Christianity without Paul

[brinny]

Many who wish to justify themselves would be well pleased if they could remove Paul's writings.

Most interesting.....

you may have a point there...

 

[JackRT]

Where does Paul contradict the virgin birth and the betrayal of Judas?

Thank you kindly.

With respect to Judas please see my post #20 in this thread.

The only reference in Paul's writings to the birth of Jesus is:

Romans 1:3 "the gospel concerning his Son, who was descended from David according to the flesh".

The words "according to the flesh" I understand to mean "perfectly normal". Certainly no miraculous aspect is even remotely suggested. Mark makes no mention of the birth at all. The very first birth story occurs decades later in Matthew. Luke's birth story contradicts Matthew and John ignores it completely.

 

[brinny]

With respect to Judas please see my post #20 in this thread.

The only reference in Paul's writings to the birth of Jesus is:

Romans 1:3 "the gospel concerning his Son, who was descended from David according to the flesh".

The words "according to the flesh" I understand to mean "perfectly normal". Certainly no miraculous aspect is even remotely suggested. The very first birth story occurs decades later in Matthew. Mark makes no mention either. Luke's birth story contradicts Matthew and John ignores it completely.

That's not a contradiction of Christ's virgin birth.

I read your post #20 and i responded. See post #39.

Thank you.

 

[Standing Up]

Note also in Acts 1:24-26 that Matthias, the replacement for Judas, was elected after the ascension and just before Pentecost and thus could not be counted as among "the twelve" as a resurrection witness. There is a clear contradiction here. Either Paul is wrong or Matthew is wrong.

You missed Acts 1:21-22
Wherefore of these men which have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us,
Beginning from the baptism of John, unto that same day that he was taken up from us, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection.

Wherein Peter tells us Matthias and Joseph were resurrection witnesses.

PS Resurrection is not the same as ascension.

 

[Standing Up]

The only reference in Paul's writings to the birth of Jesus is:

Romans 1:3 "the gospel concerning his Son, who was descended from David according to the flesh".

The words "according to the flesh" I understand to mean "perfectly normal". Certainly no miraculous aspect is even remotely suggested. Mark makes no mention of the birth at all. The very first birth story occurs decades later in Matthew. Luke's birth story contradicts Matthew and John ignores it completely.

No, there are other Pauline references. Here's one:

Gal. 4:29 But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now.

The context is Abraham and two sons, one of whom was of the promise v23. Paul would have known the Isaiah prophecy of promise (the sign given).

 

[Soyeong]

Paul teaches holiness. He teaches that gentiles to separate themselves from this world and all its unholy ways. Paul never countermanded the Lord. Paul teaches the same doctrine as Christ also taught. Jesus told His disciples to teach the gentile nations to observe what he commanded them. That's exactly what Paul does. Paul points to Christ in all things.


Galatians 5:19 The acts of the flesh are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; 20 idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions 21 and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God.

1 Timothy 6:3 If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness;

4 He is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and strifes of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings,

5 Perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth, supposing that gain is godliness: from such withdraw thyself.
6 But godliness with contentment is great gain.
7 For we brought nothing into this world, and it is certain we can carry nothing out.
8 And having food and raiment let us be therewith content.
9 But they that will be rich fall into temptation and a snare, and into many foolish and hurtful lusts, which drown men in destruction and perdition.
10 For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows.


Hebbrews 13: 5 Keep your lives free from the love of money and be content with what you have, because God has said,

“Never will I leave you;
never will I forsake you.”[a]
6 So we say with confidence,

“The Lord is my helper; I will not be afraid.
What can mere mortals do to me?”

I agree with all of that, but I don't think that is the extent of the actions that the Bible says are holy.

1 Peter 1:13-16 Therefore, preparing your minds for action,[a] and being sober-minded, set your hope fully on the grace that will be brought to you at the revelation of Jesus Christ. 14 As obedient children, do not be conformed to the passions of your former ignorance, 15 but as he who called you is holy, you also be holy in all your conduct, 16 since it is written, “You shall be holy, for I am holy.”

We are told to have a holy conduct and then verse 16 quotes from the law about how to have a holy conduct. For example:

Leviticus 19:2-3 “Speak to all the congregation of the people of Israel and say to them, You shall be holy, for I the Lord your God am holy. 3 Every one of you shall revere his mother and his father, and you shall keep my Sabbaths: I am the Lord your God.

Being holy as God is holy is associated with keeping God's holy days, and really I think it is pretty straightforward that keeping God's holy days is part of what it means to have a holy conduct. Furthermore, Jesus' holy conduct involved keeping God's holy days and we are told to follow his example and to obey his commands and walk as he walked.

 

[Extraneous]

I agree with all of that, but I don't think that is the extent of the actions that the Bible says are holy.

1 Peter 1:13-16 Therefore, preparing your minds for action,[a] and being sober-minded, set your hope fully on the grace that will be brought to you at the revelation of Jesus Christ. 14 As obedient children, do not be conformed to the passions of your former ignorance, 15 but as he who called you is holy, you also be holy in all your conduct, 16 since it is written, “You shall be holy, for I am holy.”

