• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

Does anyone else have mixed thoughts about the apostle Paul?

Izdaari Eristikon

Well-Known Member
Mar 12, 2007
6,174
448
71
Post Falls, Idaho
✟47,841.00
Country
United States
Faith
Episcopalian
Marital Status
Married
I couldn't disagree more, Avatar. I think UberLutheran's assessment of Paul is substantially correct. Not only that, but if you have that much revulsion for it, than you may feel the same way about the whole Lutheran tradition... because what UberLutheran gave was essentially Martin Luther's own take on Paul (except for the gay thing, which AFAIK Luther never wrote about).
 
  • Like
Reactions: UberLutheran
Upvote 0
E

Evangelina

Guest
I think it's useful to keep Peter's words about Paul in mind... that his letters can be hard to understand, and are prone to misuse by false teachers because of that.

I dunno... I find it weird that letters to specific congregations, discussing specific problems ('as to the matter you wrote about..' etc) were ever classed as 'inerrant scripture'. Would you trust a teacher who simply said, "this IS God's word to you, obey it!" these days? Heck, Paul himself recommended that everything he wrote be checked against the OT.

The more I study church history (Church History in Plain English is a good resource, btw), the more I realise just how much of what some - most? - churches teach is built on man's teaching, not Jesus'.
 
Upvote 0

chaoschristian

Well-Known Member
Dec 22, 2005
7,439
352
✟9,379.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Well, unless you hold to Jesus writing the Bible himself, or some other form of inspired inerrancy, then all teachings from scripture are man's teachings in as much as men wrote them. There's no escaping that really.

I can't remember the source, but I do recall one Bible critic asking whether or not Paul ever expected his letters to be published as extensively as they were or what his reaction would be to their canonization.

Philemon comes to mind.
 
Upvote 0

Catherineanne

Well-Known Member
Sep 1, 2004
22,924
4,646
Europe
✟84,370.00
Country
United Kingdom
Gender
Female
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Widowed
Does anyone else have mixed thoughts about the apostle Paul?

The blessed Paul is a wonderful hothead. He often writes or speaks without thinking things through, and ends up in trouble because of it.

The key to understanding Paul, imho, is to understand that he is a very passionate man, and that his passion is all for Christ. He is full of love for his faith, and for the love which Christ has shown to him; seeing his potential as an advocate for his church even though he began by persecuting it.

To read Paul without this foundation of passionate love for his Lord is to misunderstand the man, his mission and his words. To put him into the context of this love, which leads him to get carried away time and again, is to understand. And as the saying goes, to understand all is to forgive all.

The blessed Paul is a worthy propagator of the gospel to many, many lands. Without him, the Way might well have remained a Jewish cult. With him, Christianity has reached all over the globe, and we are all greatly in his debt.
 
Upvote 0

Catherineanne

Well-Known Member
Sep 1, 2004
22,924
4,646
Europe
✟84,370.00
Country
United Kingdom
Gender
Female
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Widowed
Paul has nothing to teach me.

It is a brave man who says he has nothing to learn from the blessed Paul.

We have all read the following words a thousand times. Maybe now read them and hear the voice of Paul speaking of himself:

Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I have become sounding brass or a clanging cymbal. And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing.

Paul's message is clear. Without love, what he says is meaningless and nothing. In the context of his love for God, it is still the love that matters, not the words. I don't think he actually cared whether people had long or short hair, spoke in church or not. What he cared about was whether they had experienced the love of God as he had.

It is the same with any Jewish teaching. In the context of God's love it makes sense. Out of context, when all that is left is following meaningless rules without the heart being in accord with what is done, it makes no sense.

Judaism with God's love makes sense. Paul with God's love makes sense. The two are the same. Christ himself chose Paul to be his advocate and missionary to half the known world. I think it is not honouring to Our Lord to imply that he chose the wrong man. Clearly he did not.
 
Upvote 0

Catherineanne

Well-Known Member
Sep 1, 2004
22,924
4,646
Europe
✟84,370.00
Country
United Kingdom
Gender
Female
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Widowed
Paul's theology is mediocre at best and should never have become scripture.

I could not disagree more.

Imo, Paul's theology; his description of who God is and of who Christ is to him, is very fine indeed. It is very much in line with the early church and its needs, and is by no means mediocre. There were divisions with the church in Jerusalem which were inevitable, and probably nobody could have prevented, but it is ultimately Paul who leads the church into the world outside Judaism, and it is he who is responsible for its continuance after the fall of Jerusalem.

It is in his interpretation of that theology in relation to particular churches that people today have a problem, because they assume that when he wrote a letter to the church in Corinth 2000 years ago that is exactly the same as he would write to the church in New York today.

This is not the case, nor would Paul ever claim it to be.
 
Upvote 0

UberLutheran

Well-Known Member
Feb 2, 2004
10,708
1,677
✟20,440.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Okay. I trust my feelings, I know when I see something abhorrent. I scanned your text and the feeling of spiritual nausea is just dissipating now.

[/QUOTE]

Thank you for sharing that. I certainly wouldn't want anybody to feel "nausated" by something I wrote or any opinion I have, so I've requested that my post be deleted.

Problem solved.

:( :(
 
Upvote 0

Catherineanne

Well-Known Member
Sep 1, 2004
22,924
4,646
Europe
✟84,370.00
Country
United Kingdom
Gender
Female
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Widowed
Paul's words and letters are to be considered. But they are not scripture. They should not be part of the Bible.

Please remember that you are expressing your own opinion, and you are not the Scripture Police.

