Paul the heretic??

[Victor E.]

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?

This notion is quite agitating to my Spirit. Paul was the "least" of the apostles but wrote ~half of the new testament under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. How was he a heretic? I can't possibly accept or understand that from my limited knowledge of Scripture. He was Saul but changed his name to Paul after an encounter with...JESUS? Acts 9:1-19 Sauls conversion into Paul.

If Gods Word is God-Breathed who are we to question what has been said? That is the bigger issue here I feel.

 

[timewerx]

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.

It's not impossible.

Jesus promised us the Spirit, NOT a book (John 16:13).

Although Jesus often quoted from scriptures, Jesus also warned us that our righteousness should exceed that of scribes.(Matthew 5:20) and Jesus did not quote the entire scriptures, just select parts.

Prophesy and fulfillment of the Word being written in our minds and our hearts and NOT on a book (Jeremiah 31:33-34 and 1 John 2:27)

My own attestation that the Spirit does speak to me. Imparts to me teachings, ideas, I later found in the Bible, despite having never read those parts before! There were also select and NOT the entire scriptures as in John 16:13.

I'm not saying the Bible is evil. But written by scribes as it is, it cannot be expected to be perfect either.

Facts speak for itself. If the Bible is perfect, there should only be one Christian denomination.

A perfectly written literature like a repair manual cannot be interpreted in many different ways. If it can be interpreted differently, then you'll never be able to fix anything with it.

The Bible did fulfill Christ's goal which is to divide humanity through religion.(Matthew 10:34-35) After all, it was Christ that inspired the creation of the Bible and the Christian religion.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

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?

My thoughts? In regard to Paul, my thoughts are that some people will go to almost any lengths to remove the one voice we have available in the New Testament that is very succinct and specific about...Christian morality. Remove him, and then a floodgate of moral (or should I say, "immoral") possibilities can abound. It's a very strategic move.

Of course, if we entirely remove Paul from our Christian canon, not only would we need to rip out all of Paul's letters, but we would also need to rip out 2 Peter and the Book of Acts, since they both refer to Paul as a 'legitimate' spiritual figure. And while we're at it, so as to remain hermeneutically consistent, we'd also probably need to rip out 1 Peter since he dares to affirm Paul in his second letter. Maybe Jude should go too, since he copies some from Peter. And we should dismember the Gospel of Luke from its time-honored moorings since the author of Luke also penned the Book of Acts. Here too, Mark and Matthew become suspect because they're so much like Luke. Also, we should probably strip the New Testament of the letter of Hebrews since a number of theologians traditionally attribute this anonymous book to Paul (...why take chances?).

So, if we did this we'd have a "New Testament" that would perhaps look something like this (if we're consistent):

Matthew (?), Mark (?), John, James, 1 John-3 John, Revelation.

I think many of us would see all of the hypothetical ripping up of the New Testament I've mentioned above as a completely inane proposition, especially if Paul really was appointed by the hand of the Lord, Jesus Christ.

2PhiloVoid

 

[Gregory Thompson]

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)

Egypt was a symbol of bondage in the OT

In the same way the law is now.

perfect correlation. This is why it is said in revelation that the place where the two witnesses were slain was sodom and egypt ... the same place Jesus was slain .. because Egypt is a spiritual location.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

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.

This seems to be a case of someone advocating that the stubborn mind refuses to use a bicycle to school. But we're riding a motorcycle to work. That's the main difference between the minutia of the law and the simple way of the new testament, it's because we have actual work to do. The law is a school teacher, but now there is work prepared for all of us who are born again. However, for people who are just reading a book as their only purpose, I'd refer them to James which states such faith that does not benefit anyone ... is dead.

 

[Victor E.]

This seems to be a case of someone advocating that the stubborn mind refuses to use a bicycle to school. But we're riding a motorcycle to work. That's the main difference between the minutia of the law and the simple way of the new testament, it's because we have actual work to do. The law is a school teacher, but now there is work prepared for all of us who are born again. However, for people who are just reading a book as their only purpose, I'd refer them to James which states such faith that does not benefit anyone ... is dead.

