How should we read Paul?

[civilwarbuff]

lol no!!!! haha!!

OK, just checking....

 

[Righttruth]

No, obviously he doesn't. If that were true I would consider Jesus the apostle and Paul the master. Clearly Jesus - the Lord - rules over Paul - the apostle - in my thinking. Stop trying to tell me how I think.

The moment you say Paul is an apostle indicates that Paul rules all your thinking because it is fundamentally his claim!

Really? We're going to quibble over the word "says" now? Fine, if you insist I will rephrase it. It is written in the scriptures - that is the Bible - that Paul is an apostle.

Bible has only recorded the self-claim of Paul. It is not the exclusive mouthpiece of Paul.

Here's one off the top of my head:
"35 I have shown you in every way, by laboring like this, that you must support the weak. And remember the words of the Lord Jesus, that He said, ‘It is more blessed to give than to receive.’”"

It is again an imaginary statement of Paul unsupported by the chosen apostles! That is how easy communion ritual was picked by the churches with invented word of Paul (remembrance) ignoring the spiritual significance as pointed out by John 6!

So that was another blatant lie. Next?

Possibly a white lie or a wrong vision unsuspected by Paul with his egoism!

You must put your quotes in context. When you use a verse out of place like this it can be put to any use you desire.

Let's put the context there, referencing the missionary journeys and the timeline in Acts, and everything will be plain:

Galatians 1:
[Saul's Conversion]
But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother’s womb and called me through His grace, 16 to reveal His Son in me, that I might preach Him among the Gentiles, I did not immediately confer with flesh and blood, 17 nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me; but I went to Arabia, and returned again to Damascus.

[First Visit to Jerusalem (see Acts 9:26-30)]
18 Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter,[a] and remained with him fifteen days. 19 But I saw none of the other apostles except James, the Lord’s brother. 20 (Now concerning the things which I write to you, indeed, before God, I do not lie.)
[First Missionary Journey]
21 Afterward I went into the regions of Syria and Cilicia. 22 And I was unknown by face to the churches of Judea which were in Christ. 23 But they were hearing only, “He who formerly persecuted us now preaches the faith which he once tried to destroy.” 24 And they glorified God in me.

Chapter 2:

[Second visit to Jerusalem (Acts Chapter 15:1-29)]
Then after fourteen years I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, and also took Titus with me. 2 And I went up by revelation, and communicated to them that gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but privately to those who were of reputation, lest by any means I might run, or had run, in vain. 3 Yet not even Titus who was with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised. 4 And this occurred because of false brethren secretly brought in (who came in by stealth to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage), 5 to whom we did not yield submission even for an hour, that the truth of the gospel might continue with you.

6 But from those who seemed to be something—whatever they were, it makes no difference to me; God shows personal favoritism to no man—for those who seemed to be something added nothing to me. 7 But on the contrary, when they saw that the gospel for the uncircumcised had been committed to me, as the gospel for the circumcised was to Peter 8 (for He who worked effectively in Peter for the apostleship to the circumcised also worked effectively in me toward the Gentiles), 9 and when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that had been given to me, they gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised. 10 They desired only that we should remember the poor, the very thing which I also was eager to do.

[Second missionary Journey, at Antioch with Barnabas (Acts Chapter 15:30-34)]
11 Now when Peter[a] had come to Antioch, I withstood him to his face, because he was to be blamed; 12 for before certain men came from James, he would eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing those who were of the circumcision. 13 And the rest of the Jews also played the hypocrite with him, so that even Barnabas was carried away with their hypocrisy.

And finally, now that you can see the timeline in the book of Acts, following this:

[Dispute over John Mark as they are getting ready to leave Antioch (Acts Chapter 15:36-end)]
Then after some days Paul said to Barnabas, “Let us now go back and visit our brethren in every city where we have preached the word of the Lord, and see how they are doing.” 37 Now Barnabas was determined to take with them John called Mark. 38 But Paul insisted that they should not take with them the one who had departed from them in Pamphylia, and had not gone with them to the work. 39 Then the contention became so sharp that they parted from one another. And so Barnabas took Mark and sailed to Cyprus; 40 but Paul chose Silas and departed, being commended by the brethren to the grace of God. 41 And he went through Syria and Cilicia, strengthening the churches.

