How should we read Paul?

[redleghunter]

It is well known that many old manuscripts do not contain "do this in remembrance of me" and the entire v. 20 clearly proving that these were done by Paul's people.

Show me the manuscript evidence for your claim.

 

[Righttruth]

Show me the manuscript evidence for your claim.

The footnote in NASB of my edition clearly says that, and also if you made research on your own.

 

[redleghunter]

The footnote in NASB of my edition clearly says that, and also if you made research on your own.

Source please.

Please show any English language versions which omit this verse.

Show the manuscript evidence for the omission.

 

[St_Worm2]

It was all in the beginning. But later picks up only Gentiles on his own. Please read excerpts from "Did Saint Paul Deviate From The Gospel?" at my replies no. 680, 726 and 741

The beginning only .. hardly (unless you believe the "beginning" for St. Paul lasted for YEARS and spanned THREE MISSIONARY JOURNEYS)!!

From Thessalonica St. Paul continued on to:

Berea:

The brethren immediately sent Paul and Silas away by night to Berea, and when they arrived, they went into the synagogue of the Jews. Acts 17:10

Athens:

While Paul was waiting for them at Athens, his spirit was being provoked within him as he was observing the city full of idols.
So he was reasoning in the synagogue with the Jews and the God-fearing Gentiles, and in the market place every day with those who happened to be present." Acts 17:16–17

Corinth:

1 After these things he left Athens and went to Corinth.
2 And he found a Jew named Aquila, a native of Pontus, having recently come from Italy with his wife Priscilla, because Claudius had commanded all the Jews to leave Rome. He came to them,
3 and because he was of the same trade, he stayed with them and they were working, for by trade they were tent-makers.
4 And he was reasoning in the synagogue every Sabbath and trying to persuade Jews and Greeks.
5 But when Silas and Timothy came down from Macedonia, Paul began devoting himself completely to the word, solemnly testifying to the Jews that Jesus was the Christ. Acts 18

11 And he settled there a year and six months, teaching the word of God among them.
12 But while Gallio was proconsul of Achaia, the Jews with one accord rose up against Paul and brought him before the judgment seat,
13 saying, “This man persuades men to worship God contrary to the law.”
14 But when Paul was about to open his mouth, Gallio said to the Jews, “If it were a matter of wrong or of vicious crime, O Jews, it would be reasonable for me to put up with you;
15 but if there are questions about words and names and your own law, look after it yourselves; I am unwilling to be a judge of these matters.” Acts 18

Ephesus:

19 They came to Ephesus, and he left them there. Now he himself entered the synagogue and reasoned with the Jews. Acts 18

8 And he entered the synagogue and continued speaking out boldly for three months, reasoning and persuading them about the kingdom of God.
9 But when some were becoming hardened and disobedient, speaking evil of the Way before the people, he withdrew from them and took away the disciples, reasoning daily in the school of Tyrannus.
10 This took place for two years, so that all who lived in Asia heard the word of the Lord, both Jews and Greeks.
Acts 19​

I could continue, but Paul is already well into his 3rd Missionary Journey at this point. You've been duped! My advice to you, stop reading/believing "theology" books written by mechanical engineering professors and open the word of God and read it instead (and commentaries by actual BIBLICAL scholars, ancient and/or modern, wouldn't be a bad idea either ). That's what you should have done to begin. If you had, you wouldn't have wasted so much of our time ... or yours!!

Yours in Christ,
David

 

[St_Worm2]

.

 

[Righttruth]

Show me the manuscript evidence for your claim.

I don't have the old and earlier manuscripts with me.

 

[Righttruth]

Source please.

Please show any English language versions which omit this verse.

Show the manuscript evidence for the omission.

Paul writes the word 'remembrance' for both bread and wine. It is missing for wine in Luke. The entire Christendom has fallen 'lock, stock and barrel' for the easy ritual of observance invented by Paul, so where is the question of finding a version without that?

 

[Righttruth]

The beginning only .. hardly (unless you believe the "beginning" for St. Paul lasted for YEARS and spanned THREE MISSIONARY JOURNEYS)!!