I believe James 2:14-26 emphasizes the natural correlation between Faith and Good Works. They are not mutually exclusive. They go together naturally. However, without Faith in Gods promises, we may continue to "try" and get into heaven when He has already won that victory. In doing so our Faith is no good. We will eventually stumble and there is a possibility that our Faith may become dead to us because we are relying too much on our own strength and not bearing the yoke of Jesus which is easy and light.

Matthew 11:28-30 Galatians 5:1

 

[Gregory Thompson]

I believe James 2:14-26 emphasizes the natural correlation between Faith and Good Works. They are not mutually exclusive. They go together naturally. However, without Faith in Gods promises, we may continue to "try" and get into heaven when He has already won that victory. In doing so our Faith is no good. We will eventually stumble and there is a possibility that our Faith may become dead to us because we are relying too much on our own strength and not bearing the yoke of Jesus which is easy and light.

Matthew 11:28-30 Galatians 5:1

What is important to note, is that the "works" being spoken of have nothing to do with the law ... it's related to the priority of love.

 

[Victor E.]

What is important to note, is that the "works" being spoken of have nothing to do with the law ... it's related to the priority of love.

YES!!

 

[ShaulHaTarsi]

I know this topic has been discussed before, buhst 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?

This understanding is very popular in Jewish apologetics against Christianity. It does this by making the argument along the lines of "well, we don't really have anything against Jesus and indeed respect him, but modern Christianity is essentially a fabrication of Paul".

The Pharisees had their own mode of study and scholasticism, and their conclusions and beliefs were very different from what was actually stated in the Old Covenant. Anyone thinking that the brunt of Jewish law is clearly derived from the bible is very mistaken. The concepts of oral tradition and biblical hermeneutics reigned supreme. While it is true that there may have been some Rabbinic innovations, the Pharisaical method has largely held through and through. The biblical literalists of the day were the Sadducees, who even then did not stick to a strict literal interpretation of the old testament through and through. It's pretty much impossible to do and essentially implies a tradition as well.

Paul's approach was accepted by everyone in the early Church, and the Petrine/Jacobian/Pauline differences do not seem to be big enough to actually factionalize. There was never a clear line of pharisaical Jews who felt that strict law observance of the old covenant was central, and the cries to disprove Paul to a Heretic are essentially implying just that - that the New Covenant simply places Jesus as yet another Jewish Messiah (perhaps of supreme importance).

 

[Strong in Him]

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.

Exactly.

The Bible is God's word in its entirety.

Yes - although it's still important to read it correctly, which means in context, and taking note of how the recipients/audience would have understood the words at the time. And not every word of Scripture is for us or applicable to us. but none of this detracts from the fact that Scripture is God's word; divine revelation about God, his nature, his will and purposes, and is reliable, infallible and true.

 

[Strong in Him]

This notion is quite agitating to my Spirit. Paul was the "least" of the apostles but wrote ~half of the new testament under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. How was he a heretic? I can't possibly accept or understand that from my limited knowledge of Scripture. He was Saul but changed his name to Paul after an encounter with...JESUS? Acts 9:1-19 Sauls conversion into Paul.

If Gods Word is God-Breathed who are we to question what has been said? That is the bigger issue here I feel.

Yes.
Although he didn't actually change his name; Paul is the Greek form of Saul and he began using this after he began preaching to the Gentiles.
And God's word also contains some personal advice and instructions, for example "tell x to bring my cloak and scrolls", which are not for us.

 

[Victor E.]

VERY interesting passage! Thanks for sharing!

 

[Gregory Thompson]

And God's word also contains some personal advice and instructions, for example "tell x to bring my cloak and scrolls", which are not for us.

So ... say someone created fake religious artifacts called Paul's cloak and scrolls and created a religious pilgrimage similar to where's waldo? except people are looking for Paul .hehehe

 

[Victor E.]