The words of Paul are in the Bible, and so they are indeed Scripture. And unless you are saying that God has no control over the formation of the Biblical canon, it is a safe assumption to say that they should indeed be a part of the Bible.

The Bible without Paul is quite simply not the Bible. Neither would Christianity without Paul be Christianity.
 
Upvote 0

Catherineanne

Well-Known Member
Sep 1, 2004
22,924
4,646
Europe
✟84,370.00
Country
United Kingdom
Gender
Female
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Widowed
It took me quite a while to "get" the idea that justification before God does not come from collecting Sacraments and doing sacramentals, or being the best gay person in the whole world, or being completely and utterly pious, or following Scripture to the letter -- but by simply accepting God's gift of grace, through faith in Christ, which is there to be received through nothing I did, or ever will do to deserve it, and then living that grace -- and that concept is Paul in his purest essence.

:amen:
 
Upvote 0

Catherineanne

Well-Known Member
Sep 1, 2004
22,924
4,646
Europe
✟84,370.00
Country
United Kingdom
Gender
Female
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Widowed
Thank you for sharing that. I certainly wouldn't want anybody to feel "nausated" by something I wrote or any opinion I have, so I've requested that my post be deleted.

Problem solved.

:( :(

Darling, the problem is not solved by any action of yours unless you are the source of that problem.

You are not the source of the problem. :hug:

If someone is nauseated because I love the blessed Paul, then that is their problem. Not mine, not yours, and not Paul's. Christ himself commissioned Paul to his mission, and it is not possible, imo, to honour Christ while at the same time denegrating the man he chose to take the gospel into the world.
 
Upvote 0

FLANDIDLYANDERS

When I am slain may my corpse lie facing the Enemy
Aug 16, 2005
3,687
278
49
Pompey
✟27,836.00
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Single
Everyone is flawed but still we are inspired and educated by one another. Gandhi, for example, would beat his children. Mother Teresa was self-impoverising to the point of self-mutilation.

Paul is no different. The only different one was Jesus, it's good to remember that when hearing and living alongside others we seek to learn from. And it's good to remember that when others aspire to be like or with us.

Truth resonates, no matter the context. If it does not resonate, it is not true. Pauls words are no different from this, IMO.
 
Upvote 0

Apollo Celestio

Deal with it.
Jul 11, 2007
20,734
1,429
38
Ohio
✟51,579.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian Seeker
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Green
On the second one, I think I can explain because I can relate, I don't think he thought that because the "end was nigh", maybe he did..I don't know, but this "lust" and "passion" that derives from the seeking and need for relationships is the cause of much sin. (sexual and otherwise.) Also, when one is celibate, they can serve God better because they have less chains to keep them from it. (Not saying these chains are evil..) So I doubt his celibacy teaching wasn't something trying to eliminate the human race.
 
Upvote 0

Avatar

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
May 26, 2004
549,102
56,600
Cape Breton
✟740,518.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Conservatives
I gave an apology today, but not an explanation. There isn't any excuse but there is an explanation.

The vile vitriol I spewed in here last night was not me. Well, it was me, but not the real me. I was horrified when I read my posts this morning.

I'm ashamed to admit it but I am an alcoholic and have been for many years. I've been drinking long enough that I have learned how to moderate my consumption enough so that I don't go nuts. 99.9% of the time I seem rational and sane. I'm in control of myself. Last night was different. I brew my own alcohol and know how much I can handle. Last night though, I had a bottle of Sambucca given to me by a friend. Should have known better - did know better.

I was deep in alcohol psychosis when I posted last night. That vitriol, that hate, that judgement is not me.

I am more ashamed of myself than you can believe.

I fully understand if you all would rather I not post here again.

I am truly sorry for every hurtful thing I said to all who were the victims of my insane psychotic rage.

:cry:
 
Upvote 0

LadyAradia

Active Member
Oct 22, 2007
38
3
✟15,173.00
Faith
Oneness
Marital Status
Single
Does anyone else have mixed thoughts about the apostle Paul?


Am I the only one who feels this way? Personally, when I read the NT, I find him a bit off, fanatical and strange in some of his "teachings". He clearly has problems with women.

1......

The issue of women speaking in church. Now, I'm sure this topic has been covered. However, I feel almost every Christian has been brainwashed and conditioned into a standard response.

That "Paul was talking about disruptive women" being silenced. However, this is complete nonsense. The NT does not say this at all. This is just something made up by the church. Paul clearly says that it is a disgrace for women to speak in a church because they are women. Without a shadow of a doubt, he says that a woman sinned first, that a woman is never to instruct a man, and consequently they are not to speak in church. And I will not debate this, because this is what the scriptures clearly say, and I will not enter into convoluted arguments that attempt to twist it.

This is one of his strange theologies that appears nowhere else in the NT.

2.................

Celibacy. He's a fanatical celebist. He laments that he wishes everybody could be celibate like he is. Now, that on it's own simply could be interpreted as being passionate about his calling that he wishes everyone has. However, he makes a truly odd remark about "young widows". He shows his fanaticism when he lambasts them for "abandoning their first love" when they want to remarry. Very harsh I think.

3..............

Head coverings. Again, showing his problems with women. The idea of head coverings on a woman are that they show their submission by an outward garment. Again, this is an odd theology nowhere else in the NT.

4...............

Men and long hair. He is quite descriptive about how much of an abomination it is for a man to have long hair. Yet another oddball doctrine. This is nowhere else stated in the NT. What about Samson?


Opinions?
Hehehehe...Paul makes my skin crawl...
ooo by the way...HI!!!
I'm still new...not a very quiet way to make myself be known eh? oops...
 
Upvote 0