How should we read Paul?

[nomadictheist]

That is typical evading blanket statement. You may want to discuss that point by point. Nothing is twisted there. It has been pointed out quoting Paul.

Just because the tail is bent, one should not try to bend the body.

I already told you I'm not going to waste any more time showing how those things that were taken out of context and twisted were taken out of context and twisted. It's already been done. If you have something new, something where Paul actually contradicts Jesus, then post it. Otherwise, this is a waste of time.

Oh, and just a hint... if it requires six paragraphs to explain why Paul supposedly contradicted Jesus, you're clearly reading your own interpretation into Paul's words in order to slander him.

 

[Righttruth]

I already told you I'm not going to waste any more time showing how those things that were taken out of context and twisted were taken out of context and twisted. It's already been done. If you have something new, something where Paul actually contradicts Jesus, then post it. Otherwise, this is a waste of time.

Oh, and just a hint... if it requires six paragraphs to explain why Paul supposedly contradicted Jesus, you're clearly reading your own interpretation into Paul's words in order to slander him.

One example: Jesus never said that a ritual of communion has to be observed frequently as a 'remembrance' of His death and to proclaim it! It was Paul's imagination to offer a solution in notorious Corinthian church.

 

[nomadictheist]

One example: Jesus never said that a ritual of communion has to be observed frequently as a 'remembrance' of His death and to proclaim it! It was Paul's imagination to offer a solution in notorious Corinthian church.

Once again, you have 0 evidence for this. What Paul taught the Corinthian church about observing the Lord's Supper (a tradition which they already were observing, by the way. He was instituting nothing new) is in harmony with Jesus' words, and not a contradiction. Where does Jesus say "Don't observe this meal frequently to remember me?" Chapter and verse, please.

 

[Righttruth]

Once again, you have 0 evidence for this. What Paul taught the Corinthian church about observing the Lord's Supper (a tradition which they already were observing, by the way. He was instituting nothing new) is in harmony with Jesus' words, and not a contradiction. Where does Jesus say "Don't observe this meal frequently to remember me?" Chapter and verse, please.

Am I a Paul to insert words and claim that to be of Jesus, no way.

 

[nomadictheist]

Am I a Paul to insert words and claim that to be of Jesus, no way.

Paul didn't "insert words and claim that to be of Jesus." He did say "what I received from Jesus..." And I would ask you, who are you to question that statement?

 

[Righttruth]

Paul didn't "insert words and claim that to be of Jesus." He did say "what I received from Jesus..." And I would ask you, who are you to question that statement?

As a believer in Jesus it is my duty to exalt Him and show false, deceptive, claims by rank outsiders.

 

[nomadictheist]

As a believer in Jesus it is my duty to exalt Him and show false, deceptive, claims by rank outsiders.

So far you've done a lot of accusing Paul of preaching his own gospel without actually presenting any evidence. That's not exposing anything. And, of course, by accusing Paul of preaching his own gospel and contradicting Jesus, you are condemning the apostles, who affirmed and sent (at the direction of the Holy Spirit) Paul to preach the gospel.

 

[Righttruth]

So far you've done a lot of accusing Paul of preaching his own gospel without actually presenting any evidence. That's not exposing anything. And, of course, by accusing Paul of preaching his own gospel and contradicting Jesus, you are condemning the apostles, who affirmed and sent (at the direction of the Holy Spirit) Paul to preach the gospel.

You were never able to start a debate after reading the excerpts from "Did Saint Paul Deviate From The Gospel?" Not even on one single point. You are deeply immersed in self-claims of Paul followed by people who magnify that going after his gospel devoid of the preaching of Jesus.

 

[nomadictheist]

You were never able to start a debate after reading the excerpts from "Did Saint Paul Deviate From The Gospel?" Not even on one single point. You are deeply immersed in self-claims of Paul followed by people who magnify that going after his gospel devoid of the preaching of Jesus.

I and others refuted each of those points and showed how you and your author twisted Paul's words. As for the second part of your post, are you accusing me of not following Jesus now, as you have accused Paul?

 

[Strong in Him]

You were never able to start a debate after reading the excerpts from "Did Saint Paul Deviate From The Gospel?" Not even on one single point.

