Did Paul Do This?

[Big Drew]

In 1 Corinthians Paul speaks about divisions in the Church. How some were saying they were of Paul, others Apollos, others Cephas. When addressing this he asked, "Are we not all of Christ?" Meaning just because it was the message of Paul or Apollos that lead someone to Christ, that doesn't mean they are a follower of Paul or Apollos.

In 2 Peter, Peter writes that some of things Paul writes about are hard to understand and some folks twist them like they do other scriptures.

In thinking about this I realized that a lot of division we have amongst ourselves does come from Paul's writings.

Part of the error within some dispensational thought, for example, is that Paul preached a separate Gospel of Grace for the gentiles.

The Calvinist idea of election and predestination is heavily based on the book of Romans.

Sola Fide from Galatians.

The Continuist vs Cessationist debate comes from opposing views of 1 Corinthians.

The rapture from Thessalonians...

I can go on...but I wonder what it is about Paul's letters that have caused so much division? What is it about them that makes them hard to understand? Does it just seem like there's more division based on his teachings because he wrote the majority of the NT?

I have wondered if we didn't have Paul's epistles in the Bible if we would be more unified. Not that I'm saying we should disregard them...because there is much truth to be found in his words...nor do I think that Paul is to blame, but our interpretations of what he said...but is there a remedy?

 

[Albion]

I can go on...but I wonder what it is about Paul's letters that have caused so much division? What is it about them that makes them hard to understand? Does it just seem like there's more division based on his teachings because he wrote the majority of the NT?

I agree that it is unlikely that Paul would be at the center of this controversy if he hadn't been responsible for so much of the NT himself and been such a dynamic missionary. Also, he was, in his epistles, something of a mystic although most Christians don't see him that way.

So, all in all, he was in the spotlight and probably was controversial for that reason alone. I think of Billy Graham, one of the greats of Christian evangelism of all time...and yet it's not uncommon to hear the folks in the cheap seats say that he's just in it for the money or wants the fame, etc., all of which is demonstrably false. But they have formed an opinion of prominent preachers in general.

 

[Korean-American Christian]

I have wondered if we didn't have Paul's epistles in the Bible if we would be more unified. Not that I'm saying we should disregard them...because there is much truth to be found in his words...nor do I think that Paul is to blame, but our interpretations of what he said...but is there a remedy?

Brother, in my opinion...Christians would still find reasons for dissension and dis-unity even if we didn't have Paul's epistles in the Bible.

I read a post in these forums that basically said, "Many Christians interpret the Bible any way they want to interpret the Bible."

Personally, I believe that there is one correct way to interpret the Bible....though I haven't learned how to correctly interpret the Bible yet

 

[4x4toy]

IMO , Paul was great , he was sent to the gentiles and had to teach things that born-again Jews could more easily relate to than the gentiles could .. Paul definitely like the rest of the apostles carried his own personality with him in his ministry .. He reminds me of a race horse trembling at the gate waiting to be turned loose to 'get it on' ..

 

[Tangible]

I don't think the problem lies with Paul and his writings, but with those who fail to read his epistles in the whole contexts of scripture, either focusing too narrowly on something that Paul wrote, or failing to interpret other writers in the light of Paul's statements.

A prime example would be those who try to pit Paul against James and say that they are holding opposing positions.

If I am grateful for one thing that I've learned since discovering Lutheran theology it is that you can never come to the truth by looking at two divergent passages and asking which one is correct, but instead, that passages seeming to hold divergent positions must be read in the light of the rest of scripture and synthesized into one coherent position that holds both to be true and correct, if paradoxical at times.

 

[Big Drew]

Brother, in my opinion...Christians would still find reasons for dissension and dis-unity even if we didn't have Paul's epistles in the Bible.

I read a post in these forums that basically said, "Many Christians interpret the Bible any way they want to interpret the Bible."

Personally, I believe that there is one correct way to interpret the Bible....though I haven't learned how to correctly interpret the Bible yet

Amen to that.

 

[Winken]

In 1 Corinthians Paul speaks about divisions in the Church. How some were saying they were of Paul, others Apollos, others Cephas. When addressing this he asked, "Are we not all of Christ?" Meaning just because it was the message of Paul or Apollos that lead someone to Christ, that doesn't mean they are a follower of Paul or Apollos.

In 2 Peter, Peter writes that some of things Paul writes about are hard to understand and some folks twist them like they do other scriptures.

