Mistake to include Apostle Paul's teachings in the Bible?

[timewerx]

Disclaimer: This is NOT a topic accusing Paul of being a false apostle. Please carefully read everything so you may judge my understanding fairly and not falsely accuse me of any malice.

Paul himself said he adjusted his teachings to cater to different cultures and regions - 1 Corinthians 9:19-23.

This could only mean the context of Paul's teachings for one group could be easily misinterpreted in the wrong context in another group who's culture is quite different (which may include our modern culture)

Romans Chapter 13 (submitting to secular authorities) is a very good example of a teaching which isn't true in every situation if literally interpreted. Case in point not every good act will be rewarded by authorities. Overwhelming evidence that corrupt / evil authorities would often do the opposite - punish good deeds which contradicts Paul's teachings - if interpreted literally.

If that is literal, it's possibole that Paul is speaking to a group of people whose authorities are righteous and uphold justice - lucky for them! Or that teaching is figurative - only authorities that are righteous are considered as authority and deserves obedience of its people.

Another case are of women/wives who must stay silent in a religious gathering or submit to husband which in many occassions is not observed in the Bible, and in some cases, even seen as evil (accounts concerning Queen Esther). Proverbs 31 wife would also contradict such teaching.

Paul is probably speaking to a region with very strong patriarchy (very common in that period) that if women should seek equality might attract unwanted attention from the authorities.

This information makes apparent that Paul's teachings/writings deserve special attention in terms of interpretation / understanding.

And finally, even Peter said that some of Paul's writings are difficult to understand - 2 Peter 3:16....and many have misinterpreted them to their own peril.... It's definitely not for the simple minded.

Sounds very familiar even today! In fact, most of the disagreements in interpretations in Christianity which leads to the division of many denominations, the most hotly debated doctrines concern Paul's teachings!

This is why I'm saying, it could be a mistake letting Paul's teachings be added in our Canon Bible. I'm not saying that Paul is a false teacher but maybe, we should have treated his teachings / writings differently. Perhaps, we should have compiled all his teachings in a separate book which is to be read only by those who has the good wisdom of "navigating" its tricky nature.

A lot of Christians may claim to be guided by the Holy Spirit and claim to have perfect understanding of Paul's teachings but yet, disagree with other Christians who makes the same claim. Who are we to believe?? How can you love something you do not understand??

Remember what Jesus said in John 15:15. "I no longer call you servants, because a servant does not know his master's business. Instead, I have called you friends, for everything that I learned from my Father I have made known to you."

So how can a Christian claim to have the Holy Spirit and yet, completely ignorant or no desire to know the Father's business simply says one thing - they don't care enough, don't love the Lord enough to know Him enough.

 

[ewq1938]

This is why I'm saying, it could be a mistake letting Paul's teachings be added in our Canon Bible.

I hope you get to meet Paul some day.

 

[timewerx]

I hope you get to meet Paul some day.

I'm pretty sure Paul would agree with me if he saw the condition of Christianity today.

Getting your name immortalized is of less importance than getting the message of the Christ across.

There is a certain possibility that the Christian religion may have made things worse. Remember that the Father is much more merciful towards the unbeliever than a hypocrite.

Christ have said as well that the Pharisees (without their knowledge/ignorance) have made their converts a worse child of hell than they did. Christ also gave further warnings about being corrupted by the values of the Pharisees. How is it possible, we have simply carried on the legacy of the Pharisees?

 

[Jonaitis]

Timewerx,

You seem to treat his teachings as his own personal opinions, or his personal view of Scripture, but that is not what apostolic doctrine is. His teachings did not come from his own personal study, but was directly communicated to him from Christ himself (Gal. 1:11-12; Eph. 3:3-4; 2 Pet. 1:20-21). Whatever he taught was spoken Scripture, whatever he wrote was written Scripture by the inerrancy, authority, and inspiration of the Holy Spirit guiding, directing, and establishing his ministry. When it comes to personal opinion, he always informs his readers (1 Cor. 7:12), but even then it is guided with wisdom. Even Peter categorizes his writings as Scriptures (2 Pet. 3:16).

