: 37 And Barnabas determined to take with them John, whose surname was Mark.
38 But Paul thought not good to take him with them, who departed from them from Pamphylia, and went not with them to the work.
39 And the contention was so sharp between them, that they departed asunder one from the other: and so Barnabas took Mark, and sailed unto Cyprus;

He didn't.
Just because Paul introduced himself as an apostle and we have no verse which describes how he was given that title, you seem to be assuming that he took it for himself; that he woke up one day and said, "I am an apostle, from now on you all have to call me an apostle." I doubt very much that the other apostles would have allowed him to use, and claim, the title of apostle for himself. There must have been some reason, or some grounds, for allowing him to have this title or for bestowing it upon him.

John puts final nail on the self-proclamations of Paul in Revelation and epistles. Communications on those days are left to your imagination with regard assumed assertions of Paul at different far of places!

Righttruth · Dec 27, 2015

Strong in Him said:
How do you know? Where are we told that Paul's agenda and ambition was to usurp the apostles' authority and dominate them?

Peter called Paul a dear brother and said that people who distorted his writings were ignorant and unstable, and it would end in their destruction, 2 Peter 3:16.

One can read through his life and letters to arrive on such a conclusion with the help of the Holy Spirit. No wonder Paul was constantly troubled by a messenger of Satan! The authorship of 2nd Peter is disputed. Peter or any other apostle never called Paul an apostle. John hints that he was liar in his claim.

Jack Terrence · Dec 27, 2015

Righttruth said:
That is again your extrapolated fanciful thought! The Great Commission that was spelled out to the eleven apostles included all nations (Matthew 28:16 to 20)

Their commission was to all nations of the Jews sir. John and Peter were apostles to the Jews only (Gal. 2:29).

You need to read the scriptures minus your presuppositions.

St_Worm2 · Dec 27, 2015

Righttruth said:
There are number of sources. To quote a few:

Opposition to Paul from the Jerusalem Church
After the incident at Antioch, the historical evidence shows that the Jerusalem Church, headed by the pillars (James, Peter and John) sent out missionaries of their own to combat the teachings of Paul. Thus the people who were most familiar with the teachings of the earthly Jesus-his brother (James) and the apostles (e.g. Peter and John)- openly opposed Paul's mission and his version of the gospel.

Apostle Thomas who came to India came with only Hebrew version of the Gospel according to Matthew and so on......

Trinity concept is a brain child of the Gentiles!

Hi RT, I have to go, but I'll get back to you late this afternoon or early this evening about what is written at the link you provided and what you wrote above. In the meantime, please briefly explain what you believe St. Paul's "version" of the Gospel is and how it differs from the one that you believe is held by St. James, St. John, and St. Peter.

Let's leave the Trinity discussion for another time or perhaps a different thread.

Thanks!

--David

civilwarbuff · Dec 27, 2015

HebrewVaquero said:
Why? Because Clement was the first to quote Paul?
Or is there another reason?

My apology, I should not have used the phrase "shut up". I try to be more polite than that and I failed in this instance.

OldShepherd · Dec 27, 2015

Righttruth · Dec 27, 2015

The Boxer said:
Their commission was to all nations of the Jews sir. John and Peter were apostles to the Jews only (Gal. 2:29).

You need to read the scriptures minus your presuppositions.

Jews were never found in all the nations of the world! Jesus never made it exclusive to Jews only to chosen apostles and Gentiles only to Paul! Please read book of Acts again! Please don't quote verses from self-proclaimed self-assuming scholar!

Righttruth · Dec 27, 2015

St_Worm2 said:
Hi RT, I have to go, but I'll get back to you late this afternoon or early this evening about what is written at the link you provided and what you wrote above. In the meantime, please briefly explain what you believe St. Paul's "version" of the Gospel is and how it differs from the one that you believe is held by St. James, St. John, and St. Peter.

Let's leave the Trinity discussion for another time or perhaps a different thread.

Thanks!

--David

Jesus spoke in parables that were not really understood by people. Nevertheless, He would explain to His chosen apostles. So Paul missed out many important essences in the teaching of Jesus. In a nutshell, his gospel was that Jesus was born of a woman, spent three and half years in preaching something that he was not fully aware of, crucified and risen again.

Therefore, he weaved concepts that were in reality oppose the preaching of Jesus! One example: ear tickling 'faith alone' concept based on his epistles exclusively!

