How should we read Paul?

[redleghunter]

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

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

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

Add to that Peter speaks for Paul's position at the Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15.

 

[Thursday]

Is the above from the Westminster Confession?

No, from the website Calvinist Corner.

 

[Thursday]

Add to that Peter speaks for Paul's position at the Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15.

More correctly, Peter reveals God's revelation.

 

[redleghunter]

2 Peter is questionable regarding the authorship of Peter

What does your canon look like so we can ascertain what you consider inspired and what is questionable. Thanks.

 

[redleghunter]

More correctly, Peter reveals God's revelation.

Amen.

 

[redleghunter]

When Jesus sent out His 12 Apostles, he instructed them to preach the gospel to Jews. They were not to preach to the Gentile nations.

Not accurate:

Matthew 28:

18 And Jesus came and spoke to them, saying, “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. 19 Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.” Amen.

Luke 24:

44 Then He said to them, “These are the words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things must be fulfilled which were written in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms concerning Me.” 45 And He opened their understanding, that they might comprehend the Scriptures.

46 Then He said to them, “Thus it is written, and thus it was necessary for the Christ to suffer and to rise from the dead the third day, 47 and that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in His name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. 48 And you are witnesses of these things. 49 Behold, I send the Promise of My Father upon you; but tarry in the city of Jerusalem until you are endued with power from on high.”

 

[redleghunter]

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

Is it your point Paul lied to the churches he wrote epistles to, or every translator got "apostle" wrong in every epistle Paul proclaims he is an apostle?

Much of what you posted the Ebionites argued.

 

[redleghunter]

Is that really the Gospel in totality?



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

I guess you are here to tell us what the real Gospel is in totality?

 

[redleghunter]

Requiring an interpreter for gibberish speaking!

Source please.

 

[redleghunter]

So Paul never heard Jesus while on earth!



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

Is this confirmation of the Ebionite ways and Paul must be discarded?

 

[redleghunter]

Despite contrary belief, i think that the words of Christ were written down pretty quickly. This only makes sense, seeing how it was the word of God. Surely they wrote it down as soon as he was resurrected, if not before. Its possible that paul had the words of Christ in writing. Aside from that however, Paul heard the Gospel message just as the rest of the pharisees did.

Galatians 1

 

[redleghunter]

And count the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures. (2 Peter 3:15-16)

If their is fault, it is with the readers interpretation of what Saint Paul wrote, not with what was written. Saint Peter vouched for him and that endorsement is enough proof for me. I would say that Saint Paul's letters should not be the first source that is used to derive doctrines because what he is saying is on a more advanced level and his audience consists of people who have already received the Gospel. So these people would read the letters in light of what Saint Paul has already told them in person. Many errors are committed by people who read Saint Paul's letters, interpret it for themselves and then attempt to force their interpretation back on the rest of the Bible. Doing this can make it seem like their is some kind of conflict between what Saint Paul and Jesus are saying.

Sage remarks above. Why it is important to look at all Scriptures in the Light of the Cross and Empty Tomb. If we don't, we miss out on what truly is the Gospel. As Christ proclaims in Luke 24 and Paul in 1 Corinthians 15.

 

[Extraneous]

Galatians 1

Yes, Paul still heard the gospel preached from Christ himself, and his disciples when he was a pharisee, just as all pharisees heard it. They were always listening, looking for some way to trap Christ and His disciples. Like wolves stalking their pray. I bet later, after his conversion, Paul remembered those words and his knowledge of Torah was also with him, and the spirit lead him by those things.

 

[redleghunter]

I think they are referring to the belief in Faith alone.

Ah, something discussed in the General Theology threads and not on the Controversial Theology threads. Understand now, but the OP is about Paul being a false prophet and misleading people of the true Gospel. If someone wants to beat up on Calvin, there are plenty of threads to do that on in General Theology. Now if this was Catholic Answers...such would be in a controversial category, but we are not there but here.

 

[Wgw]

How should we read St. Paul? As our Lord's chosen apostle to the gentiles.

 

[civilwarbuff]

Yes, Paul still heard the gospel preached from Christ himself, and his disciples when he was a pharisee, just as all pharisees heard it. They were always listening, looking for some way to trap Christ and His disciples. Like wolves stalking their pray. I bet later, after his conversion, Paul remembered those words and his knowledge of Torah was also with him, and the spirit lead him by those things.

Don't you think Paul would have mentioned that tiny little detail in his writings, not to give more authority to his teachings because he opposed Christians initially and persecuted Christians, but as someone who heard the word from Messiah himself and still persecuted Christians. How much more of a testimony of Messiah's saving grace that would be....

 

[Extraneous]

Don't you think Paul would have mentioned that tiny little detail in his writings, not to give more authority to his teachings because he opposed Christians initially and persecuted Christians, but as someone who heard the word from Messiah himself and still persecuted Christians. How much more of a testimony of Messiah's saving grace that would be....

You know yourself that pharisees heard Christ preach. They heard Stephen preach too. Paul held their coats while they stoned stephan, right after they heard his message. I dont think we have enough scripture to say whether paul did or did not hear the Gospel preached when he was a pharisee. My only point is that we dont know, but its likely that he may have heard it. Hearing the message however doesnt mean we understand it. Only Christ could have made Paul understand the message. Perhaps thats what he meant when he said that he didn't learn from flesh and blood.

 

[redleghunter]

Yes, Paul still heard the gospel preached from Christ himself, and his disciples when he was a pharisee, just as all pharisees heard it. They were always listening, looking for some way to trap Christ and His disciples. Like wolves stalking their pray. I bet later, after his conversion, Paul remembered those words and his knowledge of Torah was also with him, and the spirit lead him by those things.

Galatians 1 is not implying what you provide above. What you provide above could be a consideration, but notice what Paul says "through the revelation of Jesus Christ." Not the preaching but the revelation. Most connect this with Paul's Damascus road encounter with the Risen Christ.

 

[Extraneous]

Galatians 1 is not implying what you provide above.

How do we know? Christ spoke in parables, but no one understood it without also having the revelation of the spirit.

 

[redleghunter]

You know yourself that pharisees heard Christ preach. They heard Stephen preach too. Paul held their coats while they stoned stephan, right after they heard his message. I dont think we have enough scripture to say whether paul did or did not hear the Gospel preached when he was a pharisee. My only point is that we dont know, but its likely that he may have heard it. Hearing the message however doesnt mean we understand it. Only Christ could have made Paul understand the message. Perhaps thats what he meant when he said that he didn't learn from flesh and blood.

I do appreciate your extrapolation, however we don't know if Paul was actually in Judea during the Ministry of Jesus Christ. Best we have is Acts where Paul sees the Risen Christ and is given his commands.