From Thessalonica St. Paul continued on to:

Berea:

The brethren immediately sent Paul and Silas away by night to Berea, and when they arrived, they went into the synagogue of the Jews. Acts 17:10

Athens:

While Paul was waiting for them at Athens, his spirit was being provoked within him as he was observing the city full of idols.
So he was reasoning in the synagogue with the Jews and the God-fearing Gentiles, and in the market place every day with those who happened to be present." Acts 17:16–17

Corinth:

1 After these things he left Athens and went to Corinth.
2 And he found a Jew named Aquila, a native of Pontus, having recently come from Italy with his wife Priscilla, because Claudius had commanded all the Jews to leave Rome. He came to them,
3 and because he was of the same trade, he stayed with them and they were working, for by trade they were tent-makers.
4 And he was reasoning in the synagogue every Sabbath and trying to persuade Jews and Greeks.
5 But when Silas and Timothy came down from Macedonia, Paul began devoting himself completely to the word, solemnly testifying to the Jews that Jesus was the Christ. Acts 18

11 And he settled there a year and six months, teaching the word of God among them.
12 But while Gallio was proconsul of Achaia, the Jews with one accord rose up against Paul and brought him before the judgment seat,
13 saying, “This man persuades men to worship God contrary to the law.”
14 But when Paul was about to open his mouth, Gallio said to the Jews, “If it were a matter of wrong or of vicious crime, O Jews, it would be reasonable for me to put up with you;
15 but if there are questions about words and names and your own law, look after it yourselves; I am unwilling to be a judge of these matters.” Acts 18

Ephesus:

19 They came to Ephesus, and he left them there. Now he himself entered the synagogue and reasoned with the Jews. Acts 18

8 And he entered the synagogue and continued speaking out boldly for three months, reasoning and persuading them about the kingdom of God.
9 But when some were becoming hardened and disobedient, speaking evil of the Way before the people, he withdrew from them and took away the disciples, reasoning daily in the school of Tyrannus.
10 This took place for two years, so that all who lived in Asia heard the word of the Lord, both Jews and Greeks.
Acts 19​

I could continue, but Paul is already well into his 3rd Missionary Journey at this point. You've been duped! My advice to you, stop reading/believing "theology" books written by mechanical engineering professors and open the word of God and read it instead (and commentaries by actual BIBLICAL scholars, ancient and/or modern, wouldn't be a bad idea either ). That's what you should have done to begin. If you had, you wouldn't have wasted so much of our time ... or yours!!

Yours in Christ,
David

So Paul claimed to be an apostle of the uncircumcised for fun? Stopped baptizing against the Great Commission of the Lord! The excerpts from the book "Did Saint Paul Deviate From The Gospel?" is a testimony of a serious seminary student seeking truth; it is not that of statements of a mechanical engineering professor. Perhaps, professor is trying to figure out the truth better than professional scholars in their pursuit of livelihood.

 

[Strong in Him]

I am pointing out how it has been recorded by Luke who was not there when the alleged event took place.

Luke does not say that Jesus pleaded with Paul. And you say "alleged event"; does this mean you don't believe it?

Truth is absolute. It cannot be explained depending on circumstances and people.

The truth is that Paul met with the risen Lord Jesus and it changed his life. That truth did not change, ever. Even under persecution and suffering Paul did not say "I've changed my mind; it did not happen". He didn't change the truth, only the amount of detail he went in to.

I make greetings cards for people.
If I made a card for a friend who was in hospital and gave it to them - that is what I did; the truth and the facts. But if I was talking to an arty friend/group of crafters, I might also say, "I used floral paper which I mounted onto blue cardstock and then onto to the card blank. Then I stamped an image of a girl picking daisies, coloured it with promarkers, cut it out and mounted it onto green card stock ...... "etc etc. A nursing friend might not be at all interested in how I made the card, but in how my friend was, what ward she was on, what the staff were like and what treatment she was getting. A Minister might be concerned that she was in hospital, pleased that someone had visited and would want to know if she had received communion recently.
Would I be changing the truth for all these people? No. A Minister probably wouldn't be at all interested in hearing how to make a get well card and might not have the time to listen. He/she might just need to know what ward my friend was on and could they visit? My crafting friend would probably not want all the medical details that my nursing friend wanted. The truth - that I made my friend a card and gave it to her - would remain the same.

That is Paul's relative strategy with his abridged gospel.

No. You seem to believe that the Gospel is not the Gospel unless it includes all of Jesus' teachings, miracles and the sermon on the mount. That is not so. Someone could hear the message that they are sinners, have rebelled against God, that Jesus came to die for them and was raised to life on the 3rd day, receive Jesus and the Holy Spirit, be saved and born again without actually knowing anything about what Jesus said, taught and did during his ministry. That would come afterwards. Others might learn about Jesus first and then be saved - we all come to faith in different ways.

