How should we read Paul?

[St_Worm2]

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

Hi Rt, as has already been pointed out to you multiple times, St. Paul, whose ministry focus had been to the Jews (Romans 1:16) up until this point , publicly declared (along with St. Barnabas) that his attention would now be turned toward the Gentiles as well (Acts of the Apostles 13:46). The Lord sent him NOT ONLY to the Jews, but also to the Gentiles. Now his ministry focus was right where the Lord told Ananias it would eventually be, on BOTH the Jews and the Gentiles (see Acts of the Apostles 9:15)

He took no short cuts Rt, and I know that you know he didn't!! What purpose could you possibly have for continuing to lie to us about this?

You know what, in the few pages of your author's book that I was able to read online, he still seemed far kinder toward, more sympathetic of, and more truthful about St. Paul in general than you are. So I have to ask you, what is it about St. Paul and what he teaches that you hate so much? Why do you, who seems like an otherwise intelligent and reasonable person, seem anything but when discussing St. Paul's Epistles Which sinful lifestyle choices does Paul condemn that you are hoping or believing that the Lord does not?

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

Your author's points have been refuted, not by us, by the Bible (and by the church ... ALL of it) .. as have your points. But you steadfastly refuse to listen or to see the truth. Why? Why do you continue to try to openly deceive and mislead others about St. Paul, especially when its clear that you know that's exactly what you're doing?

 

[redleghunter]

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

Your NT is getting very small.

 

[Righttruth]

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.

I agree with Jesus. Where does He say 'do this in remembrance of Me?' In fact, He said, "But I say to you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it new with you in My Father's kingdom."

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.

Where did Jesus call Paul an apostle?

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.

Jerusalem church had two important aspects as they shared their food and materials: common or communal meal and communion with new believers to signify their sharing of the words of Jesus and practicing it. Paul advised a short cut of ritual. No wonder people grabbed the easiest as a tradition with all kinds of bizarre theories!

 

[Righttruth]

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.

He was not an apostle nor a disciple of Jesus during the Lord's ministry. So check is needed to what he wrote.

 

[Righttruth]

Hi Rt, as has already been pointed out to you multiple times, St. Paul, whose ministry focus had been to the Jews (Romans 1:16) up until this point , publicly declared (along with St. Barnabas) that his attention would now be turned toward the Gentiles as well (Acts of the Apostles 13:46).The Lord sent him NOT ONLY to the Jews, but also to the Gentiles. Now his ministry focus was right where the Lord told Ananias it would eventually be, on BOTH the Jews and the Gentiles (see Acts of the Apostles 9:15)

It is not Gentiles as well. Gentiles only, subsequently, because there was lot of resistance to his preaching by Jews who were aware of God's ways whereas Gentiles were not, so it was easy to manipulate them.

He took no short cuts Rt, and I know that you know he didn't!! What purpose could you possibly have for continuing to lie to us about this?

Do you think dividing the apostleship is absolute truth? Where did he get this idea?

You know what, in the few pages of your author's book that I was able to read online, he still seemed far kinder toward, more sympathetic of, and more truthful about St. Paul in general than you are. So I have to ask you, what is it about St. Paul and what he teaches that you hate so much? Why do you, who seems like an otherwise intelligent and reasonable person, seem anything but when discussing St. Paul's Epistles Which sinful lifestyle choices does Paul condemn that you are hoping Lord does not?

I may not have polished and polite approach in my writing. But I agree with points raised by the seminary student.

Your author's points have been refuted, not by us, by the Bible (and by the church ... ALL of it) .. as have your points. But you steadfastly refuse to listen or to see the truth. Why? Why do you continue to try to openly deceive and mislead others about St. Paul, especially when its clear that you know that's exactly what you're doing?

Christendom has been misled greatly by Paul, especially, Protestantism since they equate Paul's writings with the words of Jesus. What is more, they even supersede Jesus with Paul.

 

[Righttruth]

Your NT is getting very small.

