How should we read Paul?

[jimmyjimmy]

Son of God

God has children? How did you come to that conclusion?

 

[Righttruth]

It must have been hard for him to witness anything while he was blinded on the way to Damascus. That was nice of Jesus to minister to him and to give him his vision back. He was much more than a witness, he was and IS an active participant in Jesus' earthly ministry.

His eyes were wide open earlier to put Stephen to death and persecute others. Please don't use 'IS'; it connotes a different meaning now with Muslim terrorism!

I'm sure that his 2 Corinthians trip up to Heaven brought him right up to speed.

We are interested in the kingdom of heaven, not the third heaven Paul is speaking of!

Ok, I tested them and they're all as good as gold tried in the fire.

You might have tried Gospel verses through Paul's perspective!

Does that mean I'm not Abraham's seed anymore?

Birth lineage or blood relationship has nothing to do with salvation through Jesus.

Didn't Paul convert the Philippian jailer by saying: “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household.” Sounds like a sound Gospel filter to me.

Mere belief will not help!

"Therefore, since we have a great high priest who has passed through the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our confession. For we do not have a high priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but One who has been tempted in all things as we are, yet without sin. Therefore let us draw near with confidence to the throne of grace, so that we may receive mercy and find grace to help in time of need.

That has to be our hope, not demand!​

I was on another forum where a guy didn't like Paul at all. He blew a gasket every time Paul's name was mentioned and I could never understand why. My theory at the time was that some might blame Paul for the redefining of terms like "Israel" or "Jew" and hold Paul responsible for shifting the end time emphasis away from the nation of Israel in the middle east and over to the Israel of God..

Paul cannot offer you salvation.

 

[Righttruth]

"Saint" is not used in the Bible to refer to someone who is sinless. They way that the word is used in the Bible does not correspond with what you want it to mean, so I suggest that you adjust your views accordingly rather than continue inserting your views into the text.

Even with Bible understanding, saint is a person who has set himself apart for glorifying God, not all sundry people with their families and possessions and who work for a remuneration!

 

[Righttruth]

After reading this thread, I can see how they used to burn people at the stake in days gone by. Heresy is a highly contagious and terminal disease. There is simply no friendly way to live with something like Ebola. You kill it, and you kill it completely, else risk the lives of an entire village.

Paul's writings may qualify to be called hearsay!

 

[Righttruth]

And scripture says there where?

Jesus had already given them the Holy Spirit to proceed in His absence before the Pentecost!

 

[Righttruth]

He was assigned his role by the church in Jerusalem. Paul was not a free lancer that you make him out to be.

He caused division and took his path on his own right in the beginning.

 

[Extraneous]

Look what David did. He sent poor Uriah to his death so he could have his wife. If you will judge Paul for his sin, then you may as well throw out the psalms as well. No one is sinless, no not one. Jesus said that if we show mercy we will be shown mercy, and if we forgive, we will be forgiven. Paul repented and changed as we all must do. To blame paul for his sin, that he repented of, is to blame Christ for dying for all sinners. He didnt die for nothing, but to save sinners. Christ didnt come for perfect people, but for sinners, just as the Lord said himself.

 

[jimmyjimmy]

Paul's writings may qualify to be called hearsay!

Sounds like my Bible will be a little lighter once you become Pope.

 

[Righttruth]

The gospel went out to th Jews, when Jesus sent them in twos, before the gospel went out to the Gentiles, by which the Lord used Paul as his vehicle in doing so. Paul was assigned his role, was made accountable to the apostles who made up the church in Jerusalem. Paul's writings highlight how he wanted to desperately be the one to reach his fellow Jews, but it was not his choice to do so, rather he was told what to do by the body of Christ on Jerusalem.

Just look at how many times he writes to the Gentiles, as if he is trying to reach out to the Jews in hope that they through the Gentiles can also be called to Christ. So Paul couldn't do it directly, rather held out hope that they would be moved by jealously to also come to Christ.

All he could have achieved without assumed apostleship.

It is clear that Paul was given orders by the church and was instructed to be an apostle to the Gentiles, even though his heart was with his fellow Jewish people.