I know this wasn't addressed to me, but why should we?

Our position is that the Bible is the inspired word of God; that the Holy Spirit led Paul to write his letters and led those compiling the canon of Scripture to include them. The bible - ALL of it - contains revelation about God, his truth and his word.
Your position is that Paul is false, you reject his writings, (at least most of them), they should not have been included in the NT and the Spirit is not responsible for their inclusion, the Holy Spirit guides you to other publications that reveal the truth and that, presumably, this book that you keep plugging is one of them.

If the Holy Spirit leads you to accept a book that criticises and rejects Paul, but he leads most of us - and the church over the last 1900 years or so - to accept Paul, to read his teachings and speaks to us, teaches and challenges us through them; how do we know who is right and who has heard the Spirit correctly? Why should we accept a book that the Holy Spirit led you to read, when you reject books that we, and the church, say the Holy Spirit leads us to read - books that are in the Holy Bible?

. You are deeply immersed in self-claims of Paul followed by people who magnify that going after his gospel devoid of the preaching of Jesus.

And, with respect, you seem to be deeply immersed in the claims of this book and unwilling to consider that Paul also was led by the Holy Spirit. Which is puzzling as you admit that he was chosen by the Son of God himself.

 

[Righttruth]

I and others refuted each of those points and showed how you and your author twisted Paul's words. As for the second part of your post, are you accusing me of not following Jesus now, as you have accused Paul?

You can't quote Paul and defend him.

 

[Righttruth]

I know this wasn't addressed to me, but why should we?

Our position is that the Bible is the inspired word of God; that the Holy Spirit led Paul to write his letters and led those compiling the canon of Scripture to include them. The bible - ALL of it - contains revelation about God, his truth and his word.

Canon is man-made. Jesus never said to rely on future writings, instead sent the Holy Spirit to speak on behalf of Him.

Your position is that Paul is false, you reject his writings, (at least most of them), they should not have been included in the NT and the Spirit is not responsible for their inclusion, the Holy Spirit guides you to other publications that reveal the truth and that, presumably, this book that you keep plugging is one of them.

I have only posted a chapter of this book. Many more material is there to prove the path Paul took on his own. It was easy with Gentiles because they never knew the significance of apostleship and of God. More points against Paul could be seen apart from what has been discussed in the book.

If the Holy Spirit leads you to accept a book that criticises and rejects Paul, but he leads most of us - and the church over the last 1900 years or so - to accept Paul, to read his teachings and speaks to us, teaches and challenges us through them; how do we know who is right and who has heard the Spirit correctly? Why should we accept a book that the Holy Spirit led you to read, when you reject books that we, and the church, say the Holy Spirit leads us to read - books that are in the Holy Bible?

Judaism flourished for more than one thousand years before Jesus turned everything upside down. Age and time are not the criterion to know the truth.

And, with respect, you seem to be deeply immersed in the claims of this book and unwilling to consider that Paul also was led by the Holy Spirit. Which is puzzling as you admit that he was chosen by the Son of God himself.

Any material whether from Paul or Luke or anybody if they don't reflect the words of Jesus and of chosen apostles and disciples who were close to the ministry of Jesus are to be discarded.

 

[Strong in Him]

Canon is man-made. Jesus never said to rely on future writings, instead sent the Holy Spirit to speak on behalf of Him.

The canon was inspired by the Holy Spirit. The books of the NT were written either by apostles, eye witnesses or those who knew eye witnesses to Jesus, his life, death and resurrection.

I have only posted a chapter of this book. Many more material is there to prove the path Paul took on his own.

The Bible is the Holy Bible, the word of God accepted by Christians for hundreds of years. You seem to be rejecting that, yet ask me to believe that a book, written by a man I know nothing about, is equally, if not more, important than God's word. Sorry, that's not going to happen. The Holy Spirit has inspired many Christians to write amazing, life changing, thoughtful, inspirational and educational books; non of these are more important than the word of God and their authors wouldn't claim that they were.

Judaism flourished for more than one thousand years before Jesus turned everything upside down. Age and time are not the criterion to know the truth.

