B'rit Chadashah - Sa'ul = ?

[Woodsy]

This is a question that I have had for years, but KelsayDL's thread about Paul reignited its fire.

Before I accepted Yeshua as Messiah, I used to theorize that Paul was sort of an agent provocateur, sent by the Enemy to complicate Yeshua's message and mix things up for us. I no longer believe this to be the case.

But my question is this:
What would Christianity and Messianic Judaism be different today if Sa'ul had not had his conversion experience? What tenets of the church are based on Paul's writings, and how would it be different without them? Get into specifics.

What if the B'rit Hadashsa contained only the writings of the Talmidim chosen by Yeshua during his earthly existence? How different would things be?

 

[KelsayDL]

Interesting question. And one that I have been pondering as well Tribe. Seriously.

Forgive me if I reignited a fire you managed to come to grips with. Thats not my goal. I am not anti-Paul. At least I don't think I am, and I'm trying very hard not to be.

I think Pauls conversion was genuine. The Holy Spirit called him from amongs the brethren when he told them to set him and Barnabas aside for the work which he has called them to.

I merely question did he stumble somewhere along the way. I think it's absurd to assume there was no conflict between Paul and the Apostles. I think there was a greater conflict than we will ever know. But thats all in the Lords hands.

What would Christianity and Messianic Judaism be different today if Sa'ul had not had his conversion experience?

Well. Personally I don't believe there would be a question as to whether the Torah was still to be observed. Without the words of Paul there is very little ground for the anti-law bunch to stand on.

I question whether the vehement anti-semitism we have witnessed throughout the history of the 'church' would have been anything like it was.

Luthers words had their root. Hitlers had his and the holocaust came about. Do I blame Paul, call the holocaust and the vehement anti-semitism throughout our history fruits of his teachings? No. I don't want to, but he did say;

1 Thessalonians 2:14-16
14 For ye, brethren, became followers of the churches of God which in Judaea are in Christ Jesus: for ye also have suffered like things of your own countrymen, even as they have of the Jews: 15 Who both killed the Lord Jesus, and their own prophets, and have persecuted us; and they please not God, and are contrary to all men: 16 Forbidding us to speak to the Gentiles that they might be saved, to fill up their sins alway: for the wrath is come upon them to the uttermost.

Sounds remarkably like luther and hitler, although far far tamer.

But I do not blame Paul for the insane extremities of madmen. I only question the root of their madness.

What tenets of the church are based on Paul's writings, and how would it be different without them? Get into specifics.

Replacement theology and antinomianism for starters.

What if the B'rit Hadashsa contained only the writings of the Talmidim chosen by Yeshua during his earthly existence? How different would things be?

Well, antinomianism defianately would not be as prevalent amongst professing believers.

77% of America would not have ground to stand on when claiming to be christian. As we do today...


The word still would have been preached to the gentiles per the lords command, but I believe his followers would be far fewer, and much less confused;

Matthew- 28:19
Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

But some of the beauty of it all would be lost. Pauls description of the gentiles being grafted in, is awesome and divinely inspired I believe.

 

[SonWorshipper]

On many a thread I have participated in whenever the subject of anything in Torah is discussed Paul is used to refute it. I have heard of the Pauline espitles talked about as if they were written by the hand of G-d and nothing else. I have even heard Pauls word repeatedy held in more regard than those of the Messiah himself. Their reasoning was that Yeshua said such and such before he was crucified (and thus things changed afterwards through Paul) or that because He "was" Jewish he HAD to do those things, I really didn't realize how much of what is taught in Christian churches comes from Pauls writings alone. I guess they save Yeshua for Easter and Christmas.

 

[Woodsy]

Thanks for the thoughtful comments, everyone. I'm not starting this thread to start down the road of heresy, don't worry! I consider it my job to make peace with all of Paul's writings, as I believe that they are contained within Scripture for a reason.
I just wonder about some things.

Here's a question directly related to the issue of Paul's epistles (and a question frequently asked by Catholics): how do we, as non-Catholics, know which books of the Bible are inspired and "valid" if we don't accept the Catholic Church's authority to decide?