So ... say someone created fake religious artifacts called Paul's cloak and scrolls and created a religious pilgrimage similar to where's waldo? except people are looking for Paul .hehehe

Yeah.. paul wasn't saying that..It's someone UNFATHOMABLE who was speaking those words.

 

[Strong in Him]

It's not impossible.

Jesus promised us the Spirit, NOT a book (John 16:13).

Yes, and the Spirit of truth will lead us into all truth, and will not lie. So I believe it IS impossible that he would allow lies and heresies into the NT.

Although Jesus often quoted from scriptures, Jesus also warned us that our righteousness should exceed that of scribes.

It does.
He was made sin for us so that, in him, we might become the righteousness of God, 2 Corinthians 5:21. We can be in Christ, if we accept his atoning death and his resurrection and become children of God. The scribes didn't, and maybe couldn't, do this.

Prophesy and fulfillment of the Word being written in our minds and our hearts and NOT on a book (Jeremiah 31:33-34 and 1 John 2:27)

But if nothing had been written down at all, ever, how would future generations have known about Jesus, his teachings and atoning death? How also would we know about OT prophecies being fulfilled in Jesus?

My own attestation that the Spirit does speak to me. Imparts to me teachings, ideas, I later found in the Bible, despite having never read those parts before! There were also select and NOT the entire scriptures as in John 16:13.

The Holy Spirit does speak to us, through the Bible, and will not contradict the Bible. I am certain that he can put verses/ideas into our minds and/or lead us to books and passages that we have not read before. The fact that you later found "your" ideas in the Bible, confirms what I am saying.

It's not impossible.
I'm not saying the Bible is evil. But written by scribes as it is, it cannot be expected to be perfect either.

Facts speak for itself. If the Bible is perfect, there should only be one Christian denomination.

If it's not perfect, then is it trustworthy? And if we can't trust it, how do we know what to believe? When someone says "the Spirit told me", how do we test the words that were given? What do we measure people claims against?

It's people who are imperfect, not Scripture. We interpret Scripture in different ways, maybe due to our biases, inbuilt conditioning, culture, maybe even false teaching - "if you don't interpret Scripture in this way, you are not a true believer." Different denominations also arise due to preferences, and different emphases, in worship - certain versions of the Bible, the gender of preachers, whether guitars/other instruments/a robed choir should be allowed. Sometimes they may also arise through personality conflicts or, dare I say it, authoritarian pastors.

A perfectly written literature like a repair manual cannot be interpreted in many different ways. If it can be interpreted differently, then you'll never be able to fix anything with it.

The Bible is God's revelation of himself, the truth about the human condition and his solution. It tells us of his love, his patience, his salvation - Jesus' coming was prophesied in the OT and is described in the New. THIS is what is true, uncorrupt and unchangeable.THIS is how God "fixes" mankind so that we might have a relationship with him.

 

[Victor E.]

So ... say someone created fake religious artifacts called Paul's cloak and scrolls and created a religious pilgrimage similar to where's waldo? except people are looking for Paul .hehehe

1 Timothy 1:20
2 Timothy 4:9-13

 

[Thir7ySev3n]

It is interesting that the one who inspired the reboot of this topic (2 know Him) seems to affirm that at least the Gospels are reliable, authentic New Testament documents (of course you must affirm at least that much to even have a solid basis for the Christian faith and it's constitution) yet fails to recognize that the historical account of Paul's conversion and much of his initial preaching is recorded by the Gospel writer Luke (hence why some refer to the collection of the author's writings as Luke-Acts).

In addition to being affirmed by Luke, a Gospel writer, he is also affirmed as an authentic apostle by Peter (2 Peter 3:15-16), who indicated that Paul's letters even at that time were being distorted in understanding by "ignorant and unstable" people. So by Peter's testimony, whom Jesus stated was the rock on which He would build His church, those who dismiss Paul by the distortion of his sometimes difficult teachings are either ignorant, unstable or both. Thus, we should regard them as such.

It's not impossible.

Jesus promised us the Spirit, NOT a book (John 16:13).