Jesus was a Jew and fulfilled the Jewish law and prophets, rather than turning everything upside down. He was the Jewish Messiah; many of them just didn't accept it.
The thing that you either don't grasp or don't accept, is that the canon of Scripture has been closed. The Bible is the Christian holy book and any doctrine, new teaching or revelation that contradicts Scripture is rejected. New teachings/ideas have to be tested against something, otherwise anyone could write a book, or give a prophecy and say "God told me". Whether you like, and agree, with it or not, the Bible provides that and those guidelines.
The example I usually give is that of the Moonies. "Rev" Moon claimed that he had a vision of Jesus who told him that he had failed when he was on earth, not completed his mission and that Rev Moon was chosen to complete it and to be the Messiah. "Rev" Moon wrote many books and teaching leaflets, he founded an organisation which has grown. Yet his claims are false and not accepted by the church because they contradict Scripture. The Unification church is not a Christian church, it is a cult.

We can, and should, learn about God and our faith, and many books teach us, and tell us of the ways in which God works and what he does in people's lives. But truth about God is revealed in the Bible.

Any material whether from Paul or Luke or anybody if they don't reflect the words of Jesus and of chosen apostles and disciples who were close to the ministry of Jesus are to be discarded.

According to your belief.
Luke does this because he wrote a Gospel; Peter does this because he was a disciple. Yet you appear to doubt, if not reject, both because they were close to, or affirmed, Paul. As I've said before, Paul was chosen by Jesus himself; you are rejecting the Lord's chosen.

 

[Righttruth]

The canon was inspired by the Holy Spirit. The books of the NT were written either by apostles, eye witnesses or those who knew eye witnesses to Jesus, his life, death and resurrection.

Who do you believe more? Eye witnesses, His closest disciples or rank outsiders who had no part with His earthly ministry? Why different canons for different groups? Do we have that many Spirits? Why contradictions in the writings?

The Bible is the Holy Bible, the word of God accepted by Christians for hundreds of years. You seem to be rejecting that, yet ask me to believe that a book, written by a man I know nothing about, is equally, if not more, important than God's word. Sorry, that's not going to happen. The Holy Spirit has inspired many Christians to write amazing, life changing, thoughtful, inspirational and educational books; non of these are more important than the word of God and their authors wouldn't claim that they were.

Bible should form the basis of our beliefs. It is our hand post to the way. Accepting the manipulated, translated, added, altered versions amounts to book idolatry. Which version is correct and why and how?

Jesus was a Jew and fulfilled the Jewish law and prophets, rather than turning everything upside down. He was the Jewish Messiah; many of them just didn't accept it.
The thing that you either don't grasp or don't accept, is that the canon of Scripture has been closed.

Who decided the closure of the writings? Do we believe in a living God or a dead one?

The Bible is the Christian holy book and any doctrine, new teaching or revelation that contradicts Scripture is rejected.

What do you do when there are contradictions between authors? Example: Paul, James and Hebrews.

New teachings/ideas have to be tested against something, otherwise anyone could write a book, or give a prophecy and say "God told me". Whether you like, and agree, with it or not, the Bible provides that and those guidelines.
The example I usually give is that of the Moonies. "Rev" Moon claimed that he had a vision of Jesus who told him that he had failed when he was on earth, not completed his mission and that Rev Moon was chosen to complete it and to be the Messiah. "Rev" Moon wrote many books and teaching leaflets, he founded an organisation which has grown. Yet his claims are false and not accepted by the church because they contradict Scripture. The Unification church is not a Christian church, it is a cult.

All writings appear pale in comparison to the words of Jesus as recorded in the books. Why Moon, many Protestant preachers (called by Paul) have come up with their own concepts dividing the groups.

We can, and should, learn about God and our faith, and many books teach us, and tell us of the ways in which God works and what he does in people's lives. But truth about God is revealed in the Bible.

Now gospel for prosperity is spreading like wild fire.

According to your belief.
Luke does this because he wrote a Gospel; Peter does this because he was a disciple. Yet you appear to doubt, if not reject, both because they were close to, or affirmed, Paul. As I've said before, Paul was chosen by Jesus himself; you are rejecting the Lord's chosen.

I accept Paul when he is in tune with Jesus. So is the case with others when doubtful. I look for other sources, as far as possible, within the Bible.