 

[KelsayDL]

Here's a question directly related to the issue of Paul's epistles (and a question frequently asked by Catholics): how do we, as non-Catholics, know which books of the Bible are inspired and "valid" if we don't accept the Catholic Church's authority to decide?

Well, this is a tough question. I personally do not ascribe to the teaching that everything in the book we have dubbed the Bible is inspired (especially concerning Paul). That is only a recent conclusion of mine, and I'm not 100% set on it yet. More like 99.9%

To me the chore of canonization has always been in the hands of men. Being that men are fallible, even those close to the Lord as is evidenced throughout the Bible. I have no reason to believe that every word of the bible is there because God ordained it to be so through his holy spirit.

If that is the case then why did it take the holy spirit 1500yrs to finally settle on the protestants version of the bible (hello protestants??)? Or however long it was before Luther and his gang seperated from the catholics and there gaggle.

The catholic holds the card in this area and says it's because the protestants are in rebellion to God. We have the only divinely inspired bible. Well, I'm not buying it.

Theres also ample biblical evidence that men would in fact tamper with the word. Just read the end of revealations and you will see it. Why the warning? To me it's obvious. Man can and would tamper with the scriptures to suit his doctrines.

Personally, I believe theres enough circumstantial evidence to toss Paul out of canonization in the bible its self. Would that be wise to do? I don't know, only if these things could be proven I suppose, and they can't other than in ones heart.

I'm still studying the matter and will be praying about it in earnest. I don't hold the teachings of Paul to be above those of Christ. Where a conflict occurs, I will seek discernment from the lord and hopefully in time he will provide the answers, by his means. Until that time, I will discard what Paul says concerning the issue, whatever it may be.

I don't believe God would condemn me to hell for rejecting Paul (if it ever comes to that). Paul is not my salvation. God is, through Yeshua.

For now to answer your question I would say obviously the 'OT' as it existed long before the catholic came into the picture. So to me, the only real question is what qualifies the NT books for canonization. To that, I have no idea. But if something doesn't line up with what God said, and Yeshua reiterated I will hold it in contempt, until the matter is made clear to me.

 

[iitb]

I don't remember where I heard this, but somebody once said that the biggest problem with Paul's writings is that they are like a big game of Jeopardy; we have the answers, now we have to figure out what the questions were. For example, I've heard the case made that the "law" he spoke of in Galatians wasn't Torah, but local halacha(I hope I'm using the right word here). There are a bunch of other things I've heard as well, and I might post some after I do a little research, but I do feel that he does not contradict the Messiah or any of his followers.

On many a thread I have participated in whenever the subject of anything in Torah is discussed Paul is used to refute it. I have heard of the Pauline espitles talked about as if they were written by the hand of G-d and nothing else. I have even heard Pauls word repeatedy held in more regard than those of the Messiah himself. Their reasoning was that Yeshua said such and such before he was crucified (and thus things changed afterwards through Paul) or that because He "was" Jewish he HAD to do those things, I really didn't realize how much of what is taught in Christian churches comes from Pauls writings alone. I guess they save Yeshua for Easter and Christmas.

At the risk of getting a little off topic, not to mention ruffling the feathers of a few non-messianics, SonWorshipper's post has inspired me to post a link to The Reverend Twistruth Study Bible!

 

[koilias]

Studying Rabbinic methods, and from teachers I've encountered, Paul's exegetic creativity is actually very basic. It's "bare-bones". Becuase of it's simplicity it attracts Western thinkers. But actually Paul uses only Rabbinic associative logic, which can't be systemitized according to Western thought patterns.

Jesus is far superior in his exegetical outlook. A Jewish scholar who specializes in Rabbinic parallels once related to me: "Of the 900+ parables found in Rabbinic and ancient Jewish literature, one teacher stands head and shoulders above the others in his command of Scripture and its explication." That Rabbi of course was Jesus.