We include his writings, because they come from God, not because they sounded good. Apostolic doctrine is equivalent to prophetical doctrine when it comes to origin and authority.

"...but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone" - Ephesians 2:19-20

I think there are many misunderstandings in your post with certain subjects in his epistles.

I am personally convinced that the epistles are not that difficult to understand as Christians are want to claim. It wouldn't make sense for them to be written for our benefit, and it wouldn't make sense for Paul to write them to regular churches in his day. If his audience understood it plainly, then we can. The ones who twist and distort his writings clearly do so to their own destruction, Christians don't do this, nor are they lead to destruction.

 

[Not David]

Disclaimer: This is NOT a topic accusing Paul of being a false apostle. Please carefully read everything so you may judge my understanding fairly and not falsely accuse me of any malice.

Paul himself said he adjusted his teachings to cater to different cultures and regions - 1 Corinthians 9:19-23.

This could only mean the context of Paul's teachings for one group could be easily misinterpreted in the wrong context in another group who's culture is quite different (which may include our modern culture)

Romans Chapter 13 (submitting to secular authorities) is a very good example of a teaching which isn't true in every situation if literally interpreted. Case in point not every good act will be rewarded by authorities. Overwhelming evidence that corrupt / evil authorities would often do the opposite - punish good deeds which contradicts Paul's teachings - if interpreted literally.

If that is literal, it's possibole that Paul is speaking to a group of people whose authorities are righteous and uphold justice - lucky for them! Or that teaching is figurative - only authorities that are righteous are considered as authority and deserves obedience of its people.

Another case are of women/wives who must stay silent in a religious gathering or submit to husband which in many occassions is not observed in the Bible, and in some cases, even seen as evil (accounts concerning Queen Esther). Proverbs 31 wife would also contradict such teaching.

Paul is probably speaking to a region with very strong patriarchy (very common in that period) that if women should seek equality might attract unwanted attention from the authorities.

This information makes apparent that Paul's teachings/writings deserve special attention in terms of interpretation / understanding.

And finally, even Peter said that some of Paul's writings are difficult to understand - 2 Peter 3:16....and many have misinterpreted them to their own peril.... It's definitely not for the simple minded.

Sounds very familiar even today! In fact, most of the disagreements in interpretations in Christianity which leads to the division of many denominations, the most hotly debated doctrines concern Paul's teachings!

This is why I'm saying, it could be a mistake letting Paul's teachings be added in our Canon Bible. I'm not saying that Paul is a false teacher but maybe, we should have treated his teachings / writings differently. Perhaps, we should have compiled all his teachings in a separate book which is to be read only by those who has the good wisdom of "navigating" its tricky nature.

A lot of Christians may claim to be guided by the Holy Spirit and claim to have perfect understanding of Paul's teachings but yet, disagree with other Christians who makes the same claim. Who are we to believe?? How can you love something you do not understand??

Remember what Jesus said in John 15:15. "I no longer call you servants, because a servant does not know his master's business. Instead, I have called you friends, for everything that I learned from my Father I have made known to you."

So how can a Christian claim to have the Holy Spirit and yet, completely ignorant or no desire to know the Father's business simply says one thing - they don't care enough, don't love the Lord enough to know Him enough.

That's why Jesus left a Church with authority, don't blame Paul because some people have their own interpretations.

 

[Not David]

Also Peter called Paul's writtings Scriptures, and he has a message that sounds like "Patriarchy" too. Maybe we should remove Peter too if we use your standard.

 

[timewerx]

Also Peter called Paul's writtings Scriptures, and he has a message that sounds like "Patriarchy" too. Maybe we should remove Peter too if we use your standard.

...And every scripture is good for teaching.... I know!

However, I don't think it also presumes everyone can just read any scriptures and the have right understanding and do good with it....Unfortunately, there's plenty of proof that is not the case.

I would actually classify Paul's teachings to be of "esoteric" nature or one that would require special knowledge or understanding by select group, not for everyone.

As for Apostle Peter, that's for another topic and another time. The focus of this thread is about Paul only.

