Paul the heretic??

[Philip_B]

To my mind, Paul was not a heretic.

I understand that Paul wrote Romans. A New Testament lecturer argued this is the case. It is in Romans that we find the connection to all the other writing that may be judged to be Pauline, or simply an ascription.

The letter to the Romans is understood in many ways, however I feel that fundamentally the Letter to the Romans is Paul's 'note to self' and it represents the internal dialogue and struggle of a person who was born with the best of Jewish pedigrees, all the boxes ticked and fully attested by all the relevant measures. His life, having been turned around following an encounter with the Risen Jesus, he then devoted much of his energies to the opening wide of the new covenant to all the world, both Jew and Greek. Romans is the discussion about everything I am and everything I have done. Themes such as righteousness and justification, conversion, grace, faith, and the work of the Holy Spirit are all there.

If you want to know Paul, read Romans. Then you might like to read John.

 

[Colter]

The root cause of all this is the cosumerist mentality which grips the world today. You expect to have a ride range of cars from which to pick your next model; a range of audio visual systems to suit your taste; a supermarket full of foods from which to make your choices - so why not a range of different Christianities from which to make your choice, and, if you don't like any of them, just come up with your own designer Christianity.

And, just to give all that extra impetus, we have got Post Modernism on hand, to tell us that truth is whatever we want it to be.

Interesting point, I think there is some truth in it, but Jesus taught unity, not nesissarily uniformity. Paul wasn't a heretic but he wasn't orthodox either, he taught Jesus as he understood him.

 

[rockytopva]

We must remember that the Lord Jesus called Paul to bare his name before the Gentiles. Snatched right out of the hand of Satan he did. If the Lord Jesus did not love and call the man, Paul would have remained a Pharisee.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Interesting point, I think there is some truth in it, but Jesus taught unity, not nesissarily uniformity. Paul wasn't a heretic but he wasn't orthodox either, he taught Jesus as he understood him.

Colter, I do like your point about unity over uniformity; sure, there is room I believe for some diversity of perception and understanding regarding Jesus. But there should be some limit to where that diversity in viewpoint ends.

What would be "orthodox" in first century terms, Colter? (And as I'm sure you surmise, this kind of orthodoxy wouldn't be identical to that which was so identified and/or categorized in later Roman circles a few centuries later. We're not referring to Eastern, Byzantine Orthodoxy, right?)

Moreover, it's hard to say that Peter had his act together on an "orthodox" level at all times either, even though he was chosen by Christ as "the Rock."

2PhiloVoid

 

[ViaCrucis]

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?

While I think the argument of "either all of it is true or none of it is" is a fallacious argument, I think a better one in this regard can be put forward:

If Paul was a heretic/false teacher/false apostle/whatever and we thus remove all the Pauline material, we still have a few problems:

1. We would also need to remove Luke-Acts, the author of Luke and Acts are clearly in the pro-Paul camp and therefore can't be trusted and so we must also strike these from the Canon.

2. We would need to strike the 2nd epistle of Peter from the Canon, due to its views on the canonicity of the Pauline epistles as Scripture.

3. We might possibly have to remove the 1st epistle of Peter, as it is possible that Peter is an untrustworthy source due to his being "corrupted" by Paul, given the cordial relationship and cooperation between both Paul and Peter. That could, potentially, also call into question the Gospel of Mark depending on whether one accepts the ancient tradition that Mark was written based upon the testimony of Peter.

4. On the chance that Mark becomes suspect due to a potential connection with Peter (and Peter's witness having been compromised by his association with Paul) this would also result in a loss of Matthew, as it's most likely that both Matthew and Luke used Mark as a primary source.

With all this we would be left with only John's Gospel, the epistles of John, the remaining catholic epistles, the epistle to the Hebrews, and the Apocalypse. Actually, Hebrews could be a problem too depending on how one feels about the Pauline association with the text.

But even here I'm not sure we can be left very satisfied. After all the Church which received, preserved, and continued to read and confess the texts of the New Testament Canon which resulted in a New Testament Canon at all is impossibly corrupted by the influence of Paul of Tarsus. Since the entire Church catholic is now corrupted and suspect, its opinions on canonicity are likewise corrupt and suspect; thus the only reliable way to deal with this is to completely and entirely discard the Biblical Canon (yes, Old Testament too).

Now we have a blank slate, and the restorationist can now go through the arduous task of crafting their own Bible, one that conforms to their own religious proclivities and opinions. And now, of course, if that sounds like literally creating a new religion out of whole cloth, that's because it basically is. The resulting product will literally have no connection or relationship to the movement which Jesus started or what was believed and practiced in those earliest decades and centuries of Christianity except in the mind and imagination of the person doing this.

Because that's what restorationism and primitivism always results in: the invention of a brand new religion that has no historical or organic connection to Jesus or Christianity except in name only. To people who do this I say, welcome aboard, to your right and left you'll see everyone else who has done this in the past, such as Marcion of Sinope and Joseph Smith Jr. Enjoy your house of cards and the brittle foundations you've built it upon.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Catherineanne]

Yes servants do as they are told and answer to their master. In this case the servant was a child care giver, that was his job. And the child was expected to obey that childcare giver. That put the child in the position of being under the authority of the childcare giver. Today when we hire a childcare giver do we not expect our child to obey them? They are there to protect and guide them on a daily bases. Children should be taught to be humble towards those who have authority over them. They certainly should not be rebellious towards them.

That depends on the situation, don't you think?

Ultimately the power is with the child, not the servant. In your former post you said the child was subject to the servant; that is never the case.

No, I am not confused about which word is used in this scripture nor it's definition.

You are welcome.

 

[Strong in Him]

Many of the English translations are bad enough that many teachings are found in contradiction with another.

I did a bit of studying of the NT in Greek via biblehub.com and perseus.tufts.edu and the teachings I've checked so far, appear to be agreeing but with a different meaning than popular interpretations based on English Bibles.

Maybe the Greek translation is good but why would mistakes make it to the English translations? So either the Spirit of Truth is inconsistent or the Bible isn't what is promised.

I don't know what contradictions you're talking about, but I don't believe that there are any errors or "contradictions" that affect the Gospel or the nature of God.

Although Paul said that, it wasn't Christ's intent being on the cross.

Jesus came to seek and save the lost, Luke 19:10, to give us eternal life, John 3:16, John 6:40, John 10:10, to give his life as a ransom for many, Mark 10:45. His blood was of the NEW covenant, poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins, Matthew 26:28. An angel told Joseph that Jesus would forgive the sins of many, Matthew 1:21 and John the Baptist said that he was the Lamb of God who would take away the sins of the world, John 1:29. The Jews were very familiar with animals being killed to atone for sin. This is what Jesus came to do; die for our sins. Once our sins had been atoned for, we could be reconciled to God - sin is the barrier which separates us from God, with that gone, we can come to