 

[Strong in Him]

Who do you believe more? Eye witnesses, His closest disciples or rank outsiders who had no part with His earthly ministry? Why different canons for different groups? Do we have that many Spirits? Why contradictions in the writings?

When I say "canon" I mean the 66 books which are in all Bibles. Some groups add the writings of the Apocrypha; I haven't studied this so don't know the history behind it. Some Bibles include the apocrypha - I have one; most appear to omit it. But I think all churches would accept the 66 books found in standard Bibles -39 in the OT, 27 in the New - as being the word of God.
Matthew and John's Gospels were written by apostles. Mark's Gospel was the first to be written and the source behind this Gospel was the apostle Peter. There were various sources for Luke's Gospel - Mark's Gospel, Paul and Jesus' mother, Mary.
Luke was also Paul's physician and went with him on his travels. Paul was accepted by the 12 as an apostle and someone who had had an authentic revelation of the Lord Jesus. This has all been said before; you won't accept it, but it's true. Peter accepted Paul and called him a dear brother.

Paul teaches the Gospel and Jesus as the way to God - just as Jesus did. I can't quite understand why you feel that a person had to have known of all of Jesus' teachings for him to be authentic.
How do we know, anyway, that Paul wasn't a Pharisee when Jesus was teaching - he could have been one of those criticised by Jesus and could even have been at the cross. Whether this is true or not, Paul clearly knew a lot about Jesus of Nazareth and his followers; you can't persecute a group for being false unless you know what they teach. As a teenager I displayed material from the Christadelphians on our school notice board, and did so for a few months. It was only after I researched what they believe that I realised they are a cult, and took it all down.

Bible should form the basis of our beliefs. It is our hand post to the way.

Exactly. And the Bible includes the writings of Paul - some of which you accept.

Which version is correct and why and how?

They are all correct.
There are some small differences due to changes in language, discovery of manuscripts, better translation from the Greek, but none teach a different Gospel or way of salvation.

Who decided the closure of the writings? Do we believe in a living God or a dead one?

The church decided. We believe in a living God who speaks today, but who will not contradict, or add to, anything written in Scripture.

What do you do when there are contradictions between authors? Example: Paul, James and Hebrews.

The Bible does not contradict itself.

All writings appear pale in comparison to the words of Jesus as recorded in the books. Why Moon, many Protestant preachers (called by Paul) have come up with their own concepts dividing the groups.

Yes, sadly there are many false teachers, and cults, around. But the fact remains; any teaching which contradicts the word of God is rejected and not accepted as Christian.

I accept Paul when he is in tune with Jesus. So is the case with others when doubtful. I look for other sources, as far as possible, within the Bible.

Why? I don't really understand this position.
You say that Paul was a self appointed apostle, had his own agenda, was arrogant and believed himself better than the 12 - yet you admit that he was appointed by the Son of God. I think you have said he was a false teacher - yet you sometimes accept his words. You look for sources within the Bible - yet you won't accept the Bible as the word of God. Why "look for other sources, as far as possible, within the Bible" if you think the Bible was not inspired, is untrustworthy because it includes writings by Paul and is only one of a number of documents inspired by the Spirit?

 

[Righttruth]

When I say "canon" I mean the 66 books which are in all Bibles. Some groups add the writings of the Apocrypha; I haven't studied this so don't know the history behind it. Some Bibles include the apocrypha - I have one; most appear to omit it. But I think all churches would accept the 66 books found in standard Bibles -39 in the OT, 27 in the New - as being the word of God.

I would take them to be inspired writings. Word of God got to be unique, and it can't be different versions. In some versions words have been added and in some others verses have been deleted. Can you switch on and off with words of God?

Matthew and John's Gospels were written by apostles. Mark's Gospel was the first to be written and the source behind this Gospel was the apostle Peter. There were various sources for Luke's Gospel - Mark's Gospel, Paul and Jesus' mother, Mary.
Luke was also Paul's physician and went with him on his travels.

Between Paul and Luke, Luke stands out better in compiling what he had heard from others. Paul claims to have had special tutorial from Jesus if you want to believe him.