Most Christians have the impression that Jesus was simple rustic whose teachings were quite folkloric and basic. What they aren't aware of is how he is using Scripture. There is no word Jesus utters which is not reflecting on Scripture in a remarkably excogitated manner. He is a Rabbi par excellance.

Compared to Jesus, Paul is a simpleton. Not to diss Paul, becuase Paul's mission was apostolic: he had to combat heresy in the church. To do that you have to be basic.

But for matters of exegesis, ethics and understanding Scripture and God at a deeper level...turn to Jesus.

 

[Woodsy]

I'm not ready to alter the Bible, or throw any books out. I am no wise man, and I am likewise no scholar. I cannot ascertain for myself all that is correct and all that is incorrect. I must trust others for these things.

My life and my heart have been changed by Christ and by the Bible as it is today, and I trust that. Sometimes, though, my intellectual leanings run away with me, and I start pursuing doctrines that seem to "make more sense." Without fail, however, when I do this, my mind and heart slide farther away from the Lord.
I'm not ready to dump Paul. But I was interested in how different things might have been without the epistles he authored.

 

[KelsayDL]

Paul's mission was apostolic

Was it?

What were the qualifications for becoming an apostle? There is scriptural references for the matter. Did Paul fulfill the criteria? Out of the some 22or so times Paul is referred to as an apostle 20 of them are self endorsement, and the other few are from his sidekick luke. (no offense meant to luke).

I'm not ready to dump Paul wholesale yet either. But I have to wonder if thats because I've spent 20yrs conversing in bend over backwards apologetics to try and reconcile what the man has said.

I have many many questions concerning the man.

He was after all just a man. I don't really see how one could consider it heresy to dump the teachings of Paul. The catholic church may. But to be honest, I've never given much thought to the catholic church and their rantings.

I would never become anti-paul. By that I mean one who would go around and constantly defame the man every which way but loose. I would merely cite my contentions with him and leave it at that. If someone called that heretical, I would laugh.

What does seem somewhat heretical to me is a teaching of the church that peter and the apostles jumped the gun in appointing Matthias to replace Judas, and that the seat was meant for Paul. The criteria for apostleship was met by Justas and Matthias, a method used many times throughout the bible was used to determine who the seat would fall to, and it landed with Matthias.

There was no error in his being appointed as some in the 'church' would have us believe.

I mean honestly God is my Salvation, through Yeshua not Paul. Paul will not be my judge. Man shall live by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God, not Paul.

 

[Achichem]

I mean honestly God is my Salvation, through Yeshua not Paul. Paul will not be my judge. Man shall live by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God, not Paul.

You know I kinda feel that same way quite a lot,however it really only one verse that I am just keep praying to understand.

Galatians 5:2, NKJV:
</FONT>Indeed I, Paul, say to you that if you become circumcised, Christ will profit you nothing.

That and that alone is one thing Paul said that was so out of line of the truth,It is not even funny.And for that line I completly understand your mistrust in his work.

Truly this comment is in validation of PCBC#2,PCBC#4, and PCBC#5,
The only reason I can think he said it was because he struggled with exploding over little matters.

However it just seems even contray to his message.Any thoughts?

BTW. Does not Peter back him up by including that part on mis-understanding Paul?

God bless,
Datsar

 

[KelsayDL]

Yes, Peter seemingly backs him. But was Peter privy to what the letters of Paul contained? If not, would he have backed him knowing what he was saying? Peter is on his throne in heaven. Satans desire to destroy him was to no avail. But I wonder when the Lord said satan desired to sift Peter, if that was just the one night stand and the three denials of Yeshua, or if it was an attack that would continue for years to come.

That is the one and only reason that I do not completely ditch Paul and his teachings. There are theories out there as to whether 2Peter was even written by Peter. Some are rather dubious. I don't wish to go down that road.

There is a rather interesting theory about the Lords Prophecy over Peter which most take to mean the means by which Peter would die. And they may be right. But I'm looking at it in another light currently and praying about it.