In thinking about this I realized that a lot of division we have amongst ourselves does come from Paul's writings.

Part of the error within some dispensational thought, for example, is that Paul preached a separate Gospel of Grace for the gentiles.

The Calvinist idea of election and predestination is heavily based on the book of Romans.

Sola Fide from Galatians.

The Continuist vs Cessationist debate comes from opposing views of 1 Corinthians.

The rapture from Thessalonians...

I can go on...but I wonder what it is about Paul's letters that have caused so much division? What is it about them that makes them hard to understand? Does it just seem like there's more division based on his teachings because he wrote the majority of the NT?

I have wondered if we didn't have Paul's epistles in the Bible if we would be more unified. Not that I'm saying we should disregard them...because there is much truth to be found in his words...nor do I think that Paul is to blame, but our interpretations of what he said...but is there a remedy?

Paul didn't replace or teach a "separate" gospel. Jesus came in utter fulfillment of God's Messianic promise in the Abrahamic Covenant, in view of the fact that the Nation of Hebrews had consistently rejected their role as "the Chosen" of God. Jesus offered the path of restoration to the Nation of Hebrews.

Following the Cross Jesus appeared to Paul, indicating that HIs offer of that path (Grace) made to the Jews was now being offered to Gentiles. Thereafter there was one Lord, one Faith, Jesus.

 

[Big Drew]

Paul didn't replace or teach a "separate" gospel. Jesus came in utter fulfillment of God's Messianic promise in the Abrahamic Covenant, in view of the fact that the Nation of Hebrews had consistently rejected their role as "the Chosen" of God. Jesus offered the path of restoration to the Nation of Hebrews.

Following the Cross Jesus appeared to Paul, indicating that HIs offer of that path (Grace) made to the Jews was now being offered to Gentiles. Thereafter there was one Lord, one Faith, Jesus.

Not exactly the point of the OP, but thanks for your thoughts.

 

[Ken Rank]

In 1 Corinthians Paul speaks about divisions in the Church. How some were saying they were of Paul, others Apollos, others Cephas. When addressing this he asked, "Are we not all of Christ?" Meaning just because it was the message of Paul or Apollos that lead someone to Christ, that doesn't mean they are a follower of Paul or Apollos.

In 2 Peter, Peter writes that some of things Paul writes about are hard to understand and some folks twist them like they do other scriptures.

In thinking about this I realized that a lot of division we have amongst ourselves does come from Paul's writings.

Part of the error within some dispensational thought, for example, is that Paul preached a separate Gospel of Grace for the gentiles.

The Calvinist idea of election and predestination is heavily based on the book of Romans.

Sola Fide from Galatians.

The Continuist vs Cessationist debate comes from opposing views of 1 Corinthians.

The rapture from Thessalonians...

I can go on...but I wonder what it is about Paul's letters that have caused so much division? What is it about them that makes them hard to understand? Does it just seem like there's more division based on his teachings because he wrote the majority of the NT?

I have wondered if we didn't have Paul's epistles in the Bible if we would be more unified. Not that I'm saying we should disregard them...because there is much truth to be found in his words...nor do I think that Paul is to blame, but our interpretations of what he said...but is there a remedy?

I appreciate your post but... why would Peter say that those who hear Paul are twisting what he says? He called them "unlearned" if I remember the verse correctly? Paul was not just a Jew, he was from the school of Hillel and in his writings, once you have learned to recognize this, we see him using certain exegetical tools in order to make his points. The "Rules of Hillel" (of which there are 7 rules) are used over 30+ times in his letters.... but..... we are not even taught there are Rules of Hillel let alone can recognize and apply them. YET, those rules are "designed" to effect context. Heck... half the time we don't even recognize the metaphors he is using.

So, was he REALLY preaching a separate gospel or are we looking at what he is writing through a western lens rather than the first century Hebraic and instructed lens he wrote through? I don't read Paul and see ANY deviation from Yeshua's teaching or the teachings of Torah. I see him expound on them, apply them, reveal the spirit (intent) of the letter, but not deviate in any way, shape, or form. Paul causes division when read through our Greek influenced eyes... because we are left "on our own" to determine what Paul is trying to say. But, if we familiarize ourselves with the culture of his day (which he drew on for his letters) and the methodology behind his writings (also uniquely 2000 year +/- old Hebraic methodology) and read through THAT lens... Paul is as consistent as any other writer in Scripture. The message remains the same for all.

