How should we read Paul?

[redleghunter]

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

As I said in a previous post what you present may be extrapolated but unconfirmed. We have Damascus Road and then the other visions or dreams Paul speaks of throughout the NT.

 

[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.

Yes we do have evidence Paul heard the Gospel by the preaching of Stephen.

 

[Extraneous]

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.

Paul heard stephan preaching, did he not? Why would we want to assume anything here? We cannot say whether paul did, or did not, hear the message of the gospel. We just dont know either way. We do however know he heard at least some of it.

 

[Extraneous]

Yes we do have evidence Paul heard the Gospel by the preaching of Stephen.

Yes.

 

[Extraneous]

As I said in a previous post what you present may be extrapolated but unconfirmed. We have Damascus Road and then the other visions or dreams Paul speaks of throughout the NT.

We cannot confirm or deny that Paul heard, or didn't hear, the whole message. That's the only point im making. We don't know, and cant say one way or the other.

 

[MoonofIsaiah]

I think there are more than a few Christians that wonder at Paul being the foremost author of the NT.

As a pharisee he'd be well educated in the Hebrew scriptures. And since Jesus predates those in the spirit I think the way to ascertain if Saul was truly anointed by Christ to preach then we will know it by his writings at the Lord's behest.

If Saul in any way teaches contrary to Christ?

Test every spirit, remember.

 

[rakovsky]

Is the above from the Westminster Confession?

Unconditional Election is the "U" in Calvin's TULIP.
As such, it is a cornerstone of what we call the Calvinist view on "Predestination", in contrast with non-Calvinists like the Methodists and High Church Anglicans.

I understand that you may have an instinctual reaction against what are the substance of Calvin's main teachings. I read elsewhere by an ex-Calvinist that for a long time before becoming a Calvinist he had to be brought to Calvinism "kicking" away, because Calvinism's determinism went against his basic instincts about free will.

 

[redleghunter]

Unconditional Election is the "U" in Calvin's TULIP.
As such, it is a cornerstone of what we call the Calvinist view on "Predestination", in contrast with non-Calvinists like the Methodists and High Church Anglicans.

I understand that you may have an instinctual reaction against what are the substance of Calvin's main teachings. I read elsewhere by an ex-Calvinist that for a long time before becoming a Calvinist he had to be brought to Calvinism "kicking" away, because Calvinism's determinism went against his basic instincts about free will.

All great comments. Not OP related as far as I can see.

 

[rakovsky]

I think there are more than a few Christians that wonder at Paul being the foremost author of the NT.

As a pharisee he'd be well educated in the Hebrew scriptures. And since Jesus predates those in the spirit I think the way to ascertain if Saul was truly anointed by Christ to preach then we will know it by his writings at the Lord's behest.

If Saul in any way teaches contrary to Christ?

Test every spirit, remember.

Moon of Isaiah,
Nowadays the New Testament "critical scholars " commonly judge paul's writings to 35-55 AD, while they commonly judge other epistles and NT books to later dates. These "critical scholars" also propose that NT beliefs also developed or formed over the course of the 1st century. So in John 21 if you notice the writer makes a clarification on earlier Christian beliefs about whether Jesus was coming back in John's lifetime.

As a result, I have had "critical" thinkers claim to me that the apostles didn't even teach the resurrection appearances originally and that it was put in the gospels in 60-110 AD To make this argument they are forced to claim that Paul's narration of them to the Corinthians was a later interpolation not made by Paul. Why? Because Paul's letters are from 35-55 AD, showing that this really was a teaching already in apostolic times!

This shows how essential Paul's writings are to understanding the early stages of Christianity, even if you were to take a pharisaic viewpoint and to disagree with Paul about the importance of faith over Law and circumcision.

 

[rakovsky]

All great comments. Not OP related as far as I can see.

Thanks.

 

[MoonofIsaiah]

Moon of Isaiah,
Nowadays the New Testament "critical scholars " commonly judge paul's writings to 35-55 AD, while they commonly judge other epistles and NT books to later dates. These "critical scholars" also propose that NT beliefs also developed or formed over the course of the 1st century. So in John 21 if you notice the writer makes a clarification on earlier Christian beliefs about whether Jesus was coming back in John's lifetime.

