I don't see anything special in this...unless one is to take the position that nothing other than the Gospels ought to be included in the New Testament.
There are two typical reasons why some try to deny Paul's writings.
1. He made it clear Christ was God in the OT which Unitarian types don't want to accept, 1Co_10:4 .
2. He spoke about the first covenant being old and decaying which Messianics don't want to accept, Heb_8:13 .
I must respectfully disagree.
The ONE main reason is how Paul's gospel is interpreted. One must decide if Yahshua and Paul taught the same thing.
(unless you feel Yahshua and Paul taught under differing dispensations?)
As not to speak in generalities here is a example:
What did Yahshua and His disciples teach concerning good offered to idols?
What did Paul teach concerning food offered to idols?
That is a simple fact. Jesus lived during the first covenant, Paul did not.
This being your position I am curious to why you think Yahshua was totally silent about one who would come after Him to explain all the things He did?
Peter said Paul's writings were scripture. Is that enough ?
(2 Peter 3:15-15) Bear in mind that our Lord’s patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.
Many deniers of Paul also end up denying Peter because of his support of Paul.
There are two typical reasons why some try to deny Paul's writings.
1. He made it clear Christ was God in the OT which Unitarian types don't want to accept, 1Co_10:4 .
2. He spoke about the first covenant being old and decaying which Messianics don't want to accept, Heb_8:13 .
Same reason Jesus never said John was going to write the book of Rev.
Thank you, I read the Scriptures provided yet saw no mention of one who would come after Messiah to explain what He did. This is would be ESPECIALLY important if one intercepts Paul as declaring Messiah has done away with Torah.Hi HV, I don't believe Yeshua was "silent" concerning St. Paul. Ananias certainly didn't think so (Acts of the Apostles 9:15-16). There is also John 21:25 which, in a somewhat similar fashion to Deuteronomy 29:29, tells us that while we may not know everything that can be known about Yeshua, all that we need to know was revealed to us
Yours and His,
David
At face value that is a good point, however, here is the difference:
John / Revelation is prophetic in that it is a prewritten record of what Yahshua will do.
Paul defines (or redefines) what Yahshua already did, some may refer to this kind of thing as "Revisionist History"
This is a big difference.
Again the question must be asked: If Paul is correct and Yahshua purposely ambiguous to the point of needing another to explain.
Why didn't He tell us if Paul was coming to explain all things?
Peter said Paul's writings were scripture. Is that enough ?
(2 Peter 3:15-15) Bear in mind that our Lord’s patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.
We need examples not vague claims.
Hi ewq1938, a third reason I've found that many try to deny Paul's writings is due to the conviction he causes some to feel over a particular sin or lifestyle choice that they believe the Gospels alone let them get away with
Yours and His,
David
p.s. - in addition to 1 Corinthians 10:4, have you ever checked out John 12:41 and Who it reveals was sitting on the throne in Isaiah's vision of God in Isaiah 6:1-7
1) Peter did not say Paul's writings were "Scripture". He said people distort both Paul's letters and Scripture.
2) Even if one chooses to interpret 2Peter as Peter calling Paul's letters as scripture; it must be noted the definition for the word 'scripture' just means "writings".
3) Any serious study will reveal the authorship of 2Peter is highly suspect.
4) At the time 2Peter was written, there was no New Testament, only the Tanach (Old Testament) existed. I do not think for a minute Peter would put the writings of Paul in the same level as the Torah, the Prophets and the Writings.
Thank you, I read the Scriptures provided yet saw no mention of one who would come after Messiah to explain what He did. This is would be ESPECIALLY important if one intercepts Paul as declaring Messiah has done away with Torah.
Yahshua taught the Torah and the Kingdom of Heaven
Paul taught Systematic Theology and Justification by Faith.
Somehow I overlooked that one. Thanks!
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?