 

[4x4toy]

It is actually a blessing to know the church has been the same since the start ..
We are all parts of the same body and in different stages of maturity .. We experience life abundant , even at church league softball there's as much fussing and fighting after we pray sometimes and an important part of the game .. Then after the competition it's laughing and fellowship again like loving brothers ..

 

[Greg J.]

I can go on...but I wonder what it is about Paul's letters that have caused so much division? What is it about them that makes them hard to understand? Does it just seem like there's more division based on his teachings because he wrote the majority of the NT?

I have wondered if we didn't have Paul's epistles in the Bible if we would be more unified. Not that I'm saying we should disregard them...because there is much truth to be found in his words...nor do I think that Paul is to blame, but our interpretations of what he said...but is there a remedy?

One of reasons the Holy Spirit speaking through Paul caused/causes so much division is that he goes into much detail and tests the boundaries of what people understand and believe. Jesus' words are less divisive because apart from Paul we have more complex generalities—hence less understanding (without struggling with Paul's words).

 

[Big Drew]

I appreciate your post but... why would Peter say that those who hear Paul are twisting what he says? He called them "unlearned" if I remember the verse correctly? Paul was not just a Jew, he was from the school of Hillel and in his writings, once you have learned to recognize this, we see him using certain exegetical tools in order to make his points. The "Rules of Hillel" (of which there are 7 rules) are used over 30+ times in his letters.... but..... we are not even taught there are Rules of Hillel let alone can recognize and apply them. YET, those rules are "designed" to effect context. Heck... half the time we don't even recognize the metaphors he is using.

So, was he REALLY preaching a separate gospel or are we looking at what he is writing through a western lens rather than the first century Hebraic and instructed lens he wrote through? I don't read Paul and see ANY deviation from Yeshua's teaching or the teachings of Torah. I see him expound on them, apply them, reveal the spirit (intent) of the letter, but not deviate in any way, shape, or form. Paul causes division when read through our Greek influenced eyes... because we are left "on our own" to determine what Paul is trying to say. But, if we familiarize ourselves with the culture of his day (which he drew on for his letters) and the methodology behind his writings (also uniquely 2000 year +/- old Hebraic methodology) and read through THAT lens... Paul is as consistent as any other writer in Scripture. The message remains the same for all.

Totally agree that there is no other gospel taught by Paul than that of Christ. It seems to me that the further and further we get away from the time of Christ and the Apostles the more division there seems to be. So I agree as well that we have to view scripture in context...and context includes understanding the time in which it was written.

 

[loNe]

In 1 Corinthians Paul speaks about divisions in the Church. How some were saying they were of Paul, others Apollos, others Cephas. When addressing this he asked, "Are we not all of Christ?" Meaning just because it was the message of Paul or Apollos that lead someone to Christ, that doesn't mean they are a follower of Paul or Apollos.

In 2 Peter, Peter writes that some of things Paul writes about are hard to understand and some folks twist them like they do other scriptures.

In thinking about this I realized that a lot of division we have amongst ourselves does come from Paul's writings.

Part of the error within some dispensational thought, for example, is that Paul preached a separate Gospel of Grace for the gentiles.

The Calvinist idea of election and predestination is heavily based on the book of Romans.

Sola Fide from Galatians.

The Continuist vs Cessationist debate comes from opposing views of 1 Corinthians.

The rapture from Thessalonians...

I can go on...but I wonder what it is about Paul's letters that have caused so much division? What is it about them that makes them hard to understand? Does it just seem like there's more division based on his teachings because he wrote the majority of the NT?

I have wondered if we didn't have Paul's epistles in the Bible if we would be more unified. Not that I'm saying we should disregard them...because there is much truth to be found in his words...nor do I think that Paul is to blame, but our interpretations of what he said...but is there a remedy?

yes D

..seeing that the people Paul adressed, weren't "heathens"
- but the lost 10 tribes of northern old-Israel
who forgot their identity

..it is utter Logical,
that God let them to move to europe [asareth],
after their assyrian exile,
and then send Paul to get them back

so typically He...

[but the part who thought they are heathens,
are like that son who stayed with his father, in the parable]

so - no division, at all

 

[Big Drew]

yes D

..seeing that the people Paul adressed, weren't "heathens"
- but the lost 10 tribes of northern old-Israel
who forgot their identity

..it is utter Logical,
that God let them to move to europe [asareth],
after their assyrian exile,
and then send Paul to get them back

so typically He...