Jerusalem Church never recognized him as just an apostle to the uncircumcised.

If you are saying that Paul forgot the commandments of Jesus to reach out to the Jews also, you are mistaken. This man was so zealous for his fellow Jews, that the head of the church prevented him from being an apostle to the Jews.Just read how he is conveying that he is assigned to be an apostle to the Gentiles, though he wished that he could also directly preach to the Jews.

Verse please for this.

Do you remember what the Lord said.....in relation to the parable of the vineyard workers. You see the Jews were the first that were preached the gospel, but they shall be the last to recieve it. The Jews as a nation are the 11th nori workmen.

16So the last shall be first, and the first last: for many be called, but few chosen.

That is OK. But does it bar from preaching for the time being? How can we guess when it is going to be last?

 

[Righttruth]

Once again, Jesus never specifically said to anyone "you are my apostle..." This is not a valid argument. Claiming that Paul is not an apostle because Jesus didn't call him an apostle is like claiming that Peter wasn't a believer because Jesus didn't call him a believer. Jesus never specifically called anyone an apostle.

OK, did not Lord identify Paul as His 'chosen instrument'? On what authority you want to change that identification?

Self-claims is such a tired and disproven argument. Just because you don't believe Paul doesn't make his testimony any less valid. All we have in the Bible are self claims by the people who wrote scriptures.

Don't you verify from other sources for validity?

No, actually the first recorded division we have was Peter's doing.

No, it is this:

Acts 15:37 Barnabas wanted to take John, called Mark, along with them also.
38 But Paul kept insisting that they should not take him along who had deserted them in Pamphylia and had not gone with them to the work.
39 And there occurred such a sharp disagreement that they separated from one another, and Barnabas took Mark with him and sailed away to Cyprus.

No, I'm not. What I am is tired of continually providing scripture and scholarly support only to be answered with "no, I'm right. You're wrong. Nananananananana I'm not listening. We don't need logic because we have the Spirit. I hate Paul."

No, I don't hate Paul. I admire some of his verses. But tagging on to him for everything ignoring the Gospel has led to highly disputable theological concepts unsupported by the preaching of Jesus.

I would hardly call Strong's a secular definition.

Why do we require another source when Jesus identified Paul with designation applied exclusively for him. Strong is not the Bible.

Oh please. God gave us minds that are able to use reason for a reason. You can prove anything by bad logic. (If you want to see some examples of bad logic, take a look at all of your posts on this thread thus far).

Have I used logic? I am quoting black and white..............

Jesus taught us to treat others with respect. Not only are continual ad hominems not proper debate and forbidden on CF, they are also against Jesus' own commandments. You have falsely accused me of holding many views throughout your posts that I have continually demonstrated I do not hold.

I am sorry if I sound harsh and blunt. But I am only making it plain.

 

[Strong in Him]

Your definition will not fit the important spiritual aspect of calling 12. 72 disciples cannot be called apostles.

It's not my definition; it's what the word means. In the verses I quoted, and elsewhere, where the text says "sent", the word is apostolos, or some variation.

You may have to place this before Jesus for a debate questioning the use of the words 'chosen instrument' specifically for Paul's calling!

You seem to be fixated on the word "apostle". Why don't you address the fact that Jesus chose Paul? You rightly say that Jesus is truth. You have also said that he is the Son of God it is his words that save.
Well Jesus - the Son of God, the Saviour and the truth - called and chose Paul. Paul did not convert himself - he hated Jesus and his followers. He was a zealous Pharisee and didn't accept the followers of the Way. Then he met Jesus. The Lord Jesus told Ananais that Paul was his chosen vessel - Paul was HIS choice and HIS man.

So you are dissing Jesus' man; you are saying that the person that JESUS, the Son of God, chose is false. What does that say about what you think of Jesus?

You don't require the title of apostle to follow Christ.

No, but your criticism was that Paul was demanding that people follow him.
Apostle - as I have said - is used for one who is sent. You admit that Jesus chose Paul - he also sent him to the Gentiles. So Paul was chosen, and sent, by the Son of God - apostled. The word is sometimes used as a verb; it is not a name or title given ONLY to the disciples.
Paul was not one of the 12 and never claimed to be. But he was called and sent by the Lord Jesus in the same way that they were.