What is there is in the cross without the words of Jesus?

Jesus taught the cross, so did Paul; that is my point. Jesus said that he had come to die, that his blood was being poured out for the forgiveness of sins, that he was the only way to God, and the other verses which I quoted earlier. We are saved if we believe this - the words of Jesus. Paul also preached that we are saved through Jesus alone.

Jesus was also opposed. I read all books to realize the truth.

Jesus wasn't opposed to Paul - it was Jesus who called and chose him.
Not all books contain truth - and we only have your word for it that it was the Spirit who leads you to read certain books and that those certain books have the truth.
How are we to know? Someone else might say that the Holy Spirit led them to read a book which says that Mormonism is true, or a book which says that Judas didn't betray Jesus, or that Jesus wasn't really dead; he just fainted on the cross. Anyone could claim divine inspiration/guidance for anything - but that doesn't mean that their claims are true.

All Protestant pastors don't answer the call of Jesus. They go after Paul.

That's both a generalisation and a judgment - not to mention an insult.

Yes, he qualifies to be a saint and disciple.

So how does he qualify to be a saint?

Did he not even teach them the basic notion of sharing the bread?

I should think so, otherwise they would not have known. But Acts 18 does not tell us what he taught them.

Lord has the wisdom and power to save people depending on the situation. We are not thieves under similar conditions to expect salvation.

Yes, agreed.
But my point was that the thief on the cross did not DO anything to be saved - and God doesn't make exceptions.

Paul had so many self-claims. Why he didn't do this?

You say they are self claims only because you do not believe, or want to believe, them.

So an immoral person was also a Christian in Corinth? What a loose title in that case!

Only if you have a pre conceived idea about sainthood and don't believe what the Bible says about it.

Paul quotes imaginary words of Jesus to push is agenda.

If Paul, who met Jesus, says they are from him, then we either believe that, or disbelieve it. If you don't believe it, how can you prove that Jesus NEVER said that just because it's not recorded in the Gospels?

Sure when it supports the Gospel.

But that position doesn't actually make sense!
You spend quite a long time writing posts which say that Paul was a self proclaimed apostle, had his own agenda, was false and contradicted Jesus; yopu don't seem to think much of him at all. But then you say, (effectively) "but sometimes he was trustworthy, spoke the truth and was actually a saint and the Lord's chosen one." How can someone "qualify as a saint" if they are arrogant, untrustworthy and contradict the one who called and chose them?

 

[Strong in Him]

It is well known that many old manuscripts do not contain "do this in remembrance of me" and the entire v. 20 clearly proving that these were done by Paul's people.

You have been shown to be wrong, so you try to discredit the source.

 

[redleghunter]

Paul writes the word 'remembrance' for both bread and wine. It is missing for wine in Luke. The entire Christendom has fallen 'lock, stock and barrel' for the easy ritual of observance invented by Paul, so where is the question of finding a version without that?

So we should just do the bread in remembrance?

Can you show in the Greek (you can use the lexicon) where Jesus is specifically applying only the bread as in remembrance and excludes the cup?

 

[St_Worm2]

So Paul claimed to be an apostle of the uncircumcised for fun? Stopped baptizing against the Great Commission of the Lord! The excerpts from the book "Did Saint Paul Deviate From The Gospel?" is a testimony of a serious seminary student seeking truth; it is not that of statements of a mechanical engineering professor. Perhaps, professor is trying to figure out the truth better than professional scholars in their pursuit of livelihood.

All of the claims that your "author" makes are false, just like his claim that St. Paul stopped preaching the Gospel to his own people, the Jews, when he said "I am turning to the Gentiles" in Acts 13. Paul didn't abandon his commission at that moment, by, "turning to the Gentiles", he fulfilled it (as I pointed out in my last couple of posts).

Here's what I don't understand, even though you now have clear evidence that your "author" is a false prophet, rather than fleeing from him and apologizing for joining him in misleading others about St. Paul and his Epistles as you have, you continue to try to find ways to perpetuate his lies

One last thing Rt. Do you know what conspiracy theories are really good for? ................................... Selling books

I wasn't about to pay $2.99 for the Kindle version of the book you've been promoting, but I read what I could of it online. Like Dan Brown, that guy is a captivating author (and as a result, I'm sure the remainder of his book is just as much of a page turner), but it's less truthful and far more insidious than Brown's page turner, The Da Vinci Code. I read that book and couldn't put it down, but at least Dan Brown had the decency to say it was a work of fiction in the introduction.