I have a question I would like to ask if people don't mind. What did Paul mean in 2Timothy when he said;

2Ti 1:15 -
This thou knowest, that all they which are in Asia be turned away from me;

It's a rather interesting verse. Christianity interprets it to mean all of the churches in asia succumbed to apostasy, before the death of Paul.

Curious when we look at Revelations and the words of the lord concerning the seven churches, which were in Asia. Most notably the church at Ephesus;

Revelation 2:1-7
1 Unto the angel of the church of Ephesus write; These things saith he that holdeth the seven stars in his right hand, who walketh in the midst of the seven golden candlesticks; 2 I know thy works, and thy labour, and thy patience, and how thou canst not bear them which are evil: and thou hast tried them which say they are apostles, and are not, and hast found them liars:

The church at ephesus is the only church mentioned that Pauls direct involvement can be confirmed.

So, were the churches fallen all away from the Lord, or from Paul, by his own admission?

I don't know what to make of it myself. But I do know not one of Yeshuas apostles ever referred to Paul as an apostle, and that eventually Paul was rejected throughout Asia as he himself says, and last but not least, the Lord himself commends the church at Ephesus for their discernment.

P.S.!

the Lord himself commends the church at Ephesus for their discernment.

Notice that they were not chastised for rejecting the words of Paul, which they did, by Pauls own admission.

I guess that little addendum would be last, but not least.

 

[koilias]

I agree that Paul and the other NT writers didn't see eye to eye on many things (for example note how 100% opposite to Paul Jesus is in His letters to the churches in Revelation with regards to eating foods sacrificed to idols--that's a big one!).

But if you read the Talmud, none of the Rabbis seemed to have always agreed with each other either. I think we Christians could benefit from being a bit more circumspect about our ancient leaders: We can debate halakha even now!! That's what Jesus meant when he gave his disciples authority to "bind and loose". To paraphrase: "Whatever you guys decide on halakhic matters, that's the position I will take in Heaven. The ball is in your court. You have the keys of My Kingdom. I no longer call you servants: you are My Friends, because you know My Father's business and are no longer ignorant of the ways of the Kingdom."

Jesus gave us the reigns!!

Note that Jesus never commanded us to disengage from the Rabbinic discourse. Jesus said instead, "LISTEN to the scribes and Pharisees, for they sit on the Seat of Moses." Just don't become hypocrites like them...but actually practice what you preach.

We can disagree with one another and with Paul folks! We need to roll up our sleeves and embrace the Debate, not be such wusses and lean on the crutches of "systematic theology" or tradition...You should see how hot it gets when two Jewish Rabbis debate each other! But at the end of the day, they will embrace and kiss each other and continue on as if nothing ever happened. Instead we Christians fragment into a thousand little denominations... We are so petty.

 

[Woodsy]

What a great discussion! Thanks everybody for your thoughtful input.

[...] if you read the Talmud, none of the Rabbis seemed to have always agreed with each other either. I think we Christians could benefit from being a bit more circumspect about our ancient leaders: We can debate halakha even now!!

This is a very good point, but it's also one reason I left Judaism. The Lord is not the author of confusion.
It also seems to me that the Apostles don't really invite debate, as evidenced by the authoritative quality of the letters to the various churches.
Also, I don't know of any New Testament-based school of thought (except Liberal Christianity a la the Jesus Seminar, etc.) which see the NT texts as "living texts" which are to be clarified through human debate.

That's what Jesus meant when he gave his disciples authority to "bind and loose". To paraphrase: "Whatever you guys decide on halakhic matters, that's the position I will take in Heaven. The ball is in your court. You have the keys of My Kingdom. I no longer call you servants: you are My Friends, because you know My Father's business and are no longer ignorant of the ways of the Kingdom."

1.) I have different interpretations regarding what the "bind and loose" phrase means. Is this the generally-accepted one?
2.) Was this same authority explicitly granted to Paul?

You should see how hot it gets when two Jewish Rabbis debate each other! But at the end of the day, they will embrace and kiss each other and continue on as if nothing ever happened. Instead we Christians fragment into a thousand little denominations... We are so petty.