Both to Gentiles and Jews. Paul on his own limited to Gentiles for convenience.

No, your hatred of Paul is blinding you to the truth.
Paul went to the synagogues to teach Jews. If he hadn't he would not have been persecuted, stoned and dragged before various officials accused of teaching a false religion. Gentiles were not waiting for a Messiah; Jews were, and Paul preached that Jesus of Nazareth was that Messiah. This is why they hated him - the one who, years before, had been on THEIR side against the Christians.
In Romans 9 Paul speaks of his great love for the Jews, saying that he would even give up his own salvation if they would turn to Christ and acknowledge him as the Messiah.
Jesus chose Paul and said that he would make his name known among the Gentiles. Paul did. But that didn't affect his love for his own people, the Jews.

A self-claim wanted to push his agenda!

Your assessment that Paul proclaimed himself to be an apostle and was pushing his own agenda is a judgement influenced heavily by the fact that you don't accept him. You reject the Lord's chosen.

No, I have shown what Jesus called him.

Jesus called him his chosen one - it seems you don't want to accept that.

 

[ewq1938]

Jesus called him his chosen one - it seems you don't want to accept that.

typical anti-pauline nonsense...all heretics Paul will deal with in time.

 

[Righttruth]

righttruth,

1. If there can only be 12 apostles is not scriptural.

When Jesus identified 12 as His disciples, other disciples did not join Him all the time as apostles did. There are only 12 seats in the heaven identified for apostles. You cannot crowd them with all sundry people with your definition of apostleship! John calls all those who claim themselves as apostles are liars!

The 12 were picked by Jesus and were his disciples in his earthly ministry. Apostle means one sent with the true message and so they became Apostles after Jesus arose and ascended up to heaven.

That is extrapolated and unauthorized thinking!

Jesus told them in Matthew 28 to go into all the world and preach the gospel. They were all eyewitnesses of Jesus resurrection except for Judas who betrayed Jesus and hung himself before the resurrection and ascension of Christ.
In Acts 1 the apostles picked one to replace Judas who had to be an eyewitness of the resurrection and that was Matthias.

Very correct.

Paul was like one born out of time but was given the apostleship by God alone of the resurrection after the fact. He defends his apostleship in the church at Corinth and he got his revelations in Arabia before going up to Jerusalem and Peter and Peter regarded him as his equal.

That is Paul's claim. Peter treated him as his beloved brother. It doesn't mean he admitted his apostleship!

3. Concerning the gospel of the death, burial and resurrection all the apostles preached. Acts 4:2, 1 Corinthians 15:1-4.
In Jesus earthly ministry of the Kingdom of Heaven and the Kingdom of God Jesus did not preach for the jews to be saved.

That would be wrong because Jesus came to save the lost sheep of Israel. Many Jews got saved.(Ex: Zacchaeus)

4. In essence Paul was not deviating from Jesus message of the gospel of the death, burial and resurrection but Christ didn't fully reveal it and didn't demand it in his earthly ministry to the jews only of the Kingdom of Heaven and the Kingdom of God message. After his resurrection he fully revealed the meaning of what the prophets said about the prophecies of his being the Savior and the mission of the cross and resurrection and that the gospel should be preached in his name about the death and resurrection. Paul and Jesus are in perfect harmony.

Jesus revealed all things pertaining to our salvation during His earthly ministry. Paul ventured on speculations and claims unsupported by the Gospel leading to cozy theological concepts leading to wrong convenient interpretations that can only bring about destruction as Peter warned.

This was before Paul got tired of the jews being stubborn and rejecting the true message of the body of Christ and he went specifically to the gentiles and Peter affirmed his ministry was a God thing as Paul recognized Peter's ministry to the jews.

This ministry to Gentiles only did not entail Paul as an apostle of uncircumcised as Paul claimed. He brought forth division with that which was unwarranted.