As a result, I have had "critical" thinkers claim to me that the apostles didn't even teach the resurrection appearances originally and that it was put in the gospels in 60-110 AD To make this argument they are forced to claim that Paul's narration of them to the Corinthians was a later interpolation not made by Paul. Why? Because Paul's letters are from 35-55 AD, showing that this really was a teaching already in apostolic times!

This shows how essential Paul's writings are to understanding the early stages of Christianity, even if you were to take a pharisaic viewpoint and to disagree with Paul about the importance of faith over Law and circumcision.

I've heard about the resurrection scriptures being added later . Would we ever know the teachings of Christ as they were taught after Jesus departed to Heaven?

The pharisaic part of your remarks would be an issue too wouldn't it? Didn't Jesus call them a den of snakes?
If Jesus was instructing Saul post ascension of himself how would he tell Saul to reiterate the teachings of that snake den he opposed while in life?

 

[St_Worm2]

Logic is not the way to understand spiritual things! There cannot be more than 12 apostles! Peter calls him only beloved brother.

Hi Rt, "ONLY beloved brother"

I'm sure you know who/what St. Paul was before he became a Christian and how he persecuted the church prior to his conversion. The very fact that St. Peter would even refer to him as "brother" speaks volumes, but qualifying that with "beloved" tells us just how much he thought of this man and of his ministry. If memory serves, this was St. Peter's only use of the term "BELOVED brother" in the Bible (and he never referred to anyone directly as, "Apostle").

St. Peter (who was himself rebuked by St. Paul in Galatia .. Galatians 2:11) taught us that both St. Paul AND his epistles were to be trusted. No one who wrote what St. Paul did (i.e. - he referred to himself as an Apostle) or how he did (i.e. - with such authority), would have ever been called a "brother" by St. Peter, much less "beloved", if it wasn't true. St. Peter and St. John (as well many others in Acts), certainly had multiple opportunities to let us know about St. Paul. The good news is, they did (and we read nothing from any of them that would cause us to call into question that he wasn't who he claimed to be).

And we have the testimony of both the Holy Spirit who sent him (i.e. Acts of the Apostles 13:2) and the Lord Jesus who converted him and called him into His service to begin with (Acts of the Apostles 9:1-31).

The Lord said to Ananias, “Go, for he [Paul] is a chosen instrument of Mine, to bear My name before the Gentiles and kings and the sons of Israel.” ~Acts 9:15​

The word scripture in the NT refers to only the OT verses.

That's not true, as has already been mentioned in this thread, St. Peter calling St. Paul's epistles (which are certainly part of the NT), "Scripture" (2 Peter 3:15-16). St. Paul also referred to St. Luke's Gospel as such.

Yours and His,
David
p.s. - there is also the testimony of the Early Church Fathers about St. Paul and his Epistles (Clement, Ignatius, and Polycarp all writing what they did in the late 1st to early 2nd centuries).

 

[MerriestHouse]

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.”

Matthew 10:5 "These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into [any] city of the Samaritans enter ye not: 6 But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel."

About eight years after the gospel was preached to the Jews, it was preached to the Gentiles.

Romans 1:16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel: it is the power of God for salvation to every one who has faith, to the Jew first and also to the Greek.

 

[rakovsky]

The pharisaic part of your remarks would be an issue too wouldn't it? Didn't Jesus call them a den of snakes?
If Jesus was instructing Saul post ascension of himself how would he tell Saul to reiterate the teachings of that snake den he opposed while in life?

I wrote:
"This shows how essential Paul's writings are to understanding the early stages of Christianity, even if you were to take a pharisaic viewpoint and to disagree with Paul about the importance of faith over Law and circumcision."

Paul taught that faith was important, not following Torah rituals. He wrote that gentiles don't need to go get circumcized.
Today's "Messianic Jews" and the ancient pharisees teach that people should follow the Torah's rituals.
This is one of the biggest arguments between Christians when it comes to Paul.

