Paul the heretic??

[Deadworm]

PhiloVoid: "this tact on Paul that you are dredging out...smacks of a lack of critical thinking."
LOL, it is inspired by David Dungan's scholarly book, "The Saying of Jesus in the Churches of Paul." And I have taught at Harvard and been a Theology professor for 12 years.

PhiloVoid: " Many seem to love spotting that Paul doesn't much quote Jesus' words directly. when they resort to spotting this supposed "deficiency" of Paul..."

I'll excuse your misreading on the grounds of deficient reading comprehension. I just got through defending Paul on the grounds that his teaching was approved by the Jerusalem apostles. No "deficiency" is insinuated.

"How would have Paul "quoted" Jesus? Where exactly were the "real life" social connections, venues, or literary sources by which Paul would have quoted Jesus?"

Here is the scholarly consensus: Before there were written Gospels, there were sayings collections like Q and the Coptic Gospel of Thomas, collections of controversy stories, and "signs" sources. Concurrently, there was a memorized oral tradition. To see just how demanding rabbinic memorization programs were in Jesus' era, read Birger Gerhardsson's magisterial "Memory and Manuscript." We have no certain information on the extent of Paul's sources of Jesus' sayings. That fact is one of the reasons why I posted the thread in question. By "quote" I of course mean the form of Jesus' sayings in either current oral tradition or Paul's written sources. Paul's audience would want to know as much as possible about Jesus' words and deeds!

PhiloVoid: "First off, Paul did not give an exception."

Oh yes he did--in the same way that Matthew adds the exceptive clause to the same prohibition (5:43; 19:9). Christians in untenable marriages wanted to know if their divorce, actual or impending, violated Jesus' prohibition. Paul wants divorced Christian spouses either to remain single or seek reconciliation. Then Paul shifts his focus to marriages between Christians and unbelievers ("To the rest, I say...") in which the unbeliever is in the process of securing a divorce.

Paul's reassurance in 7:15 allows such divorces as an exception to Jesus' rule. The divorced Christian in this situation has not sinned due to a divorce which may have left him/her with no choice. The question that remains is this: Can the divorced Christian remarry? Hans Conzelman's Commentary provides the obvious answer:

"Once again the law of freedom prevails: the Christian is not subject to any constraint because of the pagan's behavior. He can marry again (p. 123)." "In such a case, the believer is not bound. It is to peace that God has called you (7:15)."

You also miss the point in 9:14 about Paul's repudiation of Jesus' authorization of missionary salary rights. Paul's tentmaking skills make him an exception to Jesus' rule, but it is still an exception! In both 7:10, 15 and 9:14-15 , Paul uses common sense in a way that would hardly have offended Jesus.

Here is the most important point that eludes you. Why doesn't Paul ever explicitly quote or allude to a saying of Jesus in a context where Paul has no intention of pointing out an exception? And just how much did Paul and his congregations really know about the words and deeds of the historical Jesus? Those are the questions that prompted my addendum to my preceding thread.

 

[ewq1938]

Paul was sincer in his faith, he started a religion about Jesus, teaching the post-cross gospel as he understood it.

Paul did not start a religion he converted to one that Jesus started. All the disciples and Apostles accepted Paul even if not at first.

 

[jimmyjimmy]

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.

Bingo! This is motivation for offing Paul.

Get rid of Paul, and there is no NT prohibition against homosexuality (or women's ordination). Then, they are left with just a hippy Jesus who doesn't care too much about sin. He just wants everyone to get along and play nice.

 

[rockytopva]

The Apostle Paul was handpicked by the Lord Jesus Christ himself to take his Gospel to the Gentiles...

But the Lord said unto him, Go thy way: for he is a chosen vessel unto me, to bear my name before the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel: - Acts 9:15

And Peter, in his old age, endorsed the Apostle Paul...

And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; - 2 Peter 3:15

And as far as Paul's tough line...

As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.[URL='https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Peter+3:15&version=KJV'] - 2 Peter 3:16[/URL]

 

[Colter]

Paul did not start a religion he converted to one that Jesus started. All the disciples and Apostles accepted Paul even if not at first.

