Paul the heretic??

[Job8]

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.

Correct. The ones accusing Paul of heresy are instruments of Satan and are themselves heretics. BEWARE OF FALSE TEACHERS, FALSE APOSTLES, FALSE PROPHETS, AND FALSE BRETHREN.

 

[Victor E.]

This has turned into another joke thread.

 

[Job8]

This has turned into another joke thread.

There is nothing funny about trashing the New Testament. I trust every Christian sees this as a direct attack of Satan against the Word of God. We have seen several trolls come on board and attack Paul. And Paul was under attack by the same kinds of heretics while he was on earth.

 

[Victor E.]

There is nothing funny about trashing the New Testament. I trust every Christian sees this as a direct attack of Satan against the Word of God. We have seen several trolls come on board and attack Paul. And Paul was under attack by the same kinds of heretics while he was on earth.

It's a joke thread because the question "Paul the heretic??" is not being taken seriously be anyone except a select few.

 

[Linet Kihonge]

Poor Paul He isn't even resurrected but people still "persecute" him even in his tomb??? What will become of the brethren in the LORD?

 

[Victor E.]

Poor Paul He isn't even resurrected but people still "persecute" him even in his tomb??? What will become of the brethren in the LORD?

Well, brother Paul was no different from us. The important one was Holy Spirit who was speaking through him. Values and other measures of importance are worldly concepts. God shows no partiality according to His Word. Romans 2:11 to name one of many Scriptures. Hence why this thread is..unfruitful I suppose.

 

[Linet Kihonge]

If someone isn't attacking Paul, at least his writings are up for debate and we keep sliding n gliding past the inspirations by choosing which ones were suitable for which times and which ones are relevant today. In fact, I think there are people who don't know what the Bible is!
THE AUTHOR WASN'T A SON OF MAN, the Author was the Spirit of TRUTH!

 

[PapaZoom]

This has turned into another joke thread.

Wait a minute. Why do you say that? Such a statement is like trolling. Explain what you mean exactly. There have been many well though out replies in this thread and I've appreciated them. What don't you like?

 

[PapaZoom]

It's a joke thread because the question "Paul the heretic??" is not being taken seriously be anyone except a select few.

Because they don't agree with it?

 

[Linet Kihonge]

This has turned into another joke thread.

Yeah, A verse calls it "Rivaling the WORD!"

Wait a minute. Why do you say that? Such a statement is like trolling. Explain what you mean exactly. There have been many well though out replies in this thread and I've appreciated them. What don't you like?

I think Victor is trying to say, "Calling Paul a heretic? Like his writings are up for debate?" There's nothing in his writing that's his but rather the Spirit's! Should he have ever stepped out, He clearly wrote it too!

 

[Linet Kihonge]

It's like questioning the LORD!

 

[Deadworm]

Our Gospels cut a highly selective and compressed swath through Jesus' words and deeds (see e. g. John 21:25). His disciples know His full teaching and all his deeds far better than we do. So how do they assess Paul's Gospel? In Galatians we learn that, after Paul's conversion, he makes 2 trips to Jerusalem (14 years apart) for interviews with Jesus' apostles (1:18-20; 2:1-10). Paul makes a special point of saying that they totally accepted his message, adding nothing to his preaching.

But just to make this thread interesting, let me point out an intriguing unexpected pattern in Paul's epistles. He constantly and accurately quotes the OT. But aside from the words of institution of the Lord's Supper (1 Cor. 11:23-25), he never explicitly quotes Jesus! In 1 Corinthians, Paul does explicitly allude to 2 of Jesus teachings (without quoting Jesus!), but on both occasions he does so only to claim that we don't need to literally comply with those teachings! In the first example (7:10), Paul cites Jesus' prohibition against divorce and agrees with it in principle, but he proceeds to point out an exception--the marriage of a believer and an unbeliever (7:15)! Then in 9:14 Paul alludes to Jesus' teaching that Christian missionaries deserve payment from their converts. But Paul then protests in 9:15 that he'd rather die than comply with that teaching of Jesus! He prefers to forgo his entitled salary and support himself as a tentmaker.

btw, don't think for a moment that the early church all acknowledge the legitimacy of Paul's apostleship. For example, the Jewish Christians behind the document The Ascents of James (c. 150 AD) remember Paul only as "the enemy.'

 

[Strong in Him]

Interesting topic. I've read this in a book. Apparently St Paul fought with the real apostles St Peter and St James.

Paul was a real apostle and was accepted as one by the others.

I know he argued with Peter; he says so in Galatians, but I don't know if he argued with James. Peter later referred to Paul as a dear brother, 2 Peter 3:16, and there is no indication that Paul remained opposed to him.

Question is did they reconcile?

There's nothing to say that they didn't. Where does Acts say that they argued and made up; I'm curious.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Our Gospels cut a highly selective and compressed swath through Jesus' words and deeds (see e. g. John 21:25). His disciples know His full teaching and all his deeds far better than we do. So how do they assess Paul's Gospel? In Galatians we learn that, after Paul's conversion, he makes 2 trips to Jerusalem (14 years apart) for interviews with Jesus' apostles (1:18-20; 2:1-10). Paul makes a special point of saying that they totally accepted his message, adding nothing to his preaching.