Yes, but the Jewish Rabbis place the words of the non-Biblical "Sages" on par with the Tanach as guides for life. Kind of like how the Mormons do with Joseph Smith and the rest of their "Prophets."
Are MJs "sola scriptura"? Or is there continuing revelation from human sources?
Does Paul qualify as the progenitor of Christian continuing revelation, since he was not present with Christ on Earth?

 

[iitb]

Are MJs "sola scriptura"?

Is anyone really "sola scriptura?" Most people are willing to take advice from someone they consider more knowledgeable about scripture. I've known Christians who claim to only obey the Bible, yet do a better job of quoting John Ortberg or Oswald Chambers than they do of quoting actual scripture!

However, as far as the Talmud goes, I'd have to say "it depends." Some accept it, some don't.

Or is there continuing revelation from human sources?

Well, considering the conflicting interpretations of scripture, most of which have to do with either "odd" Torah laws or the writings of Paul, I'd say "yes, there pretty much has to be continuing revelation from human sources."

 

[Woodsy]

Is anyone really "sola scriptura?" Most people are willing to take advice from someone they consider more knowledgeable about scripture. I've known Christians who claim to only obey the Bible, yet do a better job of quoting John Ortberg or Oswald Chambers than they do of quoting actual scripture!

Excellent point!

I'd say "yes, there pretty much has to be continuing revelation from human sources."

Good point, again. But what qualifies as "continuing revelation from human sources"? The Talmud? The Church Fathers? The Jesus Seminar? The Mormon "Prophets"? Who do we trust? Or do we accept a little (the parts that seem in accord in Scripture) from everyone? Can they all serve, at times, as vehicles of God's grace?
I'm definitely not trying to be dificult here, just trying to understand and see how others Walk.

 

[KelsayDL]

(for example note how 100% opposite to Paul Jesus is in His letters to the churches in Revelation with regards to eating foods sacrificed to idols--that's a big one!).

Indeed.

I mean it's right there in black and white. Or for those of you with red letter editions...

Read corinthians. Paul flat out poo-poos the Jerusalem councils edicts concerning food sacrificed to idols. He calls those obedient to the council and the holy spirit weak in faith. He does it throughout his teachings, but in corinthians I see no possible way to reconcile what Paul taught on the matter. No matter how flexible we are in our apologetics.

And as koilas has pointed out, these false teachings are brought to the forefront by the Lord when he addresses several of the churches in Asia.

Pauls opinions on food sacrificed to idols is absolutely 100% the reverse of the Lords. And in contradiction to what the Jerusalem council supposed Paul was bringing to the gentiles.

 

[koilias]

It also seems to me that the Apostles don't really invite debate, as evidenced by the authoritative quality of the letters to the various churches.

I think it is pretty clear, as we've reiterated that there was a debate anyway. Polemics are hard to miss...And nothing is more thoroughly Jewish. Just like this debate! (Thanks for disagreeing with me, brother!)

Also, I don't know of any New Testament-based school of thought (except Liberal Christianity a la the Jesus Seminar, etc.) which see the NT texts as "living texts" which are to be clarified through human debate.

We can deny that we are doing this...But we are doing it anyway.

1.) I have different interpretations regarding what the "bind and loose" phrase means. Is this the generally-accepted one?

"Bind" and "loose" in Hebrew are halakhic terms for "To Forbid" (zeh asur) and "To Allow" (zeh mutar). To this day they are used that way in Israel. You see them in signs everywhere. For example "asur le'ashen" means "no smoking allowed".

2.) Was this same authority explicitly granted to Paul?

Yes...but he was only one member of the debate. Before his teaching on "binding" (forbidding) gentile circumcision was adopted it had to go first through the Jerusalem Council (beit din), Acts 15. Peter only half-heartedly assented to the council's decision. He's allowed to keep his private reservations on the matter. But what the Council decides that's what Heaven has to sanction, regardless of whether or not it goes "against" tradition, the Bible, or a bat-Kol from Heaven itself. In Judaism, we are allowed to strong arm God. That's why Jacob was renamed "Israel". He coerced God for his blessing. God enjoys blessing those with Hutzpah! It shows you what kind of intimate relationship He wants with us!

