How should we read Paul?

[Extraneous]

Only those who give paramount importance to the words of the Son can discern the deviations.

I did that. I started out arguing against Galatians, not that i disagreed with it but i was convinced that people didn't understand it properly. I pushed the words of Christ to no end, i still do, but now i see that Christ and Paul both are in agreement. Nothing Paul says leads me away from anything Christ has said. I love the words of Christ. That is why i also love the words of Paul.

 

[redleghunter]

No. I read all writings. The Holy Spirit convicts me of the preaching of Jesus and related complementary writings. Extraneous, extrapolated and extras I reject.

Paul made errors in your opinion but you have it right?

 

[redleghunter]

I witness for Christ.

I'm sorry but Paul was directly commissioned by Jesus Christ.

Unless you have some vision or direct revelation from Christ, I will file this thread in the "X Files."

 

[redleghunter]

Claiming to be the only one who is correct and sees/knows the truth is guaranteed to set alarm bells off.

Oh the claxons are abuzz.

 

[redleghunter]

I don't confine to only selected books. I try to understand the ministry of chosen apostles in apocryphal books.

Which apocryphal books?

 

[redleghunter]

Without the words of Jesus that has eternal life, any kind of rhetoric is a misleading and simply drum beating exercise.



He did, but Paul overstepped on the role assigned and took easy way out.



It is the human tendency to grab the result instead of knowing the mode of approach. One has to strive and lead a life to experience the climax. It is hypocrisy to try to land at the climax.



Paul starts a ritual of communion saying that we need to proclaim His death until His coming. A big deal! No need to proclaim His death. We need to proclaim His resurrection until He returns. Do we believe in a dead religion?

Acts 9 Jesus Christ directly commissioned Paul.

Acts 13 The Holy Spirit sets Paul and Barnabas apart.

You did not address this.

You give no epistemological reasoning at all but your mere opinion.

 

[redleghunter]

Only those who give paramount importance to the words of the Son can discern the deviations.

You should be able to explain it.

Guess not.

 

[Righttruth]

"Troubled by a messenger from Satan" is a reference to an illness, or other persistent problem that Paul had.
Pau; was chosen by Jesus, lived for Jesus, preached Jesus and died for him - of course his teachings are going to agree with what Jesus taught.

No, it was because of his over boasting trait:

2 Corinthians 12
7 Because of the surpassing greatness of the revelations, for this reason, to keep me from exalting myself, there was given me a thorn in the flesh, a messenger of Satan to torment me--to keep me from exalting myself!

The Bible was inspired by the Holy Spirit - good.

Next question; would the Spirit of truth who leads us into all truth, inspire men to write books/letters that weren't true and inspire others to include them in Scripture? Basically, is the Bible a clear, truthful revelation of God FROM God - the God who is truth and cannot lie - or a bunch of random writings and we have to decide which are true and which aren't?

How did they decide on the canon? Have they followed the guidelines strictly? How is that Esther is included when there is no mention of the word of 'God' there as per the guideline. How is that it is in Catholic with two books on Esther.

Not at all. Hearing is subjective - even a crowd of people at a lecture may hear the same words differently.
If you say you have heard the Lord speaking to you, we can't contradict that you heard something because we weren't with you and didn't hear what you did. We can, and should, try to discern if it was from the Lord, which we do by measuring against the things taught and revealed in Scripture; including the writings of Paul because orthodox churches and theologians accept that his words were from God. If what you say God told you contradicts what has been written down in Scripture - eg if you were to say God told you that Peter was the Messiah - then we would reject your testimony. We couldn't deny that you had HEARD something, but could say with certainty that what you heard was not from God.

The Holy Spirit will speak to you specifically when you read any material. Basing on written word that is copied and manipulated likely to lead to objectionable understanding. That is why Peter said Bible is not meant for private interpretation.

If you doubt the Spirit's ability to guide men as they wrote down his revelations, then you are saying that you don't really trust Scripture at all. The Gospels have been written down - how do we know that the words of Jesus - which you say are the only thing you trust - were actually written correctly?

The things Jesus said and did and that are recorded in the books of the Gospel clearly speak of absolute truth. No religion has sermon that can be compared to the Sermon on the Mount. The way Jesus forgave an adulterous woman cannot be expected from any leader of any other religion.

No he doesn't.
Jesus commended those in Ephesus because they had tested people who claimed to be apostles, but weren't, and found that they were indeed false. Paul's name is not mentioned and this doesn't apply to him - except in your view. And your view, as far as I can see, is based entirely on the fact that there isn't a verse where Jesus said, "I am making you an apostle."