But just to make this thread interesting, let me point out an intriguing unexpected pattern in Paul's epistles. He constantly and accurately quotes the OT. But aside from the words of institution of the Lord's Supper (1 Cor. 11:23-25), he never explicitly quotes Jesus!

I don't know you Deadworm, and I imagine you're a good guy and all, but this tact on Paul that you are dredging out--in a way not too dissimilar to the Skeptics--smacks of a lack of critical thinking. I for one also like to a take more expansive view as to our Christian faith, but in this particular case, I'm sorry to have to say this: You're speculating, or just plain mistaken in your interpretation of Paul. Many seem to love spotting that Paul doesn't much quote Jesus' words directly. But when they resort to spotting this supposed "deficiency" of Paul, I find that I have some questions I think they need to answer, questions that neither Christians nor Skeptics can readily address: Historically and logistically speaking, 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 (like we do today in the academy when we cite other works)? When would these resources have been available to Paul and in what way?

In 1 Corinthians, Paul does explicitly allude to 2 of Jesus teachings (without quoting Jesus!), but on both occasions he does so only to claim that we don't need to literally comply with those teachings! In the first example (7:10), Paul cites Jesus' prohibition against divorce and agrees with it in principle, but he proceeds to point out an exception--the marriage of a believer and an unbeliever (7:15)! Then in 9:14 Paul alludes to Jesus' teaching that Christian missionaries deserve payment from their converts. But Paul then protests in 9:15 that he'd rather die than comply with that teaching of Jesus! He prefers to forgo his entitled salary and support himself as a tentmaker.

First off, Paul did not give an exception. He gave practical instructions and pointed out that for the case of a Christian who was married to an unbeliever (a new social condition that was coming about because some Corinthians were pagan before they got married and later became Christian well into the marriage), and the unbeliever wanted a divorce (being that the spouse stayed Pagan), then the Christian should do what he could in a peaceable manner to redeem the faltering relationship, hopefully resisting divorce. But, if the unbeliever prevailed in separating, then the Christian would be 'free' of the marriage tie. Read the context!

Additionally, Paul did not say that "we" do not need to literally comply with Scripture in regard to where we should earn our living if we preach the Gospel; he said that he did not have to take advantage of the Lord's legal provision. It was legitimate for him to be a tentmaker to supplement his financial situation. And why? So that he could keep his reputation intact so as to not be seen as being like those who peddled the Scriptures for money, and thus Paul could better promote the integrity of the Gospel message. (Yes, peddling Scriptures and working as a bonafide church leader are two different things.)

btw, don't think for a moment that the early church all acknowledge the legitimacy of Paul's apostleship. For example, the Jewish Christians behind the document The Ascents of James (c. 150 AD) remember Paul only as "the enemy.'

A.D. 150? And that kind of document should be impressive to us? How?

Of course some individuals in the early 1st century church had problems with Paul. There were problems among Christians with authority in various churches from the very beginning, just as there are today. Just because people didn't like Paul doesn't mean he was doing something 'wrong' with the Scriptures or committing heresy.

I think we need to firmly recognize that our being impressed or unimpressed with someone's demeanor, or with their presentation of a message, implies very little about our recognition of any truth that may be present in that other person's life.

2PhiloVoid

 

[ewq1938]

Anyone that goes against Paul goes against Christ and is a heretic themselves.

 

[Hank77]

The law is a school teacher, but now there is work prepared for all of us who are born again.

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

In Galatians we learn that, after Paul's conversion, he makes 2 trips to Jerusalem (14 years apart) for interviews with Jesus' apostles (1:18-20; 2:1-10). Paul makes a special point of saying that they totally accepted his message, adding nothing to his preaching.

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

 

[VanillaSunflowers]

I've never heard such a thing before. I know that Paul met Jesus after Christ returned to Heaven. Isn't there something about the Apostleship being applied only to those that walked with Jesus during his ministry?
Paul did refer to himself quite a number of times as that in his writings. An Apostle of Christ. Did the other Apostles call him so?

I think if they did then they would have accepted him as a brother.

Paul the heretic. That's a new one.

 

[ewq1938]

I've never heard such a thing before. I know that Paul met Jesus after Christ returned to Heaven. Isn't there something about the Apostleship being applied only to those that walked with Jesus during his ministry?

No. An Apostle can be chosen at any time and Christ chose Paul according to Luke in Acts.

 

[Colter]

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?

Paul was sincer in his faith, he started a religion about Jesus, teaching the post-cross gospel as he understood it. Being the first great evangelist Paul heavily influenced the New Testament. And the Bible was written by holy men with various agendas and understanding.

 

[dqhall]

Some thought Jesus was wrong for not keeping the Sabbath.

Some thought Paul was wrong for not circumcising the Gentiles.

Some thought Moses was wrong for declaring women unclean for seven days after their period and for requiring people to offer all sorts of animal sacrifices after they sinned.

I do not think Paul was a heretic. He did not set himself up to be worshiped. His way was better than what many of the pagans had to live by. As he matured in his ministry, God approved of him more.