Again: "I no longer call you servants, but you are my friends." For you know my Father's business...

Yes, but the Jewish Rabbis place the words of the non-Biblical "Sages" on par with the Tanach as guides for life. Kind of like how the Mormons do with Joseph Smith and the rest of their "Prophets."

These people (the heretics, including liberal Christians) do not share our world view and should be left out of the discourse. This is the terrain that Paul had complete authority to rule over. Whoever goes against the teaching of the beit-din is a heretic pure and simple. Within the beit-din you are granted tremendous lattitude in arguing your case...whether it wins or loses. But all must adhere (in black and white matters) on the teaching of the beit-din. Jesus in Revelation, by the way, is only one member of that beit-din. So Paul is no heretic when he disagrees with Yeshua...He just has to bite his lip when the prime minister rejects his motion. We can think of Yeshua as the "Rosh haKnesset". Or "Sar Yeshua", "Yeshua the Prince".

Are MJs "sola scriptura"? Or is there continuing revelation from human sources?
Does Paul qualify as the progenitor of Christian continuing revelation, since he was not present with Christ on Earth?

I'm not an MJ, but I wish MJ's had the cajones to lead the Church...to reclaim the authority that had been granted to the Jerusalem Council.
Can we even be Christians and say we don't get revelation from human sources? How would we have known about the letters to the seven churches had there not still have been a prophet in the Church that all could agree was a true prophet. I'm a rabid Charismatic, but I just don't see how our tradition was meant to be dispensational anywhere in the N.T. The problem with Catholicism isn't Catholicism as a concept

...It's just that we forsook our Jewish roots and our Jewish world-view.

Does Paul qualify as the progenitor of Christian continuing revelation, since he was not present with Christ on Earth?

Paul continued the revelation. He was a prophet and an apostle. He ascended to the third heaven. Without Paul, I would not have Yeshua as my Lord and Savior. He was God's chosen vessel to preach the Good News to the gentiles. He went overboard on some matters, but Yeshua did correct what had to be corrected. The N.T. lets us know about these debates (they aren't silent debates!) in order to give us a clear manual on how to proceed in determining Halakha...it gives us insight and wisdom. No, it is not easy, and only the most humble among us should be allowed to become Rabbis...but in the challenge, God shows us that He is with us.

Barukh haShem!

 

[sojeru]

indeed all of this is intresting.
I take Paul to be 100% correct.
Only thing is- How do we find it?
How do we see that he is on the direct path and only path to HaShem.

I believe when Paulos spoke on circumcision- he actually spoke in the terms of an uncircumcised one to be cut if his reason was to be saved by Torah.
I see this in all of Paulos' letters.
And I agree- we are not to ever think in such a way- because of this we would fall under that trap.
and its a thin line no doubt- even if we look and do exactly like the most strict, most frum unbelieving jew.
I love Paulos.
and they, Paulos and Messiah, agree.
its just to find out how.
Just because we dont know- does not mean that he is wrong in ANY POINT.
and let him call himself an emmisary.
For when any of you come to the point of having the da'at emeth, and you call yourself an emmisary, doesnt mean that the other brothers around you will always or at all call you emmisary.
But since you possess the emeth and speak and live it- we call you brother.
Some i call elder.

so i have no problem with Paulos calling himself as such- but he is my brother and elder.
Messiah being the head of us all- and we cannot be divided.
we may have our disagreements at first- But the ONE SPIRIT that directs us all will make us ONE.

shalom u'bracha

 

[KelsayDL]

Hi Sw, you said this a few days ago, and I believe I just read over about the worst example of it I have ever seen.

On many a thread I have participated in whenever the subject of anything in Torah is discussed Paul is used to refute it. I have heard of the Pauline espitles talked about as if they were written by the hand of G-d and nothing else. I have even heard Pauls word repeatedy held in more regard than those of the Messiah himself. Their reasoning was that Yeshua said such and such before he was crucified (and thus things changed afterwards through Paul) or that because He "was" Jewish he HAD to do those things, I really didn't realize how much of what is taught in Christian churches comes from Pauls writings alone. I guess they save Yeshua for Easter and Christmas.