Yes, that is a fact, not fiction.

I'm still waiting for an answer to the question; if Jesus and the 12 accepted Paul, because they did not correct or rebuke him, why do you feel that you cannot? If Paul gave himself a title that God never intended, then that would be between him and God and he could be in a lot of trouble. That should not negate Paul's teachings and revelations about God.

The chosen apostles were extremely humble and innocent to behave like scholarly Paul.

 

[Strong in Him]

No, it was because of his over boasting trait:

2 Corinthians 12
7 Because of the surpassing greatness of the revelations, for this reason, to keep me from exalting myself, there was given me a thorn in the flesh, a messenger of Satan to torment me--to keep me from exalting myself!

But the thorn itself was some kind of illness or physical problem.
You said before that Paul was troubled by a messenger from Satan and you followed Jesus. That seemed, to me, as if you were saying that Paul was partly possessed, or somehow influenced, by Satan - which is why you listen only to the words of Jesus. That was what I was challenging.

And it wasn't because he was "over-boastful" that he got this thorn, but to prevent him from possibly becoming proud, because of the visions he had seen.

How did they decide on the canon? Have they followed the guidelines strictly? How is that Esther is included when there is no mention of the word of 'God' there as per the guideline. How is that it is in Catholic with two books on Esther.

I've no idea, but that's not the issue.
The fact is we have the Bible - 66 books. Either we say;
"this contains the revelation of God and is true and without error as God wants the truth about him to be known. So we believe that those who wrote and compiled it were led by the Spirit".
Or, "this contains the revelation of God, and some of those who wrote it wrote the truth, but it's up to us, with the help of the Spirit, to work out which writings are inspired and which aren't."
Or, "this book is about God but most of it is fiction/poetic licence."

My question is, what is your position? I believe number 1, and I'm sure most Christians do also. It seems to me that you hold position number 2; and not only that, but other books are equally inspired by the Spirit and should be considered also.

The Holy Spirit will speak to you specifically when you read any material.

If it's Christian material, written by those who love and honour the Lord Jesus, yes, probably.
If it's non Christian, non Biblical and tries to undermine, contradict or dishonour God and what he has revealed in Scripture, then not only will the Spirit of truth who leads us into truth NOT speak to us, but it may be harmful to read it. The devil is only too keen to turn people from the words of Scripture and the truth. If someone stops believing Scripture, then they are turning from the truth - or at least, diluting it with something else - and may leave themselves open to attack from the evil one. I would write the verses from Scripture about spiritual warfare, but Paul wrote them so you might dismiss them.

The things Jesus said and did and that are recorded in the books of the Gospel clearly speak of absolute truth. No religion has sermon that can be compared to the Sermon on the Mount. The way Jesus forgave an adulterous woman cannot be expected from any leader of any other religion.

Like I said before, this is really the heart of the matter - your belief that ONLY the words of Jesus can be trusted and that salvation is found through reading and obeying his teaching.
This belief is incorrect; salvation is through the cross, not whether or not one has read the Sermon on the Mount.

Yes, that is a fact, not fiction.

There isn't a verse in Scripture; that doesn't mean that Paul wasn't an apostle or that the Lord didn't say it to him. You have already said that you accept things that are outside the Bible - books that were written by others and the Holy Spirit did not inspire to be in the word of God. If that is your position - that all writings are valid and useful; so be it. But you can't then dismiss Paul's claim to apostleship because you cannot see a verse in the Bible which says that he was.
Don't you get that? You are rejecting Paul because you say there is no verse in the Bible which says that he was an apostle. But on the other hand, you are prepared to accept all kinds of other teachings which are not in the Bible. At best, that is inconsistent and illogical.

Another thing, you accept the words of Jesus; Jesus told his disciples, "if they hate you, it is because they hated me". When Jesus appeared to Paul he said, "I am Jesus whom you are persecuting". Paul was persecuting followers of the Lord Jesus; Jesus told him that he was persecuting the Lord himself. Just as he had said when he was on earth - whoever rejects, hates and persecutes his followers, is rejecting and persecuting the Lord himself.
You have already admitted that Jesus chose Paul; yet it seems that, mostly, you reject what he, the Lord's chosen one, said. I'm not saying you hate or reject Jesus, but if you believe those words that Jesus said, it's something to think about.

 

[Righttruth]

I don't care what you read.....Do you deny the Gospels....a simple yes or no is sufficient.

NO!