Paul was accepted by the 12 as an apostle and someone who had had an authentic revelation of the Lord Jesus. This has all been said before; you won't accept it, but it's true. Peter accepted Paul and called him a dear brother.

Except Luke who joined later and a Gentile who went with a dictionary definition for the word 'apostle' and who was not present when Jesus called the 12 among many disciples for a special purpose, it is self-claim all the way by Paul that worked well with Gentile world.

Paul teaches the Gospel

How much of the preaching of Jesus? Practically nil when it comes to His words. The words he quotes claiming to be that of Jesus were his imagination.

and Jesus as the way to God - just as Jesus did. I can't quite understand why you feel that a person had to have known of all of Jesus' teachings for him to be authentic.

If he had limited to what he had heard from Peter and others, it would have been alright. Unfortunately, his speculations help in building convenient concepts that are against the preaching of Jesus and chosen apostles. That is serious.

How do we know, anyway, that Paul wasn't a Pharisee when Jesus was teaching - he could have been one of those criticised by Jesus and could even have been at the cross. Whether this is true or not, Paul clearly knew a lot about Jesus of Nazareth and his followers; you can't persecute a group for being false unless you know what they teach. As a teenager I displayed material from the Christadelphians on our school notice board, and did so for a few months. It was only after I researched what they believe that I realised they are a cult, and took it all down.

I too had limited fellowship with Christadelphians. Yes, they belong to a cult. But you see they strongly believe in Paul's.

Exactly. And the Bible includes the writings of Paul - some of which you accept.

We don't require his books for our salvation. In fact they mislead.

They are all correct.
There are some small differences due to changes in language, discovery of manuscripts, better translation from the Greek, but none teach a different Gospel or way of salvation.

Biased translations cannot be called word of God.

The church decided. We believe in a living God who speaks today, but who will not contradict, or add to, anything written in Scripture.

Churches always settle for traditions and rituals, the easy things, not spiritual aspects.

The Bible does not contradict itself.

Then why different versions in the same language?

Yes, sadly there are many false teachers, and cults, around. But the fact remains; any teaching which contradicts the word of God is rejected and not accepted as Christian.

Not surprising. Many call themselves as apostles in tune with Paul.

Why? I don't really understand this position.
You say that Paul was a self appointed apostle, had his own agenda, was arrogant and believed himself better than the 12 - yet you admit that he was appointed by the Son of God. I think you have said he was a false teacher - yet you sometimes accept his words. You look for sources within the Bible - yet you won't accept the Bible as the word of God. Why "look for other sources, as far as possible, within the Bible" if you think the Bible was not inspired, is untrustworthy because it includes writings by Paul and is only one of a number of documents inspired by the Spirit?

If you relied on the Holy Spirit, He will help you to remember the words of Jesus, not that of Paul and his statements of his own.

 

[Strong in Him]

Between Paul and Luke, Luke stands out better in compiling what he had heard from others. Paul claims to have had special tutorial from Jesus if you want to believe him.

I do believe him; there is no reason for him to have lied.
I also trust the Holy Spirit who inspired Paul to write and teach and for his words to be included in Scripture. Even you believe Paul some of the time.

Except Luke who joined later and a Gentile who went with a dictionary definition for the word 'apostle' and who was not present when Jesus called the 12 among many disciples for a special purpose,

Luke wasn't one of the 12'; he was a Gentile.
Apostle means "sent", as I've said. This word is used, at least once in Scripture, to refer to all believers - and the Lord Jesus himself was referred to as an apostle. He was sent by God. Again, you don't want to accept that but it's true.

How much of the preaching of Jesus? Practically nil when it comes to His words.