 

[timewerx]

That's why Jesus left a Church with authority, don't blame Paul because some people have their own interpretations.

I sometimes think the authorities who put the Bible together did not do their job well enough.

Unless the Bible's purpose is to divide one another, then it's doing a perfect job at that.

Perhaps, a fulfillment of what Jesus said:

Luke 12:51
Do you think I came to bring peace on earth? No, I tell you, but division.

And the Bible is doing a perfect job at that!

The Bible is likely to be "divinely inspired" but perhaps for a totally different reason than most Christians assume which is to divide, rather than to bring Christians together!

 

[timewerx]

Anyone who contradicts the Most High God is wrong at best, and a liar in general. Follow the Most High God over Paul, or any human other than the Word of God Himself.

I follow this rule in general and thus, I scrutinize everything. Even King Solomon said, a wise man carefully considers things and doesn't believe so easily.

Under such perspective, the teachings of Paul acquires a different meaning that what many Christians believe. It's not as confusing, nor contradict facts and proofs.

For example, the blind obedience to any authority, including corrupt and evil ones. I don't think that's what Paul meant. Any authority who forfeits justice forfeits authority and thus, no longer considered authority and can be disobeyed at will.

 

[Dave-W]

If that is literal, it's possibole that Paul is speaking to a group of people whose authorities are righteous and uphold justice - lucky for them! Or that teaching is figurative - only authorities that are righteous are considered as authority and deserves obedience of its people.

Paul was talking to believers in Rome, and the emperor at that time was Nero, an insane despot.

 

[timewerx]

Paul was talking to believers in Rome, and the emperor at that time was Nero, an insane despot.

Remember that Paul also gave this teaching:

Ephesians 5:11
Have nothing to do with the fruitless deeds of darkness, but rather expose them.

Same teaching is also confirmed by Christ in the Gospels. Such teaching won't bid well with corrupt or evil authorities.

Should we submit to corrupt or evil authorities or expose their evil deeds? Case in point....

Understanding the Bible, understanding Paul's teachings requires special treatment... That is the part everyone should be threading very carefully instead of losing focus with life's wasteful leisures.

Since it's more likely that many would not take this matter seriously, some of the teachings of Paul should not have been included in the Bible as it can potentially cause many to "stumble".

 

[Dave-W]

Remember that Paul also gave this teaching:

Ephesians 5:11
Have nothing to do with the fruitless deeds of darkness, but rather expose them.

Same teaching is also confirmed by Christ in the Gospels. Such teaching won't bid well with corrupt or evil authorities.

That passage is talking about people in the church. Not people on the outside.

Should we submit to corrupt or evil authorities or expose their evil deeds? Case in point....

Our Lord never spoke out against the pagan rulers of Rome. EVER.

He did speak out against corrupt leaders in Judaism, both the priesthood (Sadducees) and in the synagogues. (Pharisees)

 

[section9+1]

I don't think the bible intends to divide Christians although God knows different Christians can have differing understandings and as long as that doesn't lead to violence or cruel oppression, it's not a big deal. But as far as the rest of the world and as far as other religions go, absolutely it fosters division. Great division! Even (hopefully temporary) division from sinners within God's family. This nonsense about gather everyone and bring them all in is inviting corruption.

 

[Norbert L]

Disclaimer: This is NOT a topic accusing Paul of being a false apostle.

A lot of Christians may claim to be guided by the Holy Spirit and claim to have perfect understanding of Paul's teachings but yet, disagree with other Christians who makes the same claim. Who are we to believe?? How can you love something you do not understand??

To answer the question, "Mistake to include Apostle Paul's teachings in the Bible?"

When looking at how Christian apologists defend the authenticity of the gospels, I'm not sure how removing Paul's writings can even be done without making themselves look even more questionable than the other things I haven't placed in the above quote you've pointed out.

When you break it down, Paul is an eyewitness to the eyewitnesses. Basically if a person believes the four gospels with Acts and thinks that Paul's writings do not support what's happening inside the Church. Not only will Christianity have even more contradictions to explain than whether there were one or two angels at the grave, but also one more.