[but the part who thought they are heathens,
are like that son who stayed with his father, in the parable]

so - no division, at all

That's an interesting perspective...never heard it before.

 

[Ken Rank]

Totally agree that there is no other gospel taught by Paul than that of Christ. It seems to me that the further and further we get away from the time of Christ and the Apostles the more division there seems to be. So I agree as well that we have to view scripture in context...and context includes understanding the time in which it was written.

Yes... and that doesn't mean that everyone else has to end up with my understanding. I am where I am... and I accept where you and others are. But... you're dead right... the further away in time we get and the more our culture changes, the harder it is to get the proper context. There are a score (maybe scores) of idioms used in the bible that we don't use today. Even the word "name" has a meaning back then that it doesn't today and when we read Scripture defining that word as we use it now... we simply leave food on the table. God still loves us, we are still His... but this is where "Studying to show..." comes in. Blessings.

 

[loNe]

That's an interesting perspective...never heard it before.

me neither love (blush)

..we are so drilled with this non-split between 'jews and christianity' ..
which is a concocted split !

God loved n-israel kingdom the same deep ;
but they represented another playout;
but He never forgot them,
and certainly wouldnt go through the trouble to convert Paul,
who, splendidly, was able to 'feel' the 10 lost tribes..?

what did he say ?
'i came for the 10...'

God never forgets love
and always searches back love

...'heathens' , note [!] , are the east-asians...africans..
but NOT the souls, Paul searched back !

 

[Ken Rank]

That's an interesting perspective...never heard it before.

I actually agree with him. If you look at Paul's commission it states, "go to the kings and gentiles and the children of Israel." Notice the two bold "and"(s) there? The first is kai, the word for "and." The second is "te," which is the word for both or even also. And gentiles (ethnos) is also nations. So... a retranslation... "go to the kings and nations both the children of Israel." If you place your cursor here over Genesis 35:11 you'll see Jacob's seed prophesied as, "nations and kings" which are the "children of Israel" (Jacob).

Couple that with messiah saying, "I have not been sent BUT to the lost sheep of the House of Israel" and him also sending his disciples to the lost sheep of the House of Israel... then that is where the weight of his mission was. (I believe)

 

[Big Drew]

I actually agree with him. If you look at Paul's commission it states, "go to the kings and gentiles and the children of Israel." Notice the two bold "and"(s) there? The first is kai, the word for "and." The second is "te," which is the word for both or even also. And gentiles (ethnos) is also nations. So... a retranslation... "go to the kings and nations both the children of Israel." If you place your cursor here over Genesis 35:11 you'll see Jacob's seed prophesied as, "nations and kings" which are the "children of Israel" (Jacob).

Couple that with messiah saying, "I have not been sent BUT to the lost sheep of the House of Israel" and him also sending his disciples to the lost sheep of the House of Israel... then that is where the weight of his mission was. (I believe)

So in this view then, does it mean that all who come to faith in Christ are not only spiritual Israel, but are literal physical descendants of Jacob as well?

 

[Tangible]

So in this view then, does it mean that all who come to faith in Christ are not only spiritual Israel, but are literal physical descendants of Jacob as well?

Doesn't matter. God make children of Abraham out of the rocks if he wanted to.

 

[loNe]

me neither love (blush)

..we are so drilled with this non-split between 'jews and christianity' ..
which is a concocted split !

God loved n-israel kingdom the same deep ;
but they represented another playout;
but He never forgot them,
and certainly wouldnt go through the trouble to convert Paul,
who, splendidly, was able to 'feel' the 10 lost tribes..?

what did he say ?
'i came for the 10...'

God never forgets love
and always searches back love

...'heathens' , note [!] , are the east-asians...africans..
but NOT the souls, Paul searched back !

[last post about it] ,

...that is why it is so intrensic-Mean,
to adapt to that false consciousness,
which proclaims that "Paul went to the heathens [in Rome and Greece] "

(as opposed to the so-called 'genuines' )

..this Silly theory is, sadly, adopted by millions of christians :
as if we were the 'heathens'

a LIE !!!!!!!!!!

- God knows those who are His' -- even théy don't ---

and Paul was sent to THE 10 TRIBES