Paul did not intend to write a biography of the life and teachings of Jesus; that would be done by other people. His calling was to preach the faith and make the name of Jesus known among the gentiles.
John's Gospel includes many of Jesus' words, but not the Sermon on the Mount, which you seem to think so important, nor his parables, teaching on the Lord's Prayer, Last Supper and not many of his miracles - does that mean John's account is suspect too? John wrote his Gospel several years after the others and had a different emphasis in his writing. His Gospel is more about who Jesus IS; some have even said it is a sermon. Similarly Paul's letters. They were, mostly, written to churches that he, or others, had already founded - the Gospel had already been preached and they were Christians. Paul wrote to encourage them, answer their questions or problems or to say all the things that he would have said to them if he'd been able to visit in person. How do you know that the people in these churches did not become believers after hearing about his life and teaching - either from Paul or someone else? In Acts 18:4 we are told that Paul reasoned, every Sabbath, with Jews and Gentiles. He reasoned with them; he didn't say "Jesus is the Messiah, you need to repent," and then went away. He would have answered their questions and objections. In Acts 19:9-10 we are told that Paul had daily discussions about Jesus. How do you know that he didn't explain who Jesus was and what he taught? How do you know that while he was talking about Jesus, he didn't have people interrupting him asking who Jesus was?
Paul founded churches - he could easily have presented Jesus' teaching when he did so. We are not told this in Scripture; we are not told, "Paul explained all the things that Jesus taught, then taught about his death and resurrection and people repented and became Christians. The new converts knew about the Sermon on the Mount because of Paul". That may not have happened - but it may be that it did happen and we just aren't told. It's possible, but you seem to be saying "it's not recorded in Scripture, therefore it didn't happen". Which is ironic as you accept a lot of other teachings that aren't recorded in Scripture.

If he had limited to what he had heard from Peter and others, it would have been alright. Unfortunately, his speculations help in building convenient concepts that are against the preaching of Jesus and chosen apostles. That is serious.

What does Paul say that are against the teachings of Jesus?

I too had limited fellowship with Christadelphians. Yes, they belong to a cult. But you see they strongly believe in Paul's.

It is not believing in Paul's words that makes them a cult - otherwise all churches, all Christians and you, yourself, would belong to a cult also.

We don't require his books for our salvation. In fact they mislead.

They don't mislead; they help us see Jesus, the cross and the love of God.

If you relied on the Holy Spirit, He will help you to remember the words of Jesus,

He can't help me to remember the words of Jesus; I wasn't there when Jesus spoke them. He helped the disciples to remember them so that they could write them down. We know of the words of Jesus because of the Gospels.

not that of Paul and his statements of his own.

Again, it is strange that you are making a judgment about Paul - that his words were his own - when you also say that you sometimes agree with him. But you have decided not to accept Paul, so don't believe him when he said that he was inspired by the Holy Spirit.

 

[Righttruth]

I do believe him; there is no reason for him to have lied.
I also trust the Holy Spirit who inspired Paul to write and teach and for his words to be included in Scripture. Even you believe Paul some of the time.

I suspect his visions including prominently on the road to Damascus where he sees Jesus pleading with him, unbelievable by a risen Lord. He did not hesitate to employ white lies as long as he could gather people for him. Eventually he was deserted practically by all. Sublime and profound methods to preach the Gospel was not important for him. By hook or by crook was just OK for him.

Luke wasn't one of the 12'; he was a Gentile.

I am glad that you don't admit Luke as an apostle. Not all with their packages of definition for an apostleship.

Apostle means "sent", as I've said. This word is used, at least once in Scripture, to refer to all believers - and the Lord Jesus himself was referred to as an apostle. He was sent by God. Again, you don't want to accept that but it's true.

Who do you believe? The Son of God or His disciples?
This reminds me of a joke: A doctor was going rounds the wards assisted by a nurse. He notices an immobile patient. He tells the nurse that he might have died. It is overheard by the patient, and he speaks up and says that he is not dead. For that the nurse reprimands him and ask him to shut his mouth since he cannot be more knowledgeable than the doctor!

Pauline Christians believe Paul and suspect His chosen apostles. What a preposterous thinking! Once I was told not to rely on the gospel books since they were written by semi-literate apostles (excepting Luke) whereas super suppositions of scholarly Paul are trustworthy!

Paul did not intend to write a biography of the life and teachings of Jesus; that would be done by other people. His calling was to preach the faith and make the name of Jesus known among the gentiles.

His brief message of his gospel clicked well with ignorant Gentiles. The compromise and all pleasing formulas were grabbed by Gentiles.

John's Gospel includes many of Jesus' words, but not the Sermon on the Mount, which you seem to think so important, nor his parables, teaching on the Lord's Prayer, Last Supper and not many of his miracles - does that mean John's account is suspect too?