If Christianity did think that his writings were uninspired, when he makes the claim that Jesus sent him, what can he become? A false prophet? Another religious figure with visions of grandeur in the early Christian movement? How can we even trust anything he writes?.

Also when placing Paul in such a position of not being inspired, what does that do to us today? In an attempt to resolve and create greater harmony, it's also doing the opposite. It creates even more divisions.

 

[chevyontheriver]

Disclaimer: This is NOT a topic accusing Paul of being a false apostle. Please carefully read everything so you may judge my understanding fairly and not falsely accuse me of any malice.

Paul himself said he adjusted his teachings to cater to different cultures and regions - 1 Corinthians 9:19-23.

This could only mean the context of Paul's teachings for one group could be easily misinterpreted in the wrong context in another group who's culture is quite different (which may include our modern culture)

Romans Chapter 13 (submitting to secular authorities) is a very good example of a teaching which isn't true in every situation if literally interpreted. Case in point not every good act will be rewarded by authorities. Overwhelming evidence that corrupt / evil authorities would often do the opposite - punish good deeds which contradicts Paul's teachings - if interpreted literally.

If that is literal, it's possibole that Paul is speaking to a group of people whose authorities are righteous and uphold justice - lucky for them! Or that teaching is figurative - only authorities that are righteous are considered as authority and deserves obedience of its people.

Another case are of women/wives who must stay silent in a religious gathering or submit to husband which in many occassions is not observed in the Bible, and in some cases, even seen as evil (accounts concerning Queen Esther). Proverbs 31 wife would also contradict such teaching.

Paul is probably speaking to a region with very strong patriarchy (very common in that period) that if women should seek equality might attract unwanted attention from the authorities.

This information makes apparent that Paul's teachings/writings deserve special attention in terms of interpretation / understanding.

And finally, even Peter said that some of Paul's writings are difficult to understand - 2 Peter 3:16....and many have misinterpreted them to their own peril.... It's definitely not for the simple minded.

Sounds very familiar even today! In fact, most of the disagreements in interpretations in Christianity which leads to the division of many denominations, the most hotly debated doctrines concern Paul's teachings!

This is why I'm saying, it could be a mistake letting Paul's teachings be added in our Canon Bible. I'm not saying that Paul is a false teacher but maybe, we should have treated his teachings / writings differently. Perhaps, we should have compiled all his teachings in a separate book which is to be read only by those who has the good wisdom of "navigating" its tricky nature.

A lot of Christians may claim to be guided by the Holy Spirit and claim to have perfect understanding of Paul's teachings but yet, disagree with other Christians who makes the same claim. Who are we to believe?? How can you love something you do not understand??

Remember what Jesus said in John 15:15. "I no longer call you servants, because a servant does not know his master's business. Instead, I have called you friends, for everything that I learned from my Father I have made known to you."

So how can a Christian claim to have the Holy Spirit and yet, completely ignorant or no desire to know the Father's business simply says one thing - they don't care enough, don't love the Lord enough to know Him enough.

If Paul's contribution to the Bible are suspect and shouldn't be in the Canon, I suspect the same could be said about Peter's contributions. And those of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. And of course Luther said something similar about James. So the NT is basically gone. Of course the same could be said of Isaiah and every one of the prophets and pretty soon the OT is whittled down to nothing too.

The alternative is to accept that the Church had the authority to form the canon of Scripture and the Church has an interpretive ability to resolve the issues you raise. The Bible didn't just drop from the skies as a finished printed book that every believer is free to interpret as they like. But it does need interpretation

We have a canon of the Bible. People may want to tinker with it. Marcion wanted to do that. Luther wanted to do that. Jefferson wanted to do that. The Jesus Project wanted to do that. Such tinkering is fraught with problems, far greater than the difficulties many have with interpreting Paul. The difficulties interpreting Paul are because everyone wants to interpret Paul through some lens, either an Augustinian lens, a Lutheran or Calvinist lens, a modernist lens, but seldom without a lens or seldom without a wholistic lens of the Fathers. Throwing Paul out of the Bible is not the solution.