 

[Righttruth]

Paul and all scriptures should be read with the Spirit of God. And do not worry what others say. If everyone of us were taught of God instead of men and their creeds we would eventually have unity of faith.
Dan

The Spirit of God helps to remember the words of the Lord. If not, it is a deviation.

 

[Righttruth]

Scripture says that where?....Certainly not in Acts 1....

John 14
26 But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said to you.

 

[Righttruth]

You continue to dodge the question....why is that? Could it be because you also deny the Gospels as well as the rest of the NT as you have stated?

You know some Bibles will have Christ's words in red. I am only saying that they should be given paramount importance in our understanding of the way and life of Christ because that is the truth.

 

[Righttruth]

righttruth,

1. Words has eternal life was talking about the death, burial and resurrection who at the time Jesus said that Peter didn't understand the full revelation of that. Paul after the fact agreed with that the words of Jesus having eternal life concerning the death, burial, and resurrection. 1 Corinthians 15:1-4

2. You have no scripture to prove that Paul made extrapolations or dominance over the apostles. Paul called Peter down when he sinned in having respect of persons and Peter came into submission because he knew Paul told the truth.
You are telling opinions and generalizations because you have no scriptural backup.

3. Paul was specific when he gave what he thought in certain instances and he was certain when he was backed up by scripture. In his opinions he never went against the word of God in principle or the new covenant.

4. Catholic leadership has mixed in traditions of men because they have an agenda that is not a God thing. They have truth of many true biblical doctrines and they use it to hide much of their true agenda.

5. Apochrypha are not a part of the canon of scripture because too much is not true and is allegorical to the extreme.

6. Your debate is full of preconceived notions to make up for your lack of scriptural context and understanding. If you are so full of right truth then why don't you tell me what you think Paul meant when he said I die daily and why he said it and give scriptural basis and other scriptures outside of the passage that harmonize with it. Until you give scriptural context and understanding all you have is extrapolations and opinions filled with generalizations. Prove yourself scripturally and then maybe one can take you seriously and to the point and not generalizations and dancing around and spinning. Good luck Jerry kelso

I can't post same replies to everyone on this thread. It would be better if you read 'Did Saint Paul Deviate From The Gospel?' That is not the end of the solution because it has listed a few distractions. It will be easier to discuss further with that as the base.

 

[Strong in Him]

NO!

Neither did Paul.

 

[Righttruth]

But the thorn itself was some kind of illness or physical problem.
You said before that Paul was troubled by a messenger from Satan and you followed Jesus. That seemed, to me, as if you were saying that Paul was partly possessed, or somehow influenced, by Satan - which is why you listen only to the words of Jesus. That was what I was challenging.

Yes, boastfulness and pride are Satanic.

And it wasn't because he was "over-boastful" that he got this thorn, but to prevent him from possibly becoming proud, because of the visions he had seen.

2nd Corinthians is nothing but mainly boastfulness of Paul, not that there was a possibility. The style and content are unbecoming a humble believer in Jesus.

I've no idea, but that's not the issue.
The fact is we have the Bible - 66 books. Either we say;
"this contains the revelation of God and is true and without error as God wants the truth about him to be known. So we believe that those who wrote and compiled it were led by the Spirit".
Or, "this contains the revelation of God, and some of those who wrote it wrote the truth, but it's up to us, with the help of the Spirit, to work out which writings are inspired and which aren't."
Or, "this book is about God but most of it is fiction/poetic licence."

I tend to agree with the second one. The first one leads to book-idolatry because you will have to accept the modifications, translation problems, deletions, additions as original revelation of God. Inerrancy concept of an inanimate book is faulty like inerrancy of the person of Pope.

My question is, what is your position? I believe number 1, and I'm sure most Christians do also. It seems to me that you hold position number 2; and not only that, but other books are equally inspired by the Spirit and should be considered also.

I don't say other books are equally inspired. This equality is basically erroneous: a modern theme in all walks of life, spiritual or secular. Judaism doesn't consider all books to be equally valued. To that extent Jews are right.

If it's Christian material, written by those who love and honour the Lord Jesus, yes, probably.
If it's non Christian, non Biblical and tries to undermine, contradict or dishonour God and what he has revealed in Scripture, then not only will the Spirit of truth who leads us into truth NOT speak to us, but it may be harmful to read it. The devil is only too keen to turn people from the words of Scripture and the truth. If someone stops believing Scripture, then they are turning from the truth - or at least, diluting it with something else - and may leave themselves open to attack from the evil one. I would write the verses from Scripture about spiritual warfare, but Paul wrote them so you might dismiss them.