Christianity became a religion about Jesus, the original gospel was the religion of Jesus. Paul naturally interpreted things according to his sacrifice minded background. He spent 3 years in Arabia after his spiritual rebirth developing his ideas.

 

[StTruth]

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

Hi,

Thanks for responding. I think it's safer to follow the view of the church, the Bride of Christ, because that's the safest. I can't go wrong if I follow the doctrines of the Church. You suggested following God's word but what does one do if there are contradictions?

I have to be very careful what I say because I can see that the people here can be very upset and they can use strong words calling people who don't agree with them 'heretics'. I don't want to get into the fray. Besides, I'm new here and I'm still young and I will probably change my mind when I'm older. So it's not wise to get into a fight with most of you who are older and wiser.

But when I look at the Bible, I find it hard to see how St Paul can fit in as a real apostle.

1. In Acts 1:21-22, we read the criteria that must be met for one to be a candidate for Apostleship. St Paul does not meet the criteria at all.

2. In Acts 1, we read that Matthias was chosen to replace Judas because there must be 12 Apostles. With Matthias chosen, there is no more vacancy for St Paul. Our Lord Jesus himself fixed the number as 12 for the Apostles (Matthew 19:28). We know Jesus is the same all the time and doesn't change his mind on such an important thing because right to the end, the number 12 is affirmed and it will be so even in heaven (Rev 21:14).

3. In Galatians 1:16-17 Paul tells us that after his revelation he conferred not with flesh and blood, nor went up to Jerusalem to the apostles, but instead went to Arabia and then back to Damascus. Three years later he spent fifteen days with Peter in Jerusalem, and then moved on to Tarsus and Antioch for fourteen years. However, Acts 9:20 contradicts this. It says that after his revelation, Paul was certain days with the disciples in Damascus, and preached straightway in Damascus. Then Barnabas took him to the apostles in Jerusalem. Then Paul was sent forth to Tarsus. The discrepancy seems to indicate a desire by St Luke (who wrote Acts) to make Paul's relationship with the real apostles seem more amicable while Paul in his own epistle seems quite strong against the real apostles and he even used words like 'accursed'.

If I have to rely on the Bible, I'll be rather torn. That's because it depends on which books of the Bible I follow. It's easier of course to read Acts and just accept it as the final truth. But that's not right. The Epistles are an important pillar at the altar in church. I should know that. I was an altar boy until recently.

My parents are very religious so I don't discuss the details with them. I don't discuss with my classmates either because they are immature. But I've spoken to someone in church who's a canon, a big gun. LOL. He says the Church has accepted St Paul as an Apostle. So it doesn't matter what the Bible says. Because Jesus says the Church has the keys so what the Church has ordained as Apostle will be accepted in heaven. Although I submit to the Church, I think there must be some order. If the Bible says you've got to be this and this before you can become an Apostle, surely the Church cannot violate the Bible and appoint someone an Apostle who isn't this and this. It gets even more complicated because the Bible says on ONE PART that an Apostle as got to be something and on ANOTHER PART, the Bible says someone is an Apostle when he's not that something. So, some parts of the Bible must give. But the Church has decided on the Canon of Scriptures so all parts have become the word of God. You see how confusing it is? X gives authority to Y but the authority of X comes from Y. It just takes one thing to be wrong (and they do contradict!!!) and everything falls.

It's very easy to condemn someone who questions as a heretic but that's not helpful. I question because I really do care about what the truth is. If there is a contradiction in the Bible, we have to be honest about it and not invent feeble means to reconcile the contradiction. If I am finally confronted with a choice between truth and faith, I think I will choose faith. It's easier for me and I feel happier to throw my lot with faith. But I may decide differently when I'm older. Truth is very important to me but I can always decide later. Right now, I will just follow the Church. I'm not ready to take things into my own hands yet.

 

[Starcrystal]

Bingo! This is motivation for offing Paul.

Get rid of Paul, and there is no NT prohibition against homosexuality (or women's ordination).

I agree about the homosexuality, but womens ordination? Paul never taught that, except to Corinth and his own personal idea that he not suffer a woman to teach only because he was given the revelation himself to teach.

Otherwise we need to question Deborah the Judge, Anna the prophetess and others..