So putting events in line with the account in Acts, we can plainly see that Peter's hypocrisy that split the church came before Barnabas and Saul's split over John Mark.

The word 'Galatians' never appears in the Acts. In Galatians 2:1, Paul speaks of a gap of fourteen years and the presence of Titus who appears to be a relative of Luke. Luke and Titus became associates only later after the split.

Paul calls this the gospel of Jesus Christ far more frequently than the few instances you can point to of "my gospel." It is clear that he is speaking of the gospel he is preaching to them, which is the gospel of Jesus Christ:

Romans 1:1 Paul, a bondservant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, separated to the gospel of God

Romans 1:9 For God is my witness, whom I serve with my spirit in the gospel of His Son, that without ceasing I make mention of you always in my prayers,

Romans 1:15 So, as much as is in me, I am ready to preach the gospel to you who are in Rome also.

Romans 1:16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ, for it is the power of God to salvation for everyone who believes, for the Jew first and also for the Greek.

And these are just a few. Paul clearly preached the gospel of Christ.

It only proves my point! Paul preached all the time his version of abridged gospel since he did not know that in detail!

As I have already demonstrated, there are actually 14 tribes in the Bible. Here is a link that lays them out nicely, showing which tribes are mentioned and excluded in various passages, if you would like to see for yourself you can look up each passage in the Bible individually, as I did. I'm not posting the individual passages here because that would make this post far too long.

http://catholic-resources.org/Bible/History-12Tribes.htm

The Bible only mentions 12 tribes. Show me where 14 tribes are mentioned. Even your link titles 12 tribes. To accommodate self-claim Paul, you want to make Jesus a liar! What a blasphemy!

Matthew 19
28 And Jesus said to them, "Truly I say to you, that you who have followed Me, in the regeneration when the Son of Man will sit on His glorious throne, you also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.

Here are some more:

Genesis 49
28 All these are the twelve tribes of Israel, and this is what their father said to them when he blessed them. He blessed them, every one with the blessing appropriate to him.

Exodus 24
4 Moses wrote down all the words of the LORD. Then he arose early in the morning, and built an altar at the foot of the mountain with twelve pillars for the twelve tribes of Israel.

Joshua 3
12 Now then, take for yourselves twelve men from the tribes of Israel, one man for each tribe.

Ezekiel 47
13 Thus says the Lord GOD, "This shall be the boundary by which you shall divide the land for an inheritance among the twelve tribes of Israel; Joseph shall have two portions.

Jesus did not limit His apostles to 12, so why should you?

Are you mocking at the wisdom of Jesus to chose only 12 out of number of disciples to judge the twelve tribes?

 

[Righttruth]

Why are you reading his works from a human perspective? The Holy Spirit is the ultimate Judge and those ARE HIS WORDS. 2 Timothy 3:16, "All scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness,"

You "cooked" your own logic, feasted on it, and then gave it out for reasons only God knows."

The word 'scripture' in the NT refers only to the OT!

 

[Righttruth]

You're obviously not reading, or not choosing to read, what I'm saying. And please don't accuse me of re-writing Scripture.

Scripture ended with the OT. Subsequent writings have to understood by the help of the Holy Spirit. Whatever writings that don't remind of Jesus' preaching or go against it should be rejected.

I don't know; what's that got to do with what I said?
But the answer is, maybe a few. James, Barnabas etc were called apostles too; a fact you keep ignoring.

Even now some spiritual stooges call themselves apostles to fill their pockets!

He was an apostle because he was SENT by Jesus - again, something you are choosing to ignore.

A chosen one is also sent. But that won't fetch apostleship!

But I have another question.
Paul said that he was an apostle; chosen and sent by the Lord Jesus. If he had no right at all to use the word apostle, then don't you think that either the Lord Jesus or the 12 apostles would have rebuked, criticised or rejected him? If they didn't - and there is no record of this; on the contrary they welcomed, affirmed and accepted him - then why do YOU believe you have a right to pass this judgement?