Look, the Christian Church has been able to scrutinize St. Paul's Epistles for over 2,000 years now, and we've done so year after year through conspiracy theory after conspiracy theory. And as divided as we've been at times over certain soteriological issues, two of the things we've stood firmly together on through the centuries and millennia are St. Paul's apostleship, and the fact that his Epistles (the ones in the Bible anyway) are the "breathed" words of God.

Yours and His,
David

 

[Righttruth]

Luke does not say that Jesus pleaded with Paul. And you say "alleged event"; does this mean you don't believe it?

We don't have direct narration of this by Paul himself though he wrote many letters. The way Luke has recorded twice with one important difference reflects the egoistic attitude of Paul right from the beginning of the changed life. The change was not total and instantaneous.

The truth is that Paul met with the risen Lord Jesus and it changed his life. That truth did not change, ever. Even under persecution and suffering Paul did not say "I've changed my mind; it did not happen". He didn't change the truth, only the amount of detail he went in to.

What is the use stuffing with material missing out the important essence of the message of Jesus? Jesus clearly said to obey His commandments, not superfluous agenda of an outsider.

I make greetings cards for people.
If I made a card for a friend who was in hospital and gave it to them - that is what I did; the truth and the facts. But if I was talking to an arty friend/group of crafters, I might also say, "I used floral paper which I mounted onto blue cardstock and then onto to the card blank. Then I stamped an image of a girl picking daisies, coloured it with promarkers, cut it out and mounted it onto green card stock ...... "etc etc. A nursing friend might not be at all interested in how I made the card, but in how my friend was, what ward she was on, what the staff were like and what treatment she was getting. A Minister might be concerned that she was in hospital, pleased that someone had visited and would want to know if she had received communion recently.
Would I be changing the truth for all these people? No. A Minister probably wouldn't be at all interested in hearing how to make a get well card and might not have the time to listen. He/she might just need to know what ward my friend was on and could they visit? My crafting friend would probably not want all the medical details that my nursing friend wanted. The truth - that I made my friend a card and gave it to her - would remain the same.

Your work, particularly the message in the card will be appreciated. I am sure communion would not have helped his/her ailment. More than the card, a personal visit would strengthen a patient more. I don't know whether Paul wrote anything with regard to his tent-making craft. It is a good thing that Paul supported himself before gospel sharing became a profession/enterprise for a living.

No. You seem to believe that the Gospel is not the Gospel unless it includes all of Jesus' teachings, miracles and the sermon on the mount.

Those who have not read the books of the Gospel cannot claim to know Jesus, that is truth. Consequently, there cannot be any hope of salvation for them because it is not available in easy steps of packages.

That is not so. Someone could hear the message that they are sinners, have rebelled against God, that Jesus came to die for them and was raised to life on the 3rd day, receive Jesus and the Holy Spirit, be saved and born again without actually knowing anything about what Jesus said, taught and did during his ministry. That would come afterwards. Others might learn about Jesus first and then be saved - we all come to faith in different ways.

That is offering a candy. Or worst an apple of the Garden of Eden again. Now it is much worse. Lady pastors are offering it every Sunday.

Jesus taught the cross, so did Paul; that is my point. Jesus said that he had come to die, that his blood was being poured out for the forgiveness of sins, that he was the only way to God, and the other verses which I quoted earlier. We are saved if we believe this - the words of Jesus. Paul also preached that we are saved through Jesus alone.

Jesus asked us to take up the cross daily and follow Him giving up all as apostles did.

Jesus wasn't opposed to Paul - it was Jesus who called and chose him.

Look how Paul mania leads one to: a statement reflecting Jesus in a subordinate position.

Not all books contain truth - and we only have your word for it that it was the Spirit who leads you to read certain books and that those certain books have the truth.
How are we to know? Someone else might say that the Holy Spirit led them to read a book which says that Mormonism is true, or a book which says that Judas didn't betray Jesus, or that Jesus wasn't really dead; he just fainted on the cross. Anyone could claim divine inspiration/guidance for anything - but that doesn't mean that their claims are true.

Gospel books bring us to remembrance the sayings of Jesus. Anything contradictory could be extrapolation or interpolation or simply suppositions.

So how does he qualify to be a saint?

He did not burden himself with family and supported himself.

I should think so, otherwise they would not have known. But Acts 18 does not tell us what he taught them.

To write some basic things even after being there for more than a year speaks volumes of non-effective work of Paul.