"Paul commended the ministry of a woman who brought his letter to the Roman Christians (Romans 16:1,2). Phoebe was a servant of the church at Cenchrea. "Servant" may refer to a deacon, a term that sometimes designated administrative responsibility in the Early Church. In his epistles, however, Paul most frequently applied the term to any minister of God’s Word, including himself (1 Corinthians 3:5; 2 Corinthians 3:6; 6:4; Ephesians 3:7; 6:21). He also called Phoebe a "succorer" or "helper" of many (Romans 16:2); this term technically designated her as the church’s patron or sponsor, most likely the owner of the home in which the church at Cenchrea was meeting. This entitled her to a position of honor in the church.9

Phoebe was not the only influential woman in the church. Whereas Paul greeted about twice as many men as women in Romans 16, he commended the ministries of about twice as many women as men in that list. (Some use the predominance of male ministers in the Bible against women in ministry, but that argument could work against men’s ministry in this passage.) These commendations may indicate his sensitivity to the opposition women undoubtedly faced for their ministry and are remarkable, given the prejudice against women’s ministry that existed in Paul’s culture.

If Paul followed ancient custom when he praised Priscilla, he may have mentioned her before her husband Aquila because of her higher status (Romans 16:3,4). Elsewhere we learn that she and her husband taught Scripture to another minister, Apollos (Acts 18:26). Paul also listed two fellow apostles, Andronicus and Junia (Romans 16:7). Although Junia is clearly a feminine name, writers opposed to the possibility that Paul could have referred to a female apostle,10suggest that Junia is a contraction for the masculine Junianus. This contraction, however, never occurs, and more recently has been shown to be grammatically impossible for a Latin name like Junia. This suggestion rests not on the text itself, but entirely on the presupposition that a woman could not be an apostle.

Elsewhere Paul referred to the ministry of two women in Philippi, who, like his many male fellow ministers, shared in his work for the gospel there (Philippians 4:2,3). Because women typically achieved more prominent religious roles in Macedonia than in most parts of the Roman world,11 Paul’s women colleagues in this region may have moved more quickly into prominent offices in the church (cf., Acts 16:14,15)."
http://enrichmentjournal.ag.org/200102/082_paul.cfm

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Christianity became a religion about Jesus, the original gospel was the religion of Jesus. Paul naturally interpreted things according to his sacrifice minded background. He spent 3 years in Arabia after his spiritual rebirth developing his ideas.

Colter, where does it say in the New Testament that Paul specifically spent 3 years in Arabia? Could you perhaps quote and cite the passage? Thanks.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

I don't care for the translation as it isn't really accurate for the culture that it was spoken in. That Greek word is referring to the servant or slave who was responsible for leading a child as their constant companion until they were grown. The heir child would be humbled by having to be obedient to a servant or slave. They may be an heir but they were in servitude to their child guide until they were grown.
In ancient Greece a rich family had many servants. One of the servants was in charge of caring for the children. This servant's duties included escorting the children to and from school. As a name for this servant, the Greek prefix paid-, meaning "child," and the noun ag

gos, meaning "leader," were combined to form paidag

gos. This word might be translated literally as "child-leader."
http://www.wordcentral.com/cgi-bin/student?pedagogue

Which also tells us that Paul was not going to Jerusalem to keep the feast three times a year as required in the Law.

But that's where we get our verb pedagogy which relates to teaching.

 

[ewq1938]

Colter, where does it say in the New Testament that Paul specifically spent 3 years in Arabia? Could you perhaps quote and cite the passage? Thanks.

It might come from the non-Christian Urantia Book that he follows.

 

[Anto9us]

In Galatians 1:17-18
It doesnt exactly say that Paul spent 3 years IN ARABIA

17 Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me;

but I went into Arabia

and returned again to Damascus

18 Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days.

 

[Anto9us]

I tried to parse it out like that to show that the time spent IN ARABIA is unspecified-- then he went back to Damascus


3 years after THE RETURN TO DAMASCUS; Paul sees Peter in Jerusalem for 15 days

 

[The Hammer of Witches]

Paul expanded on Jesus' teachings through the Holy Spirit. Remember the Bible is the perfect word of God breathed out through the Holy Spirit. If Paul was a false teacher, don't you think that God would have made sure that any false teachings would be included with the truth? The entire Bible is truth, that is why Paul is in there, because he was in Christ which is the truth, the way, and the life.

