Paul the heretic??

[Strong in Him]

I know this topic has been discussed before, but this discussion started on another thread, and rather than derail that one any further, I said I'd start a new thread. So here it is.

This comment was made in that thread.

Jesus never gave Paul a different gospel, Paul is/was a fraud. Jesus told his followers to go and preach the gospel to all nations and that this gospel, referring to Jesus's gospel must be preached to all nations and that then the end of the world would come. Paul was/is a heretic.

The comments were then made that if Paul was a heretic, then the Bible contains heresy/untruths because the Holy Spirit allowed Paul's letters to be included in the New Testament. Which prompted this reply.

Paul wrote none of the New Testament. The New Testament or that is is based on the teachings of Christ just as the old Covenant was based on the words of Moses the old Covenant is not all of the books prior to the book of Matthew. The New Covenant is based on the words of Jesus and that's not all of the books from The Book of Matthew to Revelations.

I have previously heard the view that Paul was a heretic who preached a different Gospel - there was a clip on Youtube a few years ago. There also seem to be people around who think that Christians should follow only the words of Jesus; that they are all that is needed for Christian living. I disagree, and the question is "if that were the case, how could we trust anything in the Bible?" For me, we either accept the Bible as the, written, word of God, or we reject it. If we dismiss half the NT as the work of a heretic/fraud then that means the Holy Spirit made a mistake in allowing those documents to be included, and the Bible is misleading, rather than proclaiming the truth about God.

How we read and understand the Bible - i.e literally, or in context with exegesis - is a slightly different topic. The subject under discussion in this other thread was, can Paul be trusted or did he preach a different Gospel?

Thoughts?

 

[Catherineanne]

Good grief.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

Actually, Paul spoke of frauds coming after his death ...

I know that after I leave, savage wolves will come in among you and will not spare the flock. (Acts 20:29)

So if the people who accuse him of fraud now, are like the synagogue of the freemen who turned grace into a law, this would make sense.

 

[Strong in Him]

Actually, Paul spoke of frauds coming after his death ...

I know that after I leave, savage wolves will come in among you and will not spare the flock. (Acts 20:29)

So if the people who accuse him of fraud now, are like the synagogue of the freemen who turned grace into a law, this would make sense.

It seems to me that some are just rejecting Paul; his conversion, his words and letters. The suggestion was that the New Covenant, presumably the one spoken of in Jeremiah 31:31-34, was brought in, and fulfilled, by Jesus and so the words of Jesus, alone, form the New Testament - Testament being another word for covenant.
Others have previously rejected Paul because he didn't quote Jesus' words, teachings and parables, and apparently it is only these that give eternal life, teach us how to live as Christians, and so on.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

It seems to me that some are just rejecting Paul; his conversion, his words and letters. The suggestion was that the New Covenant, presumably the one spoken of in Jeremiah 31:31-34, was brought in, and fulfilled, by Jesus and so the words of Jesus, alone, form the New Testament - Testament being another word for covenant.
Others have previously rejected Paul because he didn't quote Jesus' words, teachings and parables, and apparently it is only these that give eternal life, teach us how to live as Christians, and so on.

I appreciate your observations. My observation is that most that I have encountered really have a problem with the concept of grace.

 

[Goatee]

Which words of his are supposed to be against the teachings of Jesus?

 

[Gregory Thompson]

Which words of his are supposed to be against the teachings of Jesus?

Someone was to ignore the interpretive aid found in Luke 16:16, they might argue that Paul was teaching to not follow the law. I suppose following a set of rules works better for the carnal mind.

 

[Goatee]

Someone was to ignore the interpretive aid found in Luke 16:16, they might argue that Paul was teaching to not follow the law. I suppose following a set of rules works better for the carnal mind.

Sorry, i dont understand.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

Sorry, i dont understand.

If people do not have Paul's letters and think it's still the old testament, what would their bible teach them?

 

[Soyeong]

I know this topic has been discussed before, but this discussion started on another thread, and rather than derail that one any further, I said I'd start a new thread. So here it is.

This comment was made in that thread.


The comments were then made that if Paul was a heretic, then the Bible contains heresy/untruths because the Holy Spirit allowed Paul's letters to be included in the New Testament. Which prompted this reply.



I have previously heard the view that Paul was a heretic who preached a different Gospel - there was a clip on Youtube a few years ago. There also seem to be people around who think that Christians should follow only the words of Jesus; that they are all that is needed for Christian living. I disagree, and the question is "if that were the case, how could we trust anything in the Bible?" For me, we either accept the Bible as the, written, word of God, or we reject it. If we dismiss half the NT as the work of a heretic/fraud then that means the Holy Spirit made a mistake in allowing those documents to be included, and the Bible is misleading, rather than proclaiming the truth about God.