Yes, agreed.
But my point was that the thief on the cross did not DO anything to be saved - and God doesn't make exceptions.

Did he not repent, the basic requirement for Jesus' consideration?

You say they are self claims only because you do not believe, or want to believe, them.

Why should I believe that is against the Lord's?

Only if you have a pre conceived idea about sainthood and don't believe what the Bible says about it.

Man-made canon cannot become authority and it cannot be blindly accepted.

If Paul, who met Jesus, says they are from him, then we either believe that, or disbelieve it. If you don't believe it, how can you prove that Jesus NEVER said that just because it's not recorded in the Gospels?

Paul never met Jesus and listened to Him when He was preaching. Who do you believe: actual witnesses or an absentee?

But that position doesn't actually make sense!
You spend quite a long time writing posts which say that Paul was a self proclaimed apostle, had his own agenda, was false and contradicted Jesus; yopu don't seem to think much of him at all. But then you say, (effectively) "but sometimes he was trustworthy, spoke the truth and was actually a saint and the Lord's chosen one." How can someone "qualify as a saint" if they are arrogant, untrustworthy and contradict the one who called and chose them?

That is possible because he was not Jesus.

 

[Righttruth]

You have been shown to be wrong, so you try to discredit the source.

Don't hang to a faulty source thinking that it ought to be believed. Don't try to prove the Gospel through Paul's letters.

 

[Righttruth]

So we should just do the bread in remembrance?

Can you show in the Greek (you can use the lexicon) where Jesus is specifically applying only the bread as in remembrance and excludes the cup?

Why language problem? The two witnesses, Matthew and John, never mention about this ritual of remembrance.

 

[nomadictheist]

Jesus never said to start a ritual of 'remembrance' of Him and to proclaim His death. What is the big deal of proclaiming death of any person?

Only dead bury the dead and proclaim death!

I find it ironic that in your attempt to defame St. Paul you just did both of the things you accuse him of: made up your own interpretation of Jesus' words and added your own to them.

But irony aside, what's the big deal about proclaiming Jesus' death? Maybe the fact that His death was the ultimate sacrifice by which the sins of the world were paid for. Maybe the fact that Jesus said "Whoever eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me..." and then later said "This is my body, which is for you..." and "This is my blood of the new covenant..." Perhaps Jesus' death is worth proclaiming because it was by His death that men could be reconciled to God, and by His resurrection that we can live. That might be a good reason to proclaim His death.

Also, you say that Jesus never instituted the sacrament of the Lord's supper, but every serious Bible scholar disagrees with you, as does the early church, and the apostles also (or are you not aware that the other apostles were still present when the Lord's supper was celebrated on a regular basis and would have put an end to it if it were against their Lord's commands?) So you have your own opinion to stand on, but we have Jesus' own words, the words of the apostles, and the early church to stand on.

So we are back to my original question. Can you show me one real instance of Paul contradicting Jesus?

 

[Righttruth]

All of the claims that your "author" makes are false, just like his claim that St. Paul stopped preaching the Gospel to his own people, the Jews, when he said "I am turning to the Gentiles" in Acts 13. Paul didn't abandon his commission at that moment, by, "turning to the Gentiles", he fulfilled it (as I pointed out in my last couple of posts).

Is he Jesus to claim that his assigned work has been fulfilled after taking an easy short cut?

Here's what I don't understand, even though you now have clear evidence that your "author" is a false prophet, rather than fleeing from him and apologizing for joining him in misleading others about St. Paul and his Epistles as you have, you continue to try to find ways to perpetuate his lies

When you are wearing a colored glass, what do you expect?

One last thing Rt. Do you know what conspiracy theories are really good for? ................................... Selling books

You don't have to buy that book. You can refute that point by point if you are interested in knowing the truth.

I wasn't about to pay $2.99 for the Kindle version of the book you've been promoting, but I read what I could of it online. Like Dan Brown, that guy is a captivating author (and as a result, I'm sure the remainder of his book is just as much of a page turner), but it's less truthful and far more insidious than Brown's page turner, The Da Vinci Code. I read that book and couldn't put it down, but at least Dan Brown had the decency to say it was a work of fiction in the introduction.

A truth seeker may not be that crafty and scholar to put across his ideas that pleasingly.