Strong in Him · Dec 27, 2015

Righttruth said:
Yes, he did:

Acts 15: 37 And Barnabas determined to take with them John, whose surname was Mark.
38 But Paul thought not good to take him with them, who departed from them from Pamphylia, and went not with them to the work.
39 And the contention was so sharp between them, that they departed asunder one from the other: and so Barnabas took Mark, and sailed unto Cyprus;

So he had a disagreement with a friend and they parted company, instead of working together when they didn't gwet on. Not quite the same as, starting, or contributing to, the divisions within the church.

As a result of Paul and Barnabas parting company, there were now two missionary teams and twice as many people to spread the Gospel.

Righttruth said:
John puts final nail on the self-proclamations of Paul in Revelation and epistles.

Where, exactly?

Righttruth said:
Communications on those days are left to your imagination with regard assumed assertions of Paul at different far of places!

If it's not stated in Scripture, we can't know for sure.
Everyone interprets, and sees, things differently. It seems that either you don't trust Paul or have reason to disbelieve him, so as far as I can see, your interpreting all his actions in the light of that - unfavourably. As I see it, Paul wasn't perfect - no one is - but I trust the things that he wrote about God, the Gospel, the cross, the resurrection and the Holy Spirit. I also completely trust that same Holy Spirit who inspire Paul to write, inspired the other apostles to circulate and preserve his letters and inspired the church to later include them in the New Testament which, together with the Old Testament, makes up our Bible. To me, if someone questions Paul's writings, doubts them or straight out rejects them as false, that is throwing doubt on the integrity of the Holy Spirit and on his ability to preserve the word of God. If we can't trust the Bible, what can we trust?

Strong in Him · Dec 27, 2015

Righttruth said:
One can read through his life and letters to arrive on such a conclusion with the help of the Holy Spirit.

And yet you seem to be doubting and dissing Paul who wrote with the help, and under the inspiration of, that same Holy Spirit.

Jack Terrence · Dec 27, 2015

Righttruth said:
Jews were never found in all the nations of the world! Jesus never made it exclusive to Jews only to chosen apostles and Gentiles only to Paul! Please read book of Acts again! Please don't quote verses from self-proclaimed self-assuming scholar!

I didn't say that the Jews were found in all nations of the world. I said that their commission was to all nations of the Jews, that is, the nations where Jews lived. Jesus told them to NOT go to the Samaritans or to the gentiles. He EXPLICITLY restricted their mission to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. But Jesus sent Paul to the gentiles and to kings and to Israel.

You need to read the book of Acts again.

HebrewVaquero · Dec 27, 2015

civilwarbuff said:
My apology, I should not have used the phrase "shut up". I try to be more polite than that and I failed in this instance.

No problem, I realize most people here are passionate about what they believe.
I only have a few non-negotiable beliefs.

Sophrosyne · Dec 27, 2015

Strong in Him said:
And yet you seem to be doubting and dissing Paul who wrote with the help, and under the inspiration of, that same Holy Spirit.

What is truly ironic about it all is that most Christians, and a LOT of Jewish believers in Christ owe Paul as his efforts is what made Christianity from just another obscure religion to a worldwide one that has literally changed the world. If God had just left things with Peter and the other Apostles and didn't draft Paul into duty it is quite possible that Christianity wouldn't be but a small subset of Judaism that is ignored by the world and frowned upon by the Jews and possibly Islam would have taken most of the now considered Christians into their midst. Basically speaking if Paul were made as mostly irrelevant as some seek to do here the majority of believers in Christ probably would be Muslims and the Jews probably wouldn't exist at all except in hiding in a few spots Israel today would be owned by Islam. The US would be probably be owned by the Japanese and Germans as we would have lost ww2 without the US as a nation that it is founded strongly on Christian principles by believers and those who leaned towards Christianity even.

Toss out Paul and you toss Christianity out the window it would be all but GONE.

HebrewVaquero · Dec 27, 2015

Strong in Him said:
So he had a disagreement with a friend and they parted company, instead of working together when they didn't gwet on. Not quite the same as, starting, or contributing to, the divisions within the church.

As a result of Paul and Barnabas parting company, there were now two missionary teams and twice as many people to spread the Gospel.

Where, exactly?