Mat 6:14 "For if you forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you.
15 "But if you do not forgive men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.

Response from someone concerning that exact passage;

Isnt this OT law? where forgiveness is conditional. ie if you do this, God does this. This is not grace. You never find Paul teaching this to the churches. In fact, what is taught is FORGIVE BCOS YOU HAVE FORGIVENESS/HAVE BEEN FORGIVEN.

Today, if we do not want forgive someone who has offended us, then it is to our loss.
1. We cant come boldly to God's throne with faith if we harbour bitterness towards someone. It will be on our conscience.
2. Science has shown that bitterness/unforgiveness, if held on for too long, leads to certain diseases.

Also, it is not realistic to expect the offender to repent first b4 we forgive him. What if he does not repent? Are we then going to bear the grudge until we die? No, forgiveness does not depend on repentance.

I suppose Messiah is to be thrown out wholesale in preference of the teachings of Paul, in the opinions of some.

 

[SonWorshipper]

Is it just me or does anyone else find that the teachings of Y'shua ( many told in parables) are very easy to understand, because one of the purposes He had in coming was to define Torah, make its understanding clear. And find just the opposite with Paul? I understand that Pauls writings were to a Hellenized Empire and very Philosophicalbut I find that there are many verses that are mind twisting or even mind numbing to me.

The only ones I understand are reiterations of the Tenach, which are not explained and if these are being presented to a Gentile audience

I guess my basic problem with Paul is why he considered himself the Apostle to the Gentiles?

To me this doesn't make logical sense.

The L-rd Y'shua specifically sent out 70 men to the nations before his crucifixion. Also He had picked twelve talmidim ( Judas was replaced at the council by the Ruach Himself) And these men all had to be EYE witnesses from the very beginning of the ministry of our L-rd until his accention ( or at least to the resurection as only a few chosen saw him ascend). He sent them in twos, why? This is in line with the law:

Deuteronomy 17
6 At the mouth of two witnesses, or three witnesses, shall he that is worthy of death be put to death; but at the mouth of one witness he shall not be put to death.

Deuteronomy 19
15 One witness shall not rise up against a man for any iniquity, or for any sin, in any sin that he sinneth: at the mouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth of three witnesses, shall the matter be established.

In Revelation there are two witnesses, so two are required to testify to anything.

Luke himself received what he wrote about from these eyewitness, which is found in his opening of his letter to Theophilus:

Luke 1
1 Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us,
2 Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word;
3 It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus,


We have the story in Acts about Peter being shown ( at what is agreed to be 10 years since the crucifixtion and resurection) the vision from heaven that salvation is for the Gentiles also and he goes to Cornelius.

Another thing of note, in the beginning of Acts Luke writes:

Acts 1
1 The former treatise have I made, O Theophilus, of all that Jesus began both to do and teach, ( this is in referrence to the Gospel we call Luke)

2 Until the day in which he was taken up, after that he through the Holy Ghost had given commandments unto the apostles whom he had chosen:
3 To whom also he shewed himself alive after his passion by many infallible proofs, being seen of them forty days, and speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God:
4 And, being assembled together with them, commanded them that they should not depart from Jerusalem, but wait for the promise of the Father, which, saith he, ye have heard of me.
5 For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence.
6 When they therefore were come together, they asked of him, saying, Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel?
7 And he said unto them, It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power.
8 But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.
9 And when he had spoken these things, while they beheld, he was taken up; and a cloud received him out of their sight.


Again Luke tells this Theophilus that those who actually were with the L-rd were to be his witnesses in Jerusalem and to the uttermost part of the earth, so where is the need for another? - Paul? The L-rd did not say that they would be witnesses to only the Jews in the uttermost parts, but that they would be witnesses of His to the world, including the hated Samaria.

Was Paul an eyewitness to the Ministry, crucifixtion and resurection of Y'shua?