Look, the Christian Church has been able to scrutinize St. Paul's Epistles for over 2,000 years now, and we've done so year after year through conspiracy theory after conspiracy theory. And as divided as we've been at times over certain soteriological issues, two of the things we've stood firmly together on through the centuries and millennia are St. Paul's apostleship, and the fact that his Epistles (the ones in the Bible anyway) are the "breathed" words of God.
Yours and His,
David

This very much opposes the object of Jesus to send the Holy Spirit to remind us of His preaching. I once again say that Jesus never called more than twelve as apostles, nor did He divide apostleship into two: circumcised and uncircumcised.

 

[Righttruth]

I find it ironic that in your attempt to defame St. Paul you just did both of the things you accuse him of: made up your own interpretation of Jesus' words and added your own to them.

Yes, I have added, but don't claim that to be of Jesus' like Paul was doing.

But irony aside, what's the big deal about proclaiming Jesus' death? Maybe the fact that His death was the ultimate sacrifice by which the sins of the world were paid for. Maybe the fact that Jesus said "Whoever eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me..." and then later said "This is my body, which is for you..." and "This is my blood of the new covenant..." Perhaps Jesus' death is worth proclaiming because it was by His death that men could be reconciled to God, and by His resurrection that we can live. That might be a good reason to proclaim His death.

This is where all miss the symbolic spiritual aspect of eating His body. Jesus continued to live after the Last Supper. He was implying that His words need to read (eating) and digested (obedience) and blood represent life of us that pleases Him.

Also, you say that Jesus never instituted the sacrament of the Lord's supper, but every serious Bible scholar disagrees with you, as does the early church,

Paul was advocating this ritual to notorious people in Corinth who never knew the words of Jesus that well.

and the apostles also (or are you not aware that the other apostles were still present when the Lord's supper was celebrated on a regular basis and would have put an end to it if it were against their Lord's commands?)

The chosen apostles were observing this differently. They were fully aware of the thrust needed to observe both the communal meal and communion. Paul on his own dismissed the communal meal altogether.

So we are back to my original question. Can you show me one real instance of Paul contradicting Jesus?

See the pages I have referred already.

 

[nomadictheist]

Yes, I have added, but don't claim that to be of Jesus' like Paul was doing.



This is where all miss the symbolic spiritual aspect of eating His body. Jesus continued to live after the Last Supper. He was implying that His words need to read (eating) and digested (obedience) and blood represent life of us that pleases Him.

Really?

According to Jesus, this is what He meant:

"Jesus took bread, blessed and broke it, and gave it to the disciples and said, “Take, eat; this is My body."
"Then He took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you. 28 For this is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins."

Seems Jesus and you disagree, again.

Paul was advocating this ritual to notorious people in Corinth who never knew the words of Jesus that well.



The chosen apostles were observing this differently. They were fully aware of the thrust needed to observe both the communal meal and communion. Paul on his own dismissed the communal meal altogether.



See the pages I have referred already.

No thanks. I've already read them and have addressed each of them one at a time with you. You always end up trying to argue from your own understanding which seems to rest entirely on the interpretation of the author of this book - who has published many lies about the apostle Paul. Even your two statements within these brackets, which have been refuted so many times it's not even worth doing again, are nothing more than your own self-claims, unsubstantiated by scripture.

But I'll say this just one more time.
What was Paul telling the Corinthians about the meal? Why did he instruct people to eat at their own homes if they were hungry?

Because people were going away with nothing. It wasn't right in the body of Christ for people to come in and eat all the food from the communal meal so that those who got their later had nothing. He was telling them that this practice was evil, and if they were so hungry they needed to eat at their own homes. It's right there in the passage for anyone who wants to read it.

Clearly, you are just looking for reasons to take issue with St. Paul at this point.

 

[nomadictheist]

Yes, I have added, but don't claim that to be of Jesus' like Paul was doing.



This is where all miss the symbolic spiritual aspect of eating His body. Jesus continued to live after the Last Supper. He was implying that His words need to read (eating) and digested (obedience) and blood represent life of us that pleases Him.



Paul was advocating this ritual to notorious people in Corinth who never knew the words of Jesus that well.



The chosen apostles were observing this differently. They were fully aware of the thrust needed to observe both the communal meal and communion. Paul on his own dismissed the communal meal altogether.



See the pages I have referred already.

Also, the way that you and your cherished author continually refer to St. Paul as an "outsider" speaks volumes about your opinion of your own opinion. It's a blatant and obvious appeal to emotion, placing Paul on the "outside" of the church in your sentences to add an automatic level of disqualification to anything he might have said. But all it really accomplishes is show the prejudice that is held against him.