If it's not stated in Scripture, we can't know for sure.
Everyone interprets, and sees, things differently. It seems that either you don't trust Paul or have reason to disbelieve him, so as far as I can see, your interpreting all his actions in the light of that - unfavourably. As I see it, Paul wasn't perfect - no one is - but I trust the things that he wrote about God, the Gospel, the cross, the resurrection and the Holy Spirit. I also completely trust that same Holy Spirit who inspire Paul to write, inspired the other apostles to circulate and preserve his letters and inspired the church to later include them in the New Testament which, together with the Old Testament, makes up our Bible. To me, if someone questions Paul's writings, doubts them or straight out rejects them as false, that is throwing doubt on the integrity of the Holy Spirit and on his ability to preserve the word of God. If we can't trust the Bible, what can we trust?

In Revelation 2:14 Jesus specially condemns practices taught by Paul.

The Epistles of John are very clear about following Torah (the Law) yet Paul's (present day English translated) writings teach the law is abolished.

Strong in Him · Dec 27, 2015

HebrewVaquero said:
In Revelation 2:14 Jesus specially condemns practices taught by Paul.

The Epistles of John are very clear about following Torah (the Law) yet Paul's (present day English translated) writings teach the law is abolished.

Revelation 2:14 doesn't mention Paul at all.

The NT is clear that we do not follow the Jewish law to be saved, and Gentiles, who were never under the law anyway, do not have to put themselves under it after they come to Jesus. The law has not been abolished; Jesus came to fulfil it for the Jew - those who were under it. And those who weren't under it don't need to start because Jesus is all we need.

HebrewVaquero · Dec 27, 2015

Sophrosyne said:
What is truly ironic about it all is that most Christians, and a LOT of Jewish believers in Christ owe Paul as his efforts is what made Christianity from just another obscure religion to a worldwide one that has literally changed the world. If God had just left things with Peter and the other Apostles and didn't draft Paul into duty it is quite possible that Christianity wouldn't be but a small subset of Judaism that is ignored by the world and frowned upon by the Jews and possibly Islam would have taken most of the now considered Christians into their midst. Basically speaking if Paul were made as mostly irrelevant as some seek to do here the majority of believers in Christ probably would be Muslims and the Jews probably wouldn't exist at all except in hiding in a few spots Israel today would be owned by Islam. The US would be probably be owned by the Japanese and Germans as we would have lost ww2 without the US as a nation that it is founded strongly on Christian principles by believers and those who leaned towards Christianity even.

Toss out Paul and you toss Christianity out the window it would be all but GONE.

Pure speculation. You never know; it may have turned out better without Paul.

However it is easy to see how a gospel of lawlessness and cheap grace would encircle the world.

Strong in Him · Dec 27, 2015

Sophrosyne said:
What is truly ironic about it all is that most Christians, and a LOT of Jewish believers in Christ owe Paul as his efforts is what made Christianity from just another obscure religion to a worldwide one that has literally changed the world. If God had just left things with Peter and the other Apostles and didn't draft Paul into duty it is quite possible that Christianity wouldn't be but a small subset of Judaism that is ignored by the world and frowned upon by the Jews and possibly Islam would have taken most of the now considered Christians into their midst. Basically speaking if Paul were made as mostly irrelevant as some seek to do here the majority of believers in Christ probably would be Muslims and the Jews probably wouldn't exist at all except in hiding in a few spots Israel today would be owned by Islam. The US would be probably be owned by the Japanese and Germans as we would have lost ww2 without the US as a nation that it is founded strongly on Christian principles by believers and those who leaned towards Christianity even.

Toss out Paul and you toss Christianity out the window it would be all but GONE.

Absolutely. Not to mention that if you toss out Paul you toss out the Bible, because how could we trust which books are correct and which are not? How could we trust the Holy Spirit, who inspired people to speak, and write, from God and allowed people to mess God's word up - apparently - by including letters from Paul? How could we trust the teaching that nothing can separate us from the love of God, or that we are given gifts by the Holy Spirit, or 1001 other things?

Strong in Him · Dec 27, 2015

HebrewVaquero said:
Pure speculation. You never know; it may have turned out better without Paul.

However it is easy to see how a gospel of lawlessness and cheap grace would encircle the world.

God's grace is not cheap; it cost Jesus his life.

Paul's limited understanding!

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Fighting the good fight

Simul Justus et Peccator

Well-Known Member

Zaqunraah

Regular Member

Regular Member

Great is thy faithfulness

Great is thy faithfulness

Fighting the good fight

Active Member

Let Your Light Shine.. Matt 5:16

Active Member

Great is thy faithfulness

Active Member

Great is thy faithfulness

Great is thy faithfulness

Similar threads