You admit that Paul was chosen by Jesus - Paul was chosen by the Son of God himself.
But you don't like a word that Paul used for himself - no one else in the NT had a problem with it, neither did the people who compiled Scripture. But almost 2000 years later YOU decide YOU don't like it, which results in you calling Jesus' chosen one a liar and someone who is untrustworthy.
Quite simply, if all those around Paul, plus Jesus himself, did not have a problem with him calling himself an apostle; what gives you the right to judge and condemn? Isn't this a matter between God and Paul? If the Holy Spirit had a problem with the words of an - apparent - liar being used in the NT, why didn't he do something about it?

Like I said before, if you believe that Paul's, or some of Paul's, writings are false, questionable or contain lies, then you are saying that the NT is untrustworthy - which, in turn, raises questions about the Spirit of Truth who inspired it.

Don't underestimate Satan who is still diverting many from the truth. It is easy to distract with the play of words and declare equality!

 

[Righttruth]

righttruth,

I know you don't want to debate me but since you go by right truth I will ask you again to explain what Paul meant when he said, I die daily and give scripture to harmonize with it to see if you have the right truth. I'll be waiting. Jerry kelso

Please quote the verse.

 

[Righttruth]

This must be what you are speaking of:
1Co 12:10 to another miraculous results; to another prophecy; to another the ability to distinguish between spirits; to another various kinds of languages; and to another the interpretation of languages.
And your interpretation could not be more wrong....it is self evident what the meaning is unless, of course, 1 Cor 2:14 applies to you. Try reading Acts 2.

No where in the Acts or anywhere else in the Bible including other Paul's epistles indicate anything related to gift of interpretation though an interpreter for gibberish talk!

 

[civilwarbuff]

No where in the Acts or anywhere else in the Bible including other Paul's epistles indicate anything related to gift of interpretation though an interpreter for gibberish talk!

Yep, you are wrong.....

 

[Righttruth]

righttruth,
I didn't ask about 1 Corinthians 12-14, I asked you about 1 Corinthians 15:31 in the phrase, "I die daily"!. It was a pretty simple question and in english. Do you speak english? LOL! Just answer the question about 1 Corinthians 15 first then we can get to 1 Corinthians 12-14. Do you understand this? I'll be waiting! Jerry kelso

1 Corinthians 15:29 Otherwise, what will those do who are baptized for the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why then are they baptized for them?
30 Why are we also in danger every hour?
31 I affirm, brethren, by the boasting in you which I have in Christ Jesus our Lord, I die daily.

These verses show how Paul set out to please all people with his 'ear tickling' concepts. v.29 is a very controversial statement. It appears people were baptized on behalf of the dead! This was supported by Paul! Like what is happening now, Paul boasting of his statistics of people who were included in the flock though his efforts. Many evangelists go out with the financial support to baptize people to improve their statistics. But in the same way Paul did, they hardly preach the commandments of Jesus which was the third requirement of the Great Commission.

 

[Righttruth]

I have already provided you the versus, after all the head of the church is Christ himself. It is Christ who have him his orders to leave Jerusalem.

What is that got to do with self-claimed apostleship?

I feel that this is your opinion, so it is my turn to ask you for chapter and verse.

Acts 18
6 But when they resisted and blasphemed, he shook out his garments and said to them, "Your blood be on your own heads! I am clean. From now on I will go to the Gentiles."

That was not what Jesus wanted to do in the first place.

I feel that this is your opinion, so it is my turn to ask you for chapter and verse.

Look how even after conversion he claims to be a Pharisee to please the large number of Jews present there:

Acts 23
6 But perceiving that one group were Sadducees and the other Pharisees, Paul began crying out in the Council, "Brethren, I am a Pharisee, a son of Pharisees; I am on trial for the hope and resurrection of the dead!"

 

[Righttruth]

Paul was multicultural and empathetic in his approach to delivering the gospel into the heart of the recipients. This approach in his days was unheard of. Even today teachers struggle to deliver eduction to children through multiple instructions, whilst taking into consideration the primary discourses of the students, owing to context of culture and context of situation. Paul was a professional teacher in using what only a few modern teachers have mastered today, in order to get the message through to people's minds.

How can you say what you say about Paul.

If Paul used his pharisical upbringing and education, to deliver the gospel, gentiles either would become Jews by culture, or they wouldn't recieve his message at all. In fact there would be no gentile living today who can claim to be Christian, rather they would say that they are Jews. This would include the last 2000 years. It would be hypocritical of a gentile to call Paul a hypocrite for using context of culture, in delivering the gospel.