God gave four books, not just one, to understand His Son. I give highest importance to John since he was beloved to the Lord, followed by apostle Matthew's, then Mark's since he got practically everything from the great apostle, Peter, and finally of Luke. All four are brief in portraying Jesus of His way, life and proclaiming of truth. You don't get to know the way, the life and the truth elsewhere. Paul's goodies are deviations from the great essence of the Gospel.

John wrote his Gospel several years after the others and had a different emphasis in his writing. His Gospel is more about who Jesus IS; some have even said it is a sermon. Similarly Paul's letters.

Paul's letters no way approach the message of the Gospel, it is his popular gospel in brief to establish a religion. Jesus did not come to establish a new religion of rituals, like, communion.

They were, mostly, written to churches that he, or others, had already founded - the Gospel had already been preached and they were Christians. Paul wrote to encourage them, answer their questions or problems or to say all the things that he would have said to them if he'd been able to visit in person.

If you understand what was happening in notorious Corinth, you can tell they were mocking people. What did Paul teach when he was there for one and a half years? Were they not observing the breaking of the bread properly? As a populist leader he claims that he also speaks gibberish. That was his modus operandi to garner support from all and sundry.

How do you know that the people in these churches did not become believers after hearing about his life and teaching - either from Paul or someone else? In Acts 18:4 we are told that Paul reasoned, every Sabbath, with Jews and Gentiles. He reasoned with them; he didn't say "Jesus is the Messiah, you need to repent," and then went away. He would have answered their questions and objections. In Acts 19:9-10 we are told that Paul had daily discussions about Jesus. How do you know that he didn't explain who Jesus was and what he taught? How do you know that while he was talking about Jesus, he didn't have people interrupting him asking who Jesus was?

Paul wrote to specific congregations and persons, not to you and me. So let us not smear ourselves with that blindly.

Paul founded churches - he could easily have presented Jesus' teaching when he did so. We are not told this in Scripture; we are not told, "Paul explained all the things that Jesus taught, then taught about his death and resurrection and people repented and became Christians.

Sharing Gospel requires the preaching of the life, the way and truth of Jesus, not a brief birth, death and resurrection.

The new converts knew about the Sermon on the Mount because of Paul". That may not have happened - but it may be that it did happen and we just aren't told. It's possible, but you seem to be saying "it's not recorded in Scripture, therefore it didn't happen". Which is ironic as you accept a lot of other teachings that aren't recorded in Scripture.

Christianity is not stagnant religion. It is alive and that requires our scrutiny with all possible sources available.

What does Paul say that are against the teachings of Jesus?

Some of them indicated in my replies nos. 680, 728 and 741 as excerpts from "Did Saint Paul Deviate From The Gospel?"

It is not believing in Paul's words that makes them a cult - otherwise all churches, all Christians and you, yourself, would belong to a cult also.

Catholics hold Protestants as heretics. One denomination thinks the other as cult. Where does it end?

They don't mislead; they help us see Jesus, the cross and the love of God.

It like four blind man explaining an elephant.

He can't help me to remember the words of Jesus; I wasn't there when Jesus spoke them. He helped the disciples to remember them so that they could write them down. We know of the words of Jesus because of the Gospels.

Paul's letters won't help in this regard.

Again, it is strange that you are making a judgment about Paul - that his words were his own - when you also say that you sometimes agree with him. But you have decided not to accept Paul, so don't believe him when he said that he was inspired by the Holy Spirit.

Where does he again self-claim that he was inspired by the Holy Spirit to write?

 

[Strong in Him]

I suspect his visions including prominently on the road to Damascus where he sees Jesus pleading with him, unbelievable by a risen Lord.

Jesus did not plead with him.
Paul was so dazzled by the bright light he saw that he fell to the ground. He knew it was God because he asked "who are you LORD?" Then he was told a) that it was Jesus and b) that Paul had been persecuting Jesus, himself. When he got up, Paul was blind; 3 days later someone laid hands on him, said "Jesus sent me to you" and he was healed and baptised.

Where does it say that Jesus had to plead with him? What makes you think that the Son of God needs to beg anybody?

He did not hesitate to employ white lies as long as he could gather people for him.