Although Jesus often quoted from scriptures, Jesus also warned us that our righteousness should exceed that of scribes.(Matthew 5:20) and Jesus did not quote the entire scriptures, just select parts.

Prophesy and fulfillment of the Word being written in our minds and our hearts and NOT on a book (Jeremiah 31:33-34 and 1 John 2:27)

My own attestation that the Spirit does speak to me. Imparts to me teachings, ideas, I later found in the Bible, despite having never read those parts before! There were also select and NOT the entire scriptures as in John 16:13.

I'm not saying the Bible is evil. But written by scribes as it is, it cannot be expected to be perfect either.

Facts speak for itself. If the Bible is perfect, there should only be one Christian denomination.

A perfectly written literature like a repair manual cannot be interpreted in many different ways. If it can be interpreted differently, then you'll never be able to fix anything with it.

The Bible did fulfill Christ's goal which is to divide humanity through religion.(Matthew 10:34-35) After all, it was Christ that inspired the creation of the Bible and the Christian religion.

This is nonsense. The fact that everything has to be elaborately and meticulously explicated for some people to grasp some basic concepts if baffling. Of course Jesus didn't quote the whole Scripture, why would He need to do that? The Scriptures He taught from were those relevant to His mission. I suppose, at worst, you could accuse Jesus of being a relevant man. It certainly does not follow from the premise of His choice to not quote the entire Scripture that whatever was excluded from those few quotations is unreliable. Additionally, what would it accomplish quoting the entire Scripture, except to have five redundant records of the Old Testament after the Gospel writers were done quoting Jesus quoting Scripture? Jesus summed up the affirmation of the Scriptures in His broad reference to Scripture in response to the Pharisees in John 5:39, and His prayer in John 17:17.

Also, your argument that perfect Scripture necessitates perfect, unified understanding is incoherent. You analogize the Scriptures to some kind instruction manual, which is unequivocal. However, the Bible is not intended to be merely a recording of instructions but largely of God's interactions, cooperations and relationship with mankind. In any relationship, it is possible to have one who perfectly communicates their desire and thoughts without a corresponding perfection of understanding among all members. This does not mean they aren't real members of that relationship, or that their ignorance in some of their interpretations of what was conveyed is sufficient to constitute opposition, rather than simply an imperfect understanding and response. God is relational like a Father and not merely commanding, like a Lord. You will find both His Lordship and His Fatherhood expressed in the Scriptures, and by cooperating genuinely with human persons in both of those relational capacities He will, by default, subject Himself to misunderstandings by cognitively limited individuals. This is what it means to grow in the faith, which is accomplished by discipline and training (Hebrews 5:12-14).

 

[Starcrystal]

I fell for some of this nonsense about 10 years ago, but no longer believe it..Most of it was centered around Pauls dealing with women, his handling of the Adam and Eve transgression issue in Romans, his saying "this say I and not the Lord" in 1 Corinthians....
(people saying he gave his own opinion rather than Gods direct revelation in such cases)..
All easily figured out when we understand Paul is sometimes difficult to read as Peter said, and that Paul at times even questioned himself, which I think every Christian does from time to time. also remembering Pauls writings are letters to individuals and churches not general prophecies or historic writings for everyone as the OT was...even though everyone can read and get inspiration from them.
For example his instructions to Corinth about women keeping silent and not teaching was because women were disrupting services in that particular church. He does not give same instructions to any other church he wrote to.

 

[StTruth]

Interesting topic. I've read this in a book. Apparently St Paul fought with the real apostles St Peter and St James. Question is did they reconcile? Acts says yes but St Paul himself was silent.

I don't know what to believe but it's safer to follow the church''s view.

 

[Victor E.]

Interesting topic. I've read this in a book. Apparently St Paul fought with the real apostles St Peter and St James. Question is did they reconcile? Acts says yes but St Paul himself was silent.

I don't know what to believe but it's safer to follow the church''s view.

Why is it "safer to follow the churches"s view"? Why can't we just follow Gods Word for ourself?