Immature and feeble minded may be distracted by all kinds of writings. All kinds of disputable beliefs are being churned out based on verses or piece-wise verses of Paul for comfort. Ex: Once saved always saved, faith alone, predestination, etc. These disputable theories cannot be proved right if one considered the words of Jesus.

Like I said before, this is really the heart of the matter - your belief that ONLY the words of Jesus can be trusted and that salvation is found through reading and obeying his teaching.
This belief is incorrect; salvation is through the cross, not whether or not one has read the Sermon on the Mount.

That is a major trouble and fallacy. Those who are not aware of the Sermon of the Mount is not a believer in Christ, but a nominal Christian or a Sunday attendee!

There isn't a verse in Scripture; that doesn't mean that Paul wasn't an apostle or that the Lord didn't say it to him. You have already said that you accept things that are outside the Bible - books that were written by others and the Holy Spirit did not inspire to be in the word of God.

Anything can be imagined if the words of Jesus are ignored. I accept all if they conform to the teaching of Jesus.

If that is your position - that all writings are valid and useful; so be it. But you can't then dismiss Paul's claim to apostleship because you cannot see a verse in the Bible which says that he was.
Don't you get that? You are rejecting Paul because you say there is no verse in the Bible which says that he was an apostle. But on the other hand, you are prepared to accept all kinds of other teachings which are not in the Bible. At best, that is inconsistent and illogical.

Infinite God cannot be limited to one single book. I am not totally rejecting Paul. I ignore all his claims if not supported by the Gospel and other writers, particularly chosen apostles.

Another thing, you accept the words of Jesus; Jesus told his disciples, "if they hate you, it is because they hated me". When Jesus appeared to Paul he said, "I am Jesus whom you are persecuting". Paul was persecuting followers of the Lord Jesus; Jesus told him that he was persecuting the Lord himself. Just as he had said when he was on earth - whoever rejects, hates and persecutes his followers, is rejecting and persecuting the Lord himself.

That contradictory vision that is recorded twice in the Acts is questionable. Jesus no longer a suffering servant after His ascension. What Stephen saw was appropriate. Egoist Paul is picturing Jesus pleading with him! Very bad!

You have already admitted that Jesus chose Paul; yet it seems that, mostly, you reject what he, the Lord's chosen one, said. I'm not saying you hate or reject Jesus, but if you believe those words that Jesus said, it's something to think about.

Paul went beyond the directive of Jesus on his own.

 

[Linet Kihonge]

You reject Paul and his teachings.... that's your beef? I accept the Bible and all that's written in it!!!

 

[nomadictheist]

People who have caught up with quagmire of Paul will remain blind and deaf with closed mind. They are least bothered to verify the words of Jesus to test the veracity of writings. They don't like to stand on the rock of Peter.

Your unsupported opinion. You have shown nothing.

He may be wiser but not crafty to take people with deceit, like, Paul.

Or he may not be wiser and just conceited.

That is your narrow understanding

Nope. Facts. Show me where any one of us have relied on a book about St. Paul for our understanding.

All presumptions in tune with Paul without even reading the book.

Actually, I did read the first couple chapters of the book. I'm not going to pay money for it because, as I said, the author started out with the false presumption that Paul was not an apostle and built his case from that presumption rather than the Bible. I won't support false prophets.

You have conveniently ignored the split in the beginning of the second journey.

No I haven't. I showed you how (1) this was a personal dissension and not a doctrinal division, and (2) how Peter's hypocrisy came before this. This is an outright lie.

Only a dead fish flow with the current. The gate to heaven is narrow and only a few find it.

This proves nothing. It's a red herring. We're (1) not fish, and (2) we rely on scripture whereas you rely on this book. I'll hold to scripture.

Self-claim and boasting are not good fruits.

That's why I said I'll rely on the apostle Paul's fruit, not that which you attribute to him. What have you given in this thread besides self-claims and boasting?

 

[Righttruth]

I did that. I started out arguing against Galatians, not that i disagreed with it but i was convinced that people didn't understand it properly. I pushed the words of Christ to no end, i still do, but now i see that Christ and Paul both are in agreement. Nothing Paul says leads me away from anything Christ has said. I love the words of Christ. That is why i also love the words of Paul.

Galatians is the epistle most of the Messianic Jews oppose. I agree with Paul on this even though I object to the way he opposed Peter in an unchristian manner!

 

[Righttruth]

Paul made errors in your opinion but you have it right?

Sure, with Gospel supporting that.