 

[A_Thinker]

Paul himself said he adjusted his teachings to cater to different cultures and regions - 1 Corinthians 9:19-23.

Paul doesn't say here that he adjusted his teachings. He says that he adjusted his methodologies/strategies ... depending upon who he was teaching ...

I'm pretty sure Paul would agree with me if he saw the condition of Christianity today.

You mean ... more than 2 billion strong, with representation in every nation in the world ?

I would actually classify Paul's teachings to be of "esoteric" nature or one that would require special knowledge or understanding by select group, not for everyone.

Some of Paul's teachings were harder ... as were some of Christ's. Paul struggled to understand some of the deeper things of God ... and this struggle is reflected in some of his writings.

But Paul's presentation of the gospel is clear and straight-forward.

The Bible is likely to be "divinely inspired" but perhaps for a totally different reason than most Christians assume which is to divide, rather than to bring Christians together!

People always divide, no matter what the message. Even the Israelites divided regarding Moses' straight-forward message ... "Let's leave our enslavers ... and seek the promise of God."

 

[Daniel9v9]

There are some diverse movements of historical criticism that ask similar questions to the OP, and although there is some value in their exegetical approach, they mostly suffer from inconsistencies and some severe theological foundation.

It may be helpful to take a step back and think of the problem in these terms:

1. Where is the truth found?
Most Christians would confess the Word of God.

2. Who rightly interprets the Word of God?
Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox would, although in different senses, claim Scripture and holy tradition as means - or in other words, the Church as the right interpreter.

Lutherans, Reformed, Presbyterians and Anglicans would, for the most part, say that Scripture interprets Scripture. They also value tradition, but conservatively and not as something of divine right.

Charismatic or spiritualistic branches of Christianity (though to different degrees) holds that interpretation is direct through the work of the Holy Spirit.

However, what they all have in common is that the Word of God is true and complete in the form of Scripture. The point is, even though we're divided, where all of Christendom agree throughout the ages, it's worth taking note of. Historical criticism is often quick to dismiss this and they bring a lot of presuppositions to their studies. In short, if we bear in mind that the entire Christian world stands united on the authenticity of Paul as a true apostle of Christ, with doctrine that is seamless with the other apostles, this alone should be a strong indicator that we may have missed something if we find Paul to be inconsistent with other apostles.

Christians have always confessed: "We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church". That is one Church with one kind of apostolic teaching, which includes all apostles and of course Paul, as the apostle to the gentiles. I would encourage you to find out why it is that all Christians of different traditions agree on this point.

Blessings!

 

[timewerx]

If Paul's contribution to the Bible are suspect and shouldn't be in the Canon, I suspect the same could be said about Peter's contributions. And those of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. And of course Luther said something similar about James. So the NT is basically gone. Of course the same could be said of Isaiah and every one of the prophets and pretty soon the OT is whittled down to nothing too.

The alternative is to accept that the Church had the authority to form the canon of Scripture and the Church has an interpretive ability to resolve the issues you raise. The Bible didn't just drop from the skies as a finished printed book that every believer is free to interpret as they like. But it does need interpretation

We have a canon of the Bible. People may want to tinker with it. Marcion wanted to do that. Luther wanted to do that. Jefferson wanted to do that. The Jesus Project wanted to do that. Such tinkering is fraught with problems, far greater than the difficulties many have with interpreting Paul. The difficulties interpreting Paul are because everyone wants to interpret Paul through some lens, either an Augustinian lens, a Lutheran or Calvinist lens, a modernist lens, but seldom without a lens or seldom without a wholistic lens of the Fathers. Throwing Paul out of the Bible is not the solution.

If I had to choose between the books, I had to pick John to be the most credible as Jesus particularly hand-picked him as the favorite disciple who understood Christ the best. It would then be the Books of John and the epistles of John.

I would choose the context from the man whom Jesus trusted the most. Can't go wrong with that.

 

[timewerx]

Paul doesn't say here that he adjusted his teachings. He says that he adjusted his methodologies/strategies ... depending upon who he was teaching ...

It's apparent in his teachings. There are many cases that even Paul appeared to have contradicted his other teachings.