It is dangerous to allow the swelling of the appendix. It is healthier to get rid of it if that happens.

 

[redleghunter]

It is dangerous to allow the swelling of the appendix. It is healthier to get rid of it if that happens.

What do you consider Holy Spirit inspired Scriptures? I asked that a couple of times with no answer.

 

[nomadictheist]

I agree with Jesus. Where does He say 'do this in remembrance of Me?' In fact, He said, "But I say to you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it new with you in My Father's kingdom."

Luke records those words, which you have still failed to document a reasonable source for your disagreement with.

Also, it should be noted that these words relate back to Jesus' saying His followers must eat His flesh and drink His blood. After saying that, He gave the bread and the cup as His flesh and His blood. I'll follow Jesus' instructions on this one.

Where did Jesus call Paul an apostle?

This has already been addressed. An apostle is one commissioned and sent by Jesus Himself, which is what Paul was.

If you will not accept the meaning of "apostle," show me where Jesus calls any of the 12 an apostle in scripture. (Remember, it has to be Jesus speaking). Otherwise, your argument lacks substance (again).

Jerusalem church had two important aspects as they shared their food and materials: common or communal meal and communion with new believers to signify their sharing of the words of Jesus and practicing it. Paul advised a short cut of ritual. No wonder people grabbed the easiest as a tradition with all kinds of bizarre theories!

Paul advised observing the eucharist in such a manner that God's church would not be defiled by pride and greed. Please cite your sources when you claim that Paul advised a "short cut of ritual."

Also, please cite your sources on the eucharist being symbolic of "sharing of the words of Jesus and practicing it," as every document we have from the early church relates the ritual to partaking of the body and blood of Jesus, as He Himself instituted.

 

[nomadictheist]

He was not an apostle nor a disciple of Jesus during the Lord's ministry. So check is needed to what he wrote.

Again, St. Paul was an apostle (as has been demonstrated), and you seem to require no such "check" of the book of James, nor of Jude. So clearly, your issue is solely with St. Paul. Even though St. Paul was an apostle, attested by the other apostles, commissioned and sent by Jesus, and sent at the command of the Holy Spirit.

St. Paul's "credentials," if you will, have been there for everyone to see for millennia. I would like to see yours.

 

[Righttruth]

What do you consider Holy Spirit inspired Scriptures? I asked that a couple of times with no answer.

Remember man is involved in writing. Hearing is more spiritual than reading and recording.

 

[Righttruth]

Luke records those words, which you have still failed to document a reasonable source for your disagreement with.

Remember Luke is the only Gentile writer in the entire Bible. Yet as far as the NT is concerned, he is more balanced spiritually than Paul because he relied on others instead of his own inventions.

Also, it should be noted that these words relate back to Jesus' saying His followers must eat His flesh and drink His blood. After saying that, He gave the bread and the cup as His flesh and His blood. I'll follow Jesus' instructions on this one.

The Word became flesh. We don't go after the flesh. It is spiritually accepting the Word through His words and leading an obedient life (blood denotes life). If you followed Jesus' words, there cannot be any external ritual with elements associated with this.

This has already been addressed. An apostle is one commissioned and sent by Jesus Himself, which is what Paul was.

This is a concept developed to accommodate Paul with his self-claims.

If you will not accept the meaning of "apostle," show me where Jesus calls any of the 12 an apostle in scripture. (Remember, it has to be Jesus speaking). Otherwise, your argument lacks substance (again).

Jesus called twelve apart among number of disciples. So you are telling Jesus to number them 1, 2, 3 and call them accordingly. But you accept Paul's numbering as 1(a) and 1(b).[ apostles for Jews and Gentiles] Very funny!

Paul advised observing the eucharist in such a manner that God's church would not be defiled by pride and greed. Please cite your sources when you claim that Paul advised a "short cut of ritual."

Yeah, he abolished brotherly sharing of food in communal (common) meal that was there in Jerusalem church, and advocated sampling bread and wine ritual.