We are told to have a holy conduct and then verse 16 quotes from the law about how to have a holy conduct. For example:

Leviticus 19:2-3 “Speak to all the congregation of the people of Israel and say to them, You shall be holy, for I the Lord your God am holy. 3 Every one of you shall revere his mother and his father, and you shall keep my Sabbaths: I am the Lord your God.

Being holy as God is holy is associated with keeping God's holy days, and really I think it is pretty straightforward that keeping God's holy days is part of what it means to have a holy conduct. Furthermore, Jesus' holy conduct involved keeping God's holy days and we are told to follow his example and to obey his commands and walk as he walked.

None of the apostles command us to observe Sabbath. If its so important i think they might have taught it many times, just as they do other commands which Christ gave us through them.

 

[Sophrosyne]

None of the apostles command us to observe Sabbath. If its so important i think they might have taught it many times, just as they do other commands which Christ gave us through them.

Exactly..... why would Jesus have said this:
Matthew 19:17-19New American Standard Bible (NASB)
17 And He said to him, “Why are you asking Me about what is good? There is only One who is good; but if you wish to enter into life, keep the commandments.” 18 Then he *said to Him, “Which ones?” And Jesus said, “You shall not commit murder; You shall not commit adultery; You shall not steal; You shall not bear false witness; 19 Honor your father and mother; and You shall love your neighbor as yourself.”

Jesus himself was asked which commandments to keep and he purposely omitted the Sabbath Commandment.

 

[JackRT]

You missed Acts 1:21-22
Wherefore of these men which have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us,
Beginning from the baptism of John, unto that same day that he was taken up from us, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection.

Wherein Peter tells us Matthias and Joseph were resurrection witnesses.

PS Resurrection is not the same as ascension.

While Matthias and Joseph may have been resurrection witnesses, they were not "of the twelve" at that time.

 

[JackRT]

No, there are other Pauline references. Here's one:

Gal. 4:29 But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now.

The context is Abraham and two sons, one of whom was of the promise v23. Paul would have known the Isaiah prophecy of promise (the sign given).

So Paul contradicts himself.

 

[Soyeong]

Nonsense, you are pretty much IGNORING the intent of the council of Jerusalem why would they DEMAND circumcision of gentiles to begin with if it was MEANINGLESS to the Law itself? The logic of this thinking is absent.

Acts 15:1 But some men came down from Judea and were teaching the brothers, “Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved.”

Their intent was to require Gentiles to become circumcised and obey the customs of Moses in order be saved, which is certainly related to the law insofar as it is their traditions, customs, interpretation, or understanding of how to obey it, but it was nevertheless something Jesus came against. He accused them of setting aside the law to follow their own traditions (Mark 7:6-13) and of tying up heavy burdens that wouldn't lift a finger to move (Matthew 23:4). So the issue raised in Acts 15 was about whether Gentiles had to keep Jewish customs about how to obey the law in order to be saved, not whether obeying God's commands is part of the Christian walk. They were expected to learn about Moses in the synagogues every Sabbath, it is straightforward that they were still expect to learn about how to obey God, just not according to Jewish customs.

We must obey God rather than man, so if God had said in His law that all Gentiles need to become circumcised and the Jerusalem Council had said that Gentiles don't need to become circumcised, then we must obey God instead of the Jerusalem Council, but God never said that and the Jerusalem Council upheld God's law by correctly ruling that it does not require that. God does require those Gentiles in the household of Abraham and those who want to eat of the Passover lamb to become circumcised (Genesis 17:12, Exodus 12:48), but He does not command all Gentiles everywhere to become circumcised and He certainly does not require it in order to become saved. The Jerusalem Council had no authority to countermand God or to add to or subtract from His commands (Deuteronomy 4:2), so did not and could not tell Gentiles that it was ok to sin and disobey God.

Gentiles are not grafted into Israel, more nonsense. Foreigners who "attached" themselves to Israel became by circumcision Israelites or they were not allowed to partake of the covenant of Israel (the Law).
In other words you are spouting a bunch of false statements here.

According to Ephesians 2:12, Gentiles were once separated from Messiah, alienated from Israel, strangers to the covenants of promise, and without a hope, but through faith in Messiah all of that is no longer true, and in Ephesians 2:19 they are no longer strangers or aliens, but are now fellow citizens of Israel along with the saints. According to 1 Peter 2:9-10, Gentiles are now part of God's chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, and a treasure of God's own possession, all of which was once said about Israel (Deuteronomy 7:6), so are now being included as part of Israel. The New Covenant was only made with the house of Israel and the house of Judah (Jeremiah 31:31), so if someone is not grafted into Israel by faith in Messiah, then they are not part of the New Covenant. Furthermore, the New Covenant involves God's law being written on our hearts (Jeremiah 31:33) so that we will obey it.

God has always been holy, righteous, and good, so He has always had such a conduct, and His law is holy, righteous, and good (Romans 7:12) because it is a reflection of God's character and it is His instructions for how to have such a conduct. So the way have such a conduct and act in line with God's character has existed from the beginning and exists independently of any covenant, and did not change between covenants. Even if God had made no covenants with man, it would still be to our advantage to have a holy, righteous, and good conduct, and indeed we are also told to have such a conduct as part of the New Covenant.