 

[Anto9us]

I am also interested in the passage beginning in 2 corinthians 12:2

About " I knew a man in Christ above 14 years ago" where Paul seems to be talking of himself.

From there through the end of 2 Corinthians, Paul seems to be "defending himself" against people who discount him as a real apostle

I tend to agree with Hammer-- if we cant trust that Paul is genuine; we can't trust the Bible AT ALL

And our Christianity falls to pieces

 

[2PhiloVoid]

It might come from the non-Christian Urantia Book that he follows.

That's very interesting. The only other person I've ever heard of who followed Urantia was Kerry Livgren, one of the classic song writers for the old rock band known as KANSAS. Livgren wrote the famous songs, Dust In the Wind and Carry On Wayward Son.

Surprisingly, a few years after Kerry Livgren wrote those songs, he became a Christian and left Urantia behind.

(I just thought I'd share that as a trivia fact of Christian faith ... )

Now, back to the discussion about the Apostle, Paul.

 

[Catherineanne]

I am also interested in the passage beginning in 2 corinthians 12:2

About " I knew a man in Christ above 14 years ago" where Paul seems to be talking of himself.

From there through the end of 2 Corinthians, Paul seems to be "defending himself" against people who discount him as a real apostle

I tend to agree with Hammer-- if we cant trust that Paul is genuine; we can't trust the Bible AT ALL

And our Christianity falls to pieces

Correct.

 

[Catherineanne]

I don't care for the translation as it isn't really accurate for the culture that it was spoken in. That Greek word is referring to the servant or slave who was responsible for leading a child as their constant companion until they were grown. The heir child would be humbled by having to be obedient to a servant or slave. They may be an heir but they were in servitude to their child guide until they were grown.

In ancient Greece a rich family had many servants. One of the servants was in charge of caring for the children. This servant's duties included escorting the children to and from school. As a name for this servant, the Greek prefix paid-, meaning "child," and the noun ag

gos, meaning "leader," were combined to form paidag

gos. This word might be translated literally as "child-leader."
http://www.wordcentral.com/cgi-bin/student?pedagogue

The quotation you gave does NOT say that the child was in servitude to the slave/servant looking after him (generally him, as girls were deliberately not educated in ancient Greece; they stayed home), and for good reason. Slaves and servants do as they are told; they have to answer to their adult owners, but that does NOT mean they can humble the youngster in their charge; far from it. A pedagogue was not a constant companion, he was a servant.

It looks as if you are confusing pedegogy with pederasty, which is a very, very different matter. You can look that one up for yourself as it is not really suitable for this site. Suffice to say, it is a very different matter, and slaves would not be able to engage in it. Pederasty was for a socially superior adult and a young boy, similar to the English aristocracy sending their sons to be squires or indeed boys fagging (ie cleaning shoes etc) for older boys at public school.

Which also tells us that Paul was not going to Jerusalem to keep the feast three times a year as required in the Law.

Paul kept the law; we know that.

 

[Linet Kihonge]

There we are! But if you not have the Spirit how will you know HIS Voice! (anti-Paul Semantics)!

 

[Blade]

I would have to agree with "Good grief.". You know they cast lots for the NEXT disciple. Then you never hear of that person again. What was it Paul said about himself? Jesus.. picked the 12 and lost one yet this was written. So the 11 picked the 12 not Jesus. Hmm who choose Paul? Who called him? Matters not but.. God ALWAYS before all was.. new what He was doing.

Seems when JESUS did the picking.. FRUIT grew. Always points to Christ. pffft just a thought..

 

[Colter]

Colter, where does it say in the New Testament that Paul specifically spent 3 years in Arabia? Could you perhaps quote and cite the passage? Thanks.

It's not entirely clear as there are conflicting versions of the same events after Paul's conversion.

Galatians 1:15-18 (ESV)

But when he who had set me apart before I was born, and who called me by his grace, was pleased to reveal his Son to me, in order that I might preach him among the Gentiles, I did not immediately consult with anyone; nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me, but I went away into Arabia, and returned again to Damascus. Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas and remained with him fifteen days.