7. John also talked about those who said they were apostles to the church of Ephesus in Revelation 2:2; and thou hast tried them which say they are apostles, and are not, and hast found them to be liars. Why try those who say they are apostles if there were only 12 apostles? John was the only apostle of the original 12 who was alive and this was in the 90's A.D. and 70 A.D. was twenty years before when many of the others were dead.

John made it clear that there cannot be more than 12 apostles that includes the replacement.

8. Paul and Jesus are in harmony with the old testament scriptures for Jesus ordained the church. What was concealed in the old is revealed in the new. Jesus didn't preach to the new testament church of the jews and gentiles in one body in his earthly ministry so does this mean it can't be true?

It is indeed one can be seen in the Great Commission spelled out in Matthew 28.

9. The fact is that Jesus earthly ministry was under the old covenant and not the new covenant. It was the transition and was leading up to it but it was not the new covenant age. One must understand the mission of Jesus to the jews and the mission of saving the world as well and also that he lived under, and taught the old covenant and not the new covenant. One has to understand gradual revelation to get the proper perspective of what unfolded, how it unfolded and why and understand the time factor also. Jerry kelso

The new covenant began with the Last Supper:
Luke 22
20 And in the same way He took the cup after they had eaten, saying, "This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in My blood.

 

[Righttruth]

Actually Paul had hands laid on him at Antioch.

Acts 13

That doesn't make him another apostle!

 

[Righttruth]

It's not my definition; it's what the word means. In the verses I quoted, and elsewhere, where the text says "sent", the word is apostolos, or some variation.

So Jesus was found with hundreds of people all the time around because that many disciples were there. You are not recognizing the reality here.

You seem to be fixated on the word "apostle". Why don't you address the fact that Jesus chose Paul? You rightly say that Jesus is truth. You have also said that he is the Son of God it is his words that save.

Where have I refused to admit that Paul was a chosen instrument? I reject Paul's claim of apostleship that too as a special apostle of the uncircumcised!

Well Jesus - the Son of God, the Saviour and the truth - called and chose Paul. Paul did not convert himself - he hated Jesus and his followers. He was a zealous Pharisee and didn't accept the followers of the Way. Then he met Jesus. The Lord Jesus told Ananais that Paul was his chosen vessel - Paul was HIS choice and HIS man.

No dispute in that.

So you are dissing Jesus' man; you are saying that the person that JESUS, the Son of God, chose is false. What does that say about what you think of Jesus?

If you give title other than what Jesus gave, who is on the side of falsehood?

No, but your criticism was that Paul was demanding that people follow him.
Apostle - as I have said - is used for one who is sent. You admit that Jesus chose Paul - he also sent him to the Gentiles.

Not just to Gentiles for your information!

So Paul was chosen, and sent, by the Son of God - apostled.

As a chosen vessel. Manipulation is not allowed.

In Romans 9 Paul speaks of his great love for the Jews, saying that he would even give up his own salvation if they would turn to Christ and acknowledge him as the Messiah.

That is hook and crook method of trying to please people bending backwards!

Your assessment that Paul proclaimed himself to be an apostle and was pushing his own agenda is a judgement influenced heavily by the fact that you don't accept him. You reject the Lord's chosen.
Jesus called him his chosen one - it seems you don't want to accept that.

I reject him where he has overstepped himself, not otherwise!

 

[Righttruth]

God has children? How did you come to that conclusion?

That is symbolic spiritually--somewhat beyond human compression! Mohammed rejects the son ship by that argument.

 

[Righttruth]

Sounds like my Bible will be a little lighter once you become Pope.

Appendix is superfluous and becomes dangerous if many unwanted things (interpretations and claims) accumulate there.

 

[Righttruth]

Sounds like my Bible will be a little lighter once you become Pope.

Truth is not quantity based.

 

[Linet Kihonge]

Who is an Apostle/ Disciple?

Matthew 28:19, "Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit."

Do you know what it took for Paul to be accepted by the 12 disciples? Read Acts 9:26-28

Do you know how Hard it was to be Paul? Everything you posted here REJECTION.

 

[jimmyjimmy]

That is symbolic spiritually--somewhat beyond human compression! Mohammed rejects the son ship by that argument.

Sounds like theology. Not very simple.