If you want to go against Paul and support the pharisee side of that debate, you are allowed to here.

My point though is that Paul is important to reading the Bible whichever side you choose in arguing about Paul.

If I didn't explain things well enough to you, maybe someone else can explain what I mean.

 

[MerriestHouse]

Right.

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

Not to just Gentiles as can be seen below:

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

Paul saw himself as especially called for his mission. He said "even from my mother's womb," in Galatians 1:15, so that "I might preach Christ among the Gentiles," verse 16. In 2 Corinthians 1:1, he said he was convinced that it was "by the will of God" that he was called to his mission.

He said that it was "by revelation there was made known unto me the mystery." Ephesians 3:3. "The mystery" that he was referring to had to do with both worlds... the Jews and Gentiles were destined to become one Body in Christ Jesus. Ephesians 3:6. God called Paul to make the mystery happen.

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

There is only one version of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Is that really the Gospel in totality?

The gospel is the "good news" that Jesus lived, was crucified, was buried, and arose. That is the gospel (good news) in a nutshell.

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

I wouldn't call the Scripture that tells about Paul's education a theology.

 

[redleghunter]

Moon of Isaiah,
Nowadays the New Testament "critical scholars " commonly judge paul's writings to 35-55 AD, while they commonly judge other epistles and NT books to later dates. These "critical scholars" also propose that NT beliefs also developed or formed over the course of the 1st century. So in John 21 if you notice the writer makes a clarification on earlier Christian beliefs about whether Jesus was coming back in John's lifetime.

As a result, I have had "critical" thinkers claim to me that the apostles didn't even teach the resurrection appearances originally and that it was put in the gospels in 60-110 AD To make this argument they are forced to claim that Paul's narration of them to the Corinthians was a later interpolation not made by Paul. Why? Because Paul's letters are from 35-55 AD, showing that this really was a teaching already in apostolic times!

This shows how essential Paul's writings are to understanding the early stages of Christianity, even if you were to take a pharisaic viewpoint and to disagree with Paul about the importance of faith over Law and circumcision.

Excellent expository.

 

[Righttruth]

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

It is no longer the letter of the Law, but the spirit of it! All the Ten Commandments are applicable even now. You can't disrespect your parents, nor kill someday assuming that Law is not applicable!

 

[Righttruth]

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

No, noway he can join the crowd and hear Him as many did and followed. Even if he had heard from distance, he was never had the opportunity of listen to His elaborated teaching to His apostles, so missed out the sublime and profound teaching of Jesus.

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

Even now Tom, Dick and Harry claim to be apostles in tune with the self-claim of Paul! The first division in the Jerusalem church was started by Paul. No wonder all Pauline Christians are divided into thousands of denominations![/quote][/QUOTE]

 

[Righttruth]

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

Apostleship was granted by Jesus for 12 to judge 12 tribes. No more. Paul was wanting that status, without knowing the spiritual significance, badly since many were not listening to him, especially Jews. Consequently, he kept on harping on his self-claim of apostleship over and over again.

Where did Paul say that he did not want that title?

 

[Righttruth]

Paul saw himself as especially called for his mission. He said "even from my mother's womb," in Galatians 1:15, so that "I might preach Christ among the Gentiles," verse 16. In 2 Corinthians 1:1, he said he was convinced that it was "by the will of God" that he was called to his mission.

He said that it was "by revelation there was made known unto me the mystery." Ephesians 3:3. "The mystery" that he was referring to had to do with both worlds... the Jews and Gentiles were destined to become one Body in Christ Jesus. Ephesians 3:6. God called Paul to make the mystery happen.

All are his self-claims as if Jesus took special tutorial for him!

There is only one version of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Paul claims of his gospel! What was that: something like Jesus was born, crucified and risen again! What about the preaching of Jesus? Without keeping the commandments of Jesus, no salvation!

The gospel is the "good news" that Jesus lived, was crucified, was buried, and arose. That is the gospel (good news) in a nutshell.

Without the fruit, nut will not appear!

I wouldn't call the Scripture that tells about Paul's education a theology.

As a Pharisee, he was well versed in OT theology!