Paul was interested in preaching Jesus, not promoting

Who do you believe? The Son of God or His disciples?

The Son of God chose his disciples and apostles and sent his Spirit to inspire and equip them to preach the Gospel; so my answer is "all of them." Jesus said that if we reject one of his followers, we reject him.

Pauline Christians believe Paul and suspect His chosen apostles.

I believe Paul AND the rest of the Lord's chosen apostles. I believe that the Spirit of truth would not inspire false teachers or letters from a false teacher to be included in Scripture.

God gave four books, not just one, to understand His Son. I give highest importance to John since he was beloved to the Lord, followed by apostle Matthew's, then Mark's since he got practically everything from the great apostle, Peter, and finally of Luke.

That wasn't my point.
Previously you have said that Paul knew nothing of the teaching of Jesus - such as the Sermon on the Mount - and implied that it is these teachings of Jesus that save us. I pointed out that John does not include the Sermon on the Mount in his Gospel, nor, in fact, many of the other sayings of Jesus which you appear to believe are so important for salvation. John's Gospel is different from the other 3 because he had a different reason for writing. The same with Paul - he does not include details of Jesus' earthly ministry because this was not his purpose, and focus, in writing. So saying that Paul does not refer to the Sermon on the Mount in his teachings is not a reason to dismiss them.

Paul's letters no way approach the message of the Gospel,

The Gospel is that Jesus gives us eternal life, John 3:16; that Jesus came to seek and save the lost, Luke 19:10, give his life as a ransom for many, Mark 10:45 and lay down his life for his sheep, John 10:11; that his blood was of the NEW Covenant and was poured out for the forgiveness of sin, Matthew 26:28. The Gospel is that that if you believe in Jesus - which means in all that he said and all that he came to do - you will have eternal life, because Jesus is the only way to God, John 14:6. Whoever has the Son of God has eternal life; whoever does not believe in the Son of God does not have eternal life, John 3:36. John the Baptist said that Jesus was the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world, John 1:29, and the angel told Joseph that Jesus would save people from their sins, Matthew 1:21. Jesus spoke of his own suffering, death and resurrection.
This is the Gospel, as written in the Gospels - and Paul agreed with this and preached Jesus and the cross.

If you understand what was happening in notorious Corinth, you can tell they were mocking people.

What makes you think that?
Paul called them saints; what makes you think that they were only mocking the Christian faith?

What did Paul teach when he was there for one and a half years? Were they not observing the breaking of the bread properly?

He wrote his letter to them after he had left them. You don't need to write to someone when you are physically with them.
Either he heard from someone else that there were problems there, or they said so in the letter they wrote to him.

Paul wrote to specific congregations and persons, not to you and me. So let us not smear ourselves with that blindly.

?? That comment has nothing to do with what I asked. My question was, how do you know that Paul didn't teach about Jesus' life and explain who Jesus was when he saw them?
We're not told in Scripture that he did, but we're not told that he didn't - so how do you KNOW that he didn't?

Some of them indicated in my replies nos. 680, 728 and 741 as excerpts from "Did Saint Paul Deviate From The Gospel?"

I'm not interested in quotes from that dubious book; I want you to show me, from Scripture, where Paul contradicted Jesus.

Paul's letters won't help in this regard.

I never said they would, and, again, that wasn't my point.
You said that if I relied on the Holy Spirit he would remind me of the words of Jesus. I said that he reminded the 12 of the words of Jesus so they could write them down. I wasn't talking about Paul; I was correcting your teaching about the Holy Spirit.
(Incidentally, I'm sure you didn't mean to imply that I don't rely on the Holy Spirit, but that's how it came across.)

Where does he again self-claim that he was inspired by the Holy Spirit to write?

Well I could give you references, but you have already decided that anything Paul says were SELF claims. You say that Paul was a saint and chosen by the Son of God, yet you doubt what he wrote and claim that he was only out to promote himself and start a new religion based on him.

I hope you won't be too embarrassed when you have to explain all this to St Paul in heaven.

 

[nomadictheist]

You can't quote Paul and defend him.

When you're claiming that Paul said and advocated things that he didn't, yes we can. In fact, quoting him is the best defense against such slander.