How should we read Paul?

[Righttruth]

There was a long period of time when Paul was being taught and when he was done he checked his understanding with the Apostles, so I don't think that is grounds to call what he knew into question. In Acts 17:11, the Bereans also checked everything Paul said against OT Scriptures, and while they gave him a pass, we should nevertheless also be like the Bereans in checking what he said against OT Scriptures. Paul quoted or alluded to OT Scripture thousands of times to give authority to what he said and to show that he did not deviate from it, so I would agree that we should not accept anything that is only found in his epistles, but like Christ, I don't think Paul taught anything that was brand new.

I don't think the communications at that time were like what we have now. Paul might have been more knowledgeable in the OT than the chosen apostles, but he missed out the sublime and profound teaching of Jesus while He was on earth. He took short cuts and deviated from the way in many a account.

 

[Soyeong]

I don't think the communications at that time were like what we have now. Paul might have been more knowledgeable in the OT than the chosen apostles, but he missed out the sublime and profound teaching of Jesus while He was on earth. He took short cuts and deviated from the way in many a account.

How so?

 

[nomadictheist]

Paul was not a witness in Jesus' earthly ministry. He never heard the elaboration of the parables by Jesus. Therefore, all his epistles should be tested to determine whether they complement the preaching of Jesus or not. Furthermore, any important theological concept cannot be based on Paul's epistles alone. Gospel is the filter one has to apply to his letters.

Paul's apostleship and authority were affirmed by the apostle Peter...

I would suggest that you read Paul as you should read all of scripture - in context. It's not just the writings of Paul that people try to twist.

 

[Righttruth]

How so?

Published book "Did Saint Paul Deviate From The Gospel" might help.

 

[Righttruth]

Paul's apostleship and authority were affirmed by the apostle Peter...

2 Peter is questionable regarding the authorship of Peter. Nevertheless, it doesn't confirm the apostleship of Paul!

I would suggest that you read Paul as you should read all of scripture - in context. It's not just the writings of Paul that people try to twist.

Yes, opportunists try to twist all scripture conveniently. It is much easier with Paul's!

 

[nomadictheist]

2 Peter is questionable regarding the authorship of Peter. Nevertheless, it doesn't confirm the apostleship of Paul!



Yes, opportunists try to twist all scripture conveniently. It is much easier with Paul's!

Sure he confirms the apostleship of Paul. The logic is simple:

1. When he refers to Paul's epistles, he puts them on equal ground with the "other scriptures."
2. Only scripture is on equal ground with scripture.
3. That means that he is acknowledging Paul's epistles as scripture
4. Scripture cannot be broken, and all scripture is God-breathed
5. Paul's epistles, which have now been identified as scripture by Peter, identify Paul as an apostle

And I would say whether or not a scripture is easier for opportunists to twist to their own ends is not a reason to treat it differently than any other scripture.

 

[MerriestHouse]

Paul was not a witness in Jesus' earthly ministry. He never heard the elaboration of the parables by Jesus. Therefore, all his epistles should be tested to determine whether they complement the preaching of Jesus or not. Furthermore, any important theological concept cannot be based on Paul's epistles alone. Gospel is the filter one has to apply to his letters.

Jesus only taught Jews. God sent Him to the "lost sheep of the house of Israel." When Jesus sent out His 12 Apostles, he instructed them to preach the gospel to Jews. They were not to preach to the Gentile nations.

Later Peter was chosen to take the gospel to the Gentile nations (in a vision). That is when Peter said "And Peter opened his mouth and said: "Truly I perceive that God shows no partiality, 35 but in every nation any one who fears him and does what is right is acceptable to him." Acts 10 Peter converted the Gentile house of Cornelius.

Peter was either slow, or had a problem taking the gospel of Christ to the Gentile nations, I don't know, but Paul was then chosen by the authority of heaven to take the gospel to the Gentiles.

Paul's message was to Gentiles. The Gentile nations had never been under the law of Moses. They had never been taught the "ten commandments," or any of the other 613 laws of the Law of Moses. They did not have the Old Covenant Scriptures.

The Jews had the Old Covenant Scriptures. The faithful Jews were looking for their Messiah. The Gentiles had to be taught everything about the Messiah, even about which tribe of the Jews from which He was born into the world.

Paul's preaching was to Gentiles who had worshipped idols, had temple prostitutes and God only know what else they practiced. The Jews already knew the one True God. Gentiles were in ignorance of the "God that they ignorantly worshipped." Paul preached the gospel to them . . . . "Christ, and Him crucified."

Of course the message was different.

You would do a real service to God if you studied Scripture to find out what was on the Apostle Paul's resume', instead of dismissing him as insignificant. He was the only man qualified, the only one that could possibly have accomplished the mission that he was chosen by heaven for, in my opinion.

 

[Righttruth]

Sure he confirms the apostleship of Paul. The logic is simple:

1. When he refers to Paul's epistles, he puts them on equal ground with the "other scriptures."
2. Only scripture is on equal ground with scripture.
3. That means that he is acknowledging Paul's epistles as scripture
4. Scripture cannot be broken, and all scripture is God-breathed
5. Paul's epistles, which have now been identified as scripture by Peter, identify Paul as an apostle

And I would say whether or not a scripture is easier for opportunists to twist to their own ends is not a reason to treat it differently than any other scripture.