How we read and understand the Bible - i.e literally, or in context with exegesis - is a slightly different topic. The subject under discussion in this other thread was, can Paul be trusted or did he preach a different Gospel?

Thoughts?

The Bible directly says that Paul is difficult to understand (2 Peter 3:15-17), but I think that when he is correctly understood, then his teachings line up with those of Messiah. In 2 Timothy 3:15-17, at the time that Timothy was an infant the NT hadn't been written yet, so the Scripture that is being referred to as God-breathed and profitable for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness is the OT. I'm not saying it is the case, but I think that the possibility exists the just the OT was inspired by God and that we are wrong about the NT being inspired. If so, that wouldn't necessarily mean anything it contained was false, but it would allow for that possibility. So if Paul was a heretic, then the mistake of including his works would be on our part rather than the part of the Spirit, but again I think that correctly understanding him clears up this issue. I think if we were to focus just on what Messiah said, then it would be clearer that we should treat all of the OT as being profitable for teaching, rebuking, correcting, and training in righteousness, which Paul was in complete agreement with.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

Paul sums the law teachings up with not causing harm and the dietary laws with "everything that does not come faith is sin" . It gives us the freedom to use the mind of Christ that God gave us. The law as Paul taught in galatians is aptly compared to the slavery of egypt. In the prophets there was a phrase God used regarding "going back to Egypt" . the law is like that, we have something better now, related to a "promise."

 

[Strong in Him]

Which words of his are supposed to be against the teachings of Jesus?

Good question.

The posts I have read in the past, not necessarily on this other thread, have said that Paul is suspect because he does not refer to, or quote from, any of Jesus' teachings - e.g Sermon on the Mount.
I think my answer at the time was that neither do Peter, James, John etc, though Peter does refer to the transfiguration; that the epistles were not written to repeat and expand upon, the things that Jesus had already said. I can't remember what the answer was, but he continued to state that Paul was not a true apostle and was therefore untrustworthy.

 

[Strong in Him]

I appreciate your observations. My observation is that most that I have encountered really have a problem with the concept of grace.

Yes, there has also been much discussion about observing the law and about being saved through works.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

Yes, there has also been much discussion about observing the law and about being saved through works.

I don't feel the need to return to the egypt of the law.

 

[Soyeong]

Paul sums the law teachings up with not causing harm and the dietary laws with "everything that does not come faith is sin" . It gives us the freedom to use the mind of Christ that God gave us. The law as Paul taught in galatians is aptly compared to the slavery of egypt. In the prophets there was a phrase God used regarding "going back to Egypt" . the law is like that, we have something better now, related to a "promise."

Sin is the transgression of God's law (1 John 3:4) and it is sin that puts us in bondage, so obedience to the law can't also be what puts us in bondage. God did not save the Israelites out of bondage in Egypt to put them back under bondage to His law, but rather it was for freedom that He sent them free, and God's law is a law of liberty (Psalms 119:45, James 1:25). In Deuteronomy 10:13, God said that His commands were given for our own good, so the way to live by faith is to demonstrate that you trust what God said to be true by living in obedience to His law. Whatever is not is of this faith is of sin, and indeed, the law was given to reveal what sin is (Romans 7:7), so if you do not trust that God's dietary laws are for your own good, then that is of sin. They had faith in the promise back then too, which is why they considered it to be a delight to live in obedience to God's commands rather than bondage (Psalms 1:1-2, Romans 7:22).

 

[Strong in Him]

I don't feel the need to return to the egypt of the law.

Me neither.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

Sin is the transgression of God's law (1 John 3:4) and it is sin that puts us in bondage, so obedience to the law can't also be what puts us in bondage. God did not save the Israelites out of bondage in Egypt to put them back under bondage to His law, but rather it was for freedom that He sent them free, and God's law is a law of liberty (Psalms 119:142, James 1:25). In Deuteronomy 10:13, God said that His commands were given for our own good, so the way to live by faith is to demonstrate that you trust what God said to be true by living in obedience to His law. Whatever is not is of this faith is of sin, and indeed, the law was given to reveal what sin is (Romans 7:7), so if you do not trust that God's dietary laws are for your own good, then that is of sin. They had faith in the promise back then too, which is why they considered it to be a delight to live in obedience to God's commands rather than bondage (Psalms 1:1-2, Romans 7:22).