Jesus never commanded ANY non Jews to keep the Law, Jesus never instructed Paul to teach Gentiles to keep the Law. You are arguing from SILENCE and will continue to do so the New Testament has plenty of content that if you were correct in your assertions would be 100% obvious, in your face, and outright out front proclaiming by TEACHING of direct commanding to keep the Law when in fact one must use prestidigitation to acquire such knowledge.

Jesus hardly interacted with non-Jews, which is itself an argument from silence. We know that both Jesus and Paul told people not to sin and sin is lawlessness (1 John 3:4), so telling Gentiles not to sin is the same thing as telling them not to break God's law. I don't think it gets more straightforward than that. Furthermore, Jesus taught how to obey the law both by word and by example and Gentiles are told to follow his example and to walk as he walked. Our sanctification is about being made to be like him in also having a holy, righteous, and good conduct in accordance with the law.

 

[Extraneous]

With respect to Judas please see my post #20 in this thread.

The only reference in Paul's writings to the birth of Jesus is:

Romans 1:3 "the gospel concerning his Son, who was descended from David according to the flesh".

The words "according to the flesh" I understand to mean "perfectly normal". Certainly no miraculous aspect is even remotely suggested. Mark makes no mention of the birth at all. The very first birth story occurs decades later in Matthew. Luke's birth story contradicts Matthew and John ignores it completely.

Mary, Jesus Mother, was Davids descendant, therefore Jesus was Davids descendant in the flesh as well. As far as Paul being seen of the "twelve" goes, Judas was replaced and there were still twelve when paul seen them.

 

[jimmyjimmy]

Most interesting.....

you may have a point there...

I'm usually right, except when I'm wrong.

 

[Standing Up]

While Matthias and Joseph may have been resurrection witnesses, they were not "of the twelve" at that time.

That was your definition of "the twelve"; that they be resurrection witnesses. Paul knows this.

 

[Goatee]

Galatians 5:2
2 Now I, Paul, say to you that if you receive circumcision, Christ will be of no advantage to you.

 

[Standing Up]

So Paul contradicts himself.

How? He's contrasting the allegory of the son of flesh with the son of promise. The point is son of promise was of God. First by making the barren Sarah fertile and two by making the virgin conceive. Paul knows this.

 

[Standing Up]

Galatians 5:2
2 Now I, Paul, say to you that if you receive circumcision, Christ will be of no advantage to you.

Paul is contrasting the two covenants whose goals are righteousness (right way with God).

Deut. 6:25
And it shall be our righteousness, if we observe to do all these commandments before the LORD our God, as he hath commanded us.

Romans 10:5, 6, 10
For Moses describeth the righteousness which is of the law, That the man which doeth those things shall live by them.
But the righteousness which is of faith speaketh on this wise, Say not in thine heart, Who shall ascend into heaven? (that is, to bring Christ down from above
That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.

 

[Goatee]

Jeremiah 31:31-34Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition (RSVCE)
A New Covenant
31 “Behold, the days are coming, says the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah, 32 not like the covenant which I made with their fathers when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, my covenant which they broke, though I was their husband, says the Lord. 33 But this is the covenant which I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says theLord: I will put my law within them, and I will write it upon their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. 34 And no longer shall each man teach his neighbor and each his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest, says the Lord; for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.”

 

[brinny]

I'm usually right, except when I'm wrong.

LOL!

 

[tatteredsoul]

How much of Christianity is Paul? Is the faith as we know it made up mostly of Paul and his teachings?

Where would we be without Paul?

I have wondered about Paul. He does seem to take up a large part of the NT in his writings etc. Did he have his own agenda? Was his teachings very different from those of Jesus?

I ask these questions because i am curious to know if others have asked these questions and what answers people give. I for one are very much inexperienced in Biblical matters but i am trying to learn more and more as time goes on.

Honestly, the Hebrews were "Christians," especially if you read the apocryphal books like Enoch. Christ's advent was prophecy in Genesis 3:15, and thoroughly throughout the old testament. It was no new thing to the Hebrews. David constantly talked about Christ and His redemption. Enoch talked explicitly about His first advent, and reign.

Paul is highly misunderstood. Some think he is the best thing since sliced bread, others think he is antichristian. I think because he had Roman scribes, and used to be a Roman citizen who is well aware of Roman politics, he had to write/word his message in ways that were spiritually right, but also appeased the government on the surface. His stonings and beatings were likely because his messages weren't pagan enough, and/or adherent to the Roman government. So, he had to use razor-sharp political eloquence.

It really is a shame; his messages are easily the most pro-government, pro-"submit to human authority" messages to be taken on the surface. And, they have been used as such. I used to think Paul was an antichrist in his message. But, closer inspection (mixed with a little history lesson) lead me to believe he is actually just misunderstood, and his writings are in line with the Word. We have interpreted them wrongly - not without help from confusion.