Logic is not the way to understand spiritual things! There cannot be more than 12 apostles! Peter calls him only beloved brother. The word scripture in the NT refers to only the OT verses.

 

[Righttruth]

Jesus only taught Jews. God sent Him to the "lost sheep of the house of Israel." When Jesus sent out His 12 Apostles, he instructed them to preach the gospel to Jews. They were not to preach to the Gentile nations.

Later Peter was chosen to take the gospel to the Gentile nations (in a vision). That is when Peter said "And Peter opened his mouth and said: "Truly I perceive that God shows no partiality, 35 but in every nation any one who fears him and does what is right is acceptable to him." Acts 10 Peter converted the Gentile house of Cornelius.

Right.

Peter was either slow, or had a problem taking the gospel of Christ to the Gentile nations,

We can't be sure. God's timing cannot be predicted.

I don't know, but Paul was then chosen by the authority of heaven to take the gospel to the Gentiles.

Not to just Gentiles as can be seen below:

Acts 9
15 But the Lord said to him, "Go, for he is a chosen instrument of Mine, to bear My name before the Gentiles and kings and the sons of Israel;

Of course the message was different.

You mean Paul had his own abridged version of the Gospel without the preaching of Jesus!

Paul preached the gospel to them . . . . "Christ, and Him crucified."

Is that really the Gospel in totality?

You would do a real service to God if you studied Scripture to find out what was on the Apostle Paul's resume', instead of dismissing him as insignificant. He was the only man qualified, the only one that could possibly have accomplished the mission that he was chosen by heaven for, in my opinion.

Qualified people have been churning out their own convenient theology since the ministry of Paul!

 

[Thursday]

Paul is also responsible in deviating from Jesus' preaching. I also agree that pick and choose people are reading Paul wrongly.

Paul did not deviate from the teaching of Jesus, but some protestant interpretations of Paul do.

 

[Thursday]

Apart from that,Paul craftily came up with suggestions to solve problems of the churches that don't support the way of Jesus!

Can you cite an example?

 

[TheNorwegian]

Paul was not a witness in Jesus' earthly ministry. He never heard the elaboration of the parables by Jesus.

We don't know that. Paul was trained as a rabbi in Jerusalem at the same time Jesus was preaching there.

Therefore, all his epistles should be tested to determine whether they complement the preaching of Jesus or not. Furthermore, any important theological concept cannot be based on Paul's epistles alone. Gospel is the filter one has to apply to his letters.

The first Apostles, like Peter and John, already did that test for us. They were happy about the messag of Paul. How can we do a better test today then what Peter and Johan did?

 

[timewerx]

Apart from that,Paul craftily came up with suggestions to solve problems of the churches that don't support the way of Jesus!

The other disciples were no exception also. This leaves us with very little trustworthy material in the Bible. The Old Testament is predominantly Judaism which has nothing to do with Christianity.

 

[Righttruth]

Paul did not deviate from the teaching of Jesus, but some protestant interpretations of Paul do.

How much of preaching of Jesus Paul knew?

 

[Righttruth]

Can you cite an example?

Requiring an interpreter for gibberish speaking!

 

[Righttruth]

We don't know that. Paul was trained as a rabbi in Jerusalem at the same time Jesus was preaching there.

So Paul never heard Jesus while on earth!

The first Apostles, like Peter and John, already did that test for us. They were happy about the messag of Paul. How can we do a better test today then what Peter and Johan did?

Jesus' message supersedes all messages. John indirectly hinted at false apostles (other than the chosen 12) in Revelation.

 

[Righttruth]

The other disciples were no exception also. This leaves us with very little trustworthy material in the Bible. The Old Testament is predominantly Judaism which has nothing to do with Christianity.

The OT is the foundation. The NT is not a superstructure just hanging in the air! The Holy Spirit is the Helper who will remind us of the preaching of Jesus through writings.

 

[timewerx]

The OT is the foundation. The NT is not a superstructure just hanging in the air! The Holy Spirit is the Helper who will remind us of the preaching of Jesus through writings.

The OT are teachings for an obsolete generation. They are no longer meant for today.

 

[TheNorwegian]

So Paul never heard Jesus while on earth!
.

Not correct. If Paul and Jesus were in Jerusalem at the same time, it is very likely that Paul heard Jesus preach. But we can never know this for sure

Jesus' message supersedes all messages. John indirectly hinted at false apostles (other than the chosen 12) in Revelation.

John's concern was not Paul, but other false apostles. "Wannabe" apostles was a problem in the early church. By the time Revelation was written, Paul had been dead for many years already, so not likely that John had Paul in mind. We also know from Acts that the main leaders in Jerusalem did accept Paul and his teaching

 

[Extraneous]

Logic is not the way to understand spiritual things! There cannot be more than 12 apostles! Peter calls him only beloved brother. The word scripture in the NT refers to only the OT verses.

Paul bore the sings of an apostle, that's what makes him an apostle. Paul didn't even care about titles. he taught that such things are for carnal Christians. We see this in Corinthians.