Yeah, Paul used all tricks of the trade and applied hook and crook methods to win gullible Gentiles with his own abridged version of Gospel ignoring the sublime and profound preaching of Jesus which he was not aware of. Now Pauline Christians stand divided and continue divide based on his suppositions.

 

[redleghunter]

What is that got to do with self-claimed apostleship?





Acts 18
6 But when they resisted and blasphemed, he shook out his garments and said to them, "Your blood be on your own heads! I am clean. From now on I will go to the Gentiles."

That was not what Jesus wanted to do in the first place.



Look how even after conversion he claims to be a Pharisee to please the large number of Jews present there:

Acts 23
6 But perceiving that one group were Sadducees and the other Pharisees, Paul began crying out in the Council, "Brethren, I am a Pharisee, a son of Pharisees; I am on trial for the hope and resurrection of the dead!"

If Paul is indeed self proclaiming his position as an apostle to the Gentiles, then why did the Church at Antioch lay hands on him to preach the Gospel to the Gentiles?

Acts 13

 

[Righttruth]

By your posts I come to the conclusion you think Paul was a false prophet.

Do you discount the Damascus road conversion of Paul and the commission Christ gave him?

Let's cut to the chase shall we?

Many of his claims were misleading. He took his own short cuts with his limited knowledge of the preaching of Jesus. What to accept and what not accept should be based on the preaching of Jesus and His chosen apostles. Not wholly on Paul's.

 

[redleghunter]

Yeah, Paul used all tricks of the trade and applied hook and crook methods to win gullible Gentiles with his own abridged version of Gospel ignoring the sublime and profound preaching of Jesus which he was not aware of. Now Pauline Christians stand divided and continue divide based on his suppositions.

What book did you read again which serves as the basis of your argument?

 

[Righttruth]

You keep saying this. I will post again what Paul said about this:

1 Corinthians 9:


19 For though I am free from all men, I have made myself a servant to all, that I might win the more; 20 and to the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might win Jews; to thosewho are under the law, as under the law, that I might win those who are under the law; 21 to those who are without law, as without law (not being without law toward God, but under law toward Christ, that I might win those who are without law; 22 to the weak I became as weak , that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all men,that I might by all means save some. 23 Now this I do for the gospel’s sake, that I may be partaker of it with you.


I have answered the OP topic. The above tells us how to read Paul.

That is double standard! When Peter did something like that, Paul made a big noise!

 

[redleghunter]

Many of his claims were misleading. He took his own short cuts with his limited knowledge of the preaching of Jesus. What to accept and what not accept should be based on the preaching of Jesus and His chosen apostles. Not wholly on Paul's.

So if as you claim he mislead people would that not make him a false prophet? Why won't you just say so and stop dancing around the issue?

You would then have to reject Acts 13 when Paul and Barnabas are separated out by the Holy Spirit for their missionary journeys.

As they ministered to the Lord and fasted, the Holy Spirit said, “Now separate to Me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them.” 3 Then, having fasted and prayed, and laid hands on them, they sent them away.

 

[Righttruth]

Yep, you are wrong.....

Show me the verse that speaks of gift of interpretation other than in 1 Corinthians.

 

[redleghunter]

That is double standard! When Peter did something like that, Paul made a big noise!

Opposite my friend. Paul did not as indicated in my quote separate himself but eagerly engaged. Peter was exclusive.

 

[Righttruth]

If Paul is indeed self proclaiming his position as an apostle to the Gentiles, then why did the Church at Antioch lay hands on him to preach the Gospel to the Gentiles?

Acts 13

There was nothing wrong in praying for ministry to Gentiles. They did not endorse his claim of apostleship by that!

 

[Righttruth]

What book did you read again which serves as the basis of your argument?

Please read the gospel books, letters of Peter, James, John and letter to Hebrews and then Paul's.

 

[redleghunter]

There was nothing wrong in praying for ministry to Gentiles. They did not endorse his claim of apostleship by that!

Notice it was the Holy Spirit who called Paul and Barnabas.

Careful friend how you approach this one. And what Jesus Christ said.