You mean ... more than 2 billion strong, with representation in every nation in the world ?

Only few will find the way which leads to life according to the Christ. The Gospel Jesus preached is not popular. Most of the Jews voted for his execution. Most of the crowd who followed Jesus for his miracles could not tolerate His teachings in John Chapter 6 and most left him afterwards.

Some of Paul's teachings were harder ... as were some of Christ's. Paul struggled to understand some of the deeper things of God ... and this struggle is reflected in some of his writings.

We all struggle as a matter of fact. But things that aren't clear is certainly something I would not want published in a very important book. I think Paul would want the same.

But Paul's presentation of the gospel is clear and straight-forward.

With a considerable number of disagreeing doctrines between denominations involving Paul's teachings, I disagree with your statement here. Your claim is not supported by the overwhelming amount of evidence concerning this matter.

 

[mark kennedy]

Disclaimer: This is NOT a topic accusing Paul of being a false apostle. Please carefully read everything so you may judge my understanding fairly and not falsely accuse me of any malice.

Paul himself said he adjusted his teachings to cater to different cultures and regions - 1 Corinthians 9:19-23.

This could only mean the context of Paul's teachings for one group could be easily misinterpreted in the wrong context in another group who's culture is quite different (which may include our modern culture)

Romans Chapter 13 (submitting to secular authorities) is a very good example of a teaching which isn't true in every situation if literally interpreted. Case in point not every good act will be rewarded by authorities. Overwhelming evidence that corrupt / evil authorities would often do the opposite - punish good deeds which contradicts Paul's teachings - if interpreted literally.

If that is literal, it's possibole that Paul is speaking to a group of people whose authorities are righteous and uphold justice - lucky for them! Or that teaching is figurative - only authorities that are righteous are considered as authority and deserves obedience of its people.

Another case are of women/wives who must stay silent in a religious gathering or submit to husband which in many occassions is not observed in the Bible, and in some cases, even seen as evil (accounts concerning Queen Esther). Proverbs 31 wife would also contradict such teaching.

Paul is probably speaking to a region with very strong patriarchy (very common in that period) that if women should seek equality might attract unwanted attention from the authorities.

This information makes apparent that Paul's teachings/writings deserve special attention in terms of interpretation / understanding.

And finally, even Peter said that some of Paul's writings are difficult to understand - 2 Peter 3:16....and many have misinterpreted them to their own peril.... It's definitely not for the simple minded.

Sounds very familiar even today! In fact, most of the disagreements in interpretations in Christianity which leads to the division of many denominations, the most hotly debated doctrines concern Paul's teachings!

This is why I'm saying, it could be a mistake letting Paul's teachings be added in our Canon Bible. I'm not saying that Paul is a false teacher but maybe, we should have treated his teachings / writings differently. Perhaps, we should have compiled all his teachings in a separate book which is to be read only by those who has the good wisdom of "navigating" its tricky nature.

A lot of Christians may claim to be guided by the Holy Spirit and claim to have perfect understanding of Paul's teachings but yet, disagree with other Christians who makes the same claim. Who are we to believe?? How can you love something you do not understand??

Remember what Jesus said in John 15:15. "I no longer call you servants, because a servant does not know his master's business. Instead, I have called you friends, for everything that I learned from my Father I have made known to you."

So how can a Christian claim to have the Holy Spirit and yet, completely ignorant or no desire to know the Father's business simply says one thing - they don't care enough, don't love the Lord enough to know Him enough.

Paul was and is recognized as the Apostle to the Gentiles, the primary reason the New Testament canon was preserved was the foundational doctrine of the Apostles. Paul did teach believers to submit to the authority of government as ministers of justice, God has been at work in the courts of Pharaohs, the kings of Babylon, Medo Persia and Paul witnessed to Felix, Festus, Agrippa and Paulus the Proconsul of Cyprus. Christians are not revolutionaries, we are witnesses, Jesus didn't teach to throw off the yoke of Rome but paid his taxes like everyone else.

Paul was accepted as an Apostle, by the other Apostles, shouldn't that be telling us something?