The new covenant is better because there are ways we can learn that the carnal mind cannot touch or perceive, because the learning methods are spiritual. The scripture is useful indeed, but the scriptural interpretation I am reading in the above post is counseling people to return to the egypt of the law of bondage. Because of this, I cannot agree with what is being taught.
.
The law of liberty is a law of a nature existing within us, as not tablets of stone, but as a heart of flesh. James is teaching to cultivate this by living according to that nature ... instead of the law that the original audience (see beginning of letter) learned growing up. For the jewish christian diaspora in the roman empire of the 1st century, there would indeed be a struggle between being cold and judgmental and following the leading of the holy spirit .. so James got creative and used the living law concept, much like the law of sin that lives within the members of the body that Paul spoke of. The law of liberty is not a written law.
.
When the Hebrews tasted of the promised land, they no longer could collect manna, it was an effective changing of eras. When the promise came in the resurrection of Jesus Christ, the shadow was no longer necessary, because we are the body that casts that shadow. What we are given to do is impossible for regular people, but for those born again .. it is possible because God lives within us.

 

[amariselle]

I guess the real question for anyone who believes Paul was a "heretic" and his letters therefore containing heresies, is, did God allow heresies into His word?

Personally, I believe that the entire Bible is inspired by God. I believe He has worked through mankind throughout its entire formation. I do not believe that He'd allow heresies and lies into His word.

If we can't trust even a part of God's word, how can we trust any of it? For those who choose to pick it apart like that, I think the entire Bible comes into question as a result.

Either God inspired it, or He didn't. I see absolutely no reason to believe that He somehow turned a blind eye to heretical writings being included in His word.

Paul was not a "heretic." He was a man, used by God to spread the Gospel and build churches. We are blessed to have some of his letters to read today, and God has allowed this.

The Bible is God's word in its entirety.

 

[Soyeong]

The new covenant is better because there are ways we can learn that the carnal mind cannot touch or perceive, because the learning methods are spiritual. The scripture is useful indeed, but the scriptural interpretation I am reading in the above post is counseling people to return to the egypt of the law of bondage. Because of this, I cannot agree with what is being taught.
.
The law of liberty is a law of a nature existing within us, as not tablets of stone, but as a heart of flesh. James is teaching to cultivate this by living according to that nature ... instead of the law that the original audience (see beginning of letter) learned growing up. For the jewish christian diaspora in the roman empire of the 1st century, there would indeed be a struggle to being cold and judgmental and following the leading of the holy spirit .. so James got creative and used the living law concept, much like the law of sin that lives within the members of the body that Paul spoke of. The law of liberty is not a written law.
.
When the Hebrews tasted of the promised land, they no longer could collect manna, it was an effective changing of eras. When the promise came in the resurrection of Jesus Christ, the shadow was no longer necessary, because we are the body that casts that shadow. What we are given to do is impossible for regular people, but for those born again .. it is possible because God lives within us.

Indeed, the New Covenant is superior to the Old Covenant and I have never suggested that we should be under the Old Covenant, but we are nevertheless still under the same God. The way to do what is holy, righteous, and good is based off of who God is, off of His holiness, righteousness, and goodness, which does not change, and has existed from the beginning independently of any covenant, but was revealed in the law of Moses (Romans 7:12). God's law can not be done away with without God's holiness, righteousness, and goodness first being done away with.

Messiah gave himself to redeem us from lawlessness (Titus 2:14), so when you advocate returning to the lawlessness that he redeemed you from, it is you who are counseling people to return to bondage in Egypt. Paul said that God's law is spiritual (Romans 7:14) and that it is the carnal mind that refuses to submit to God's law (Romans 8:7). The problem with the Old Covenant was not with God's law, but rather the problem was that the hearts of God's people were hard. So God made a New Covenant, where He will remove our heart of stone, give us a heart of flesh, and put His Spirit in us to cause us to follow His law (Ezekiel 36:26-27) and where he will write his law on our hearts so that we will obey it (Jeremiah 31:33). The liberty that David was talking about and the liberty that we have in Messiah is not the liberty to do what God has revealed in His law to be sin, but rather it is the liberty to do what He has revealed to be holy, righteous, and good, as his obedient slaves (Romans 6:16-19). We can agree that the law is living, but the Spirit will not lead us to do what God has revealed to be sin, but rather the Spirit will lead us to do what God has revealed to be holy, righteous, and good.

 

[Freedom Now]

I don't feel the need to return to the egypt of the law.

I do not believe that " going back to Egypt" refers to going back under law, as the law was given

after they left Egypt.


As they were referred to as slaves in Egypt, it is more like referring to being freed form the

slavery of sin.

To me , the reference " going back to Egypt" would be more in line with returning to living

in the flesh with its lusts and desires. (the fleshpots of Egypt)