Also, please cite your sources on the eucharist being symbolic of "sharing of the words of Jesus and practicing it," as every document we have from the early church relates the ritual to partaking of the body and blood of Jesus, as He Himself instituted.

If you read the Acts according to Thomas and Peter and other apocryphal books, it may give you an hint on what the chosen apostles were practicing with proper emphasis on baptism and communion.

 

[Extraneous]

Remember Luke is the only Gentile writer in the entire Bible. Yet as far as the NT is concerned, he is more balanced spiritually than Paul because he relied on others instead of his own inventions.



The Word became flesh. We don't go after the flesh. It is spiritually accepting the Word through His words and leading an obedient life (blood denotes life). If you followed Jesus' words, there cannot be any external ritual with elements associated with this.



This is a concept developed to accommodate Paul with his self-claims.



Jesus called twelve apart among number of disciples. So you are telling Jesus to number them 1, 2, 3 and call them accordingly. But you accept Paul's numbering as 1(a) and 1(b).[ apostles for Jews and Gentiles] Very funny!



Yeah, he abolished brotherly sharing of food in communal (common) meal that was there in Jerusalem church, and advocated sampling bread and wine ritual.



If you read the Acts according to Thomas and Peter and other apocryphal books, it may give you an hint on what the chosen apostles were practicing with proper emphasis on baptism and communion.

Paul is speaking revelations in many of his words. You are robbing yourself of the wisdom God gave him to share with us.

 

[Extraneous]

Pauls words give us many clues that help unlock the book of Revelation. Often when he says something, there is a hidden truth behind it.

 

[Righttruth]

Again, St. Paul was an apostle (as has been demonstrated), and you seem to require no such "check" of the book of James, nor of Jude. So clearly, your issue is solely with St. Paul. Even though St. Paul was an apostle, attested by the other apostles, commissioned and sent by Jesus, and sent at the command of the Holy Spirit.

You cannot demonstrate the calling that was about 2000 years ago. Even James who was the Bishop of Jerusalem Church did not claim to be an apostle in his letter because he knew Jesus called twelve and the lost one has been replaced. Jude followed suit.

St. Paul's "credentials," if you will, have been there for everyone to see for millennia. I would like to see yours.

There you have it. Credentials cannot be self-claims. It should be given by others with authority connected with it.

 

[Extraneous]

James and Peter also share hidden wisdom. The milk is in the commands, and we surely need those because we must first start off on milk, but the meat is given by the spirit.

 

[Righttruth]

Paul is speaking revelations in many of his words. You are robbing yourself of the wisdom God gave him to share with us.

Why Paul, number of people have come claiming all kinds of revelations. We longer need interpretations of any revelations since we look forward to His return. Private interpretations of old prophecies and revelations are not our concern.

 

[Extraneous]

Why Paul, number of people have come claiming all kinds of revelations. We longer need interpretations of any revelations since we look forward to His return. Private interpretations of old prophecies and revelations are not our concern.

Christ said blessed are those who keep the prophecy in the book of Revelation. Paul only helps us understand it better. He indeed gives us meat. We need the Lord to open our eyes however. It takes time, and obedience to His word. Obedience alone will help us escape the calamities of Revelation, but the meat will help us see this wonderful mystery.

 

[Righttruth]

Pauls words give us many clues that help unlock the book of Revelation. Often when he says something, there is a hidden truth behind it.

I don't think the Paul's letters written earlier will have anything to do with Revelation. Further speculations on speculations of Paul will not help much.

 

[Extraneous]

A lot of people dont take Christs commands, and those of Paul either, seriously. They blind themselves because of it.

 

[Extraneous]

I don't think the Paul's letters written earlier will have anything to do with Revelation. Further speculations on speculations of Paul will not help much.

Its not speculation, and furthermore the things written by Paul, and written in Revelation, are spoken of throughout the OT as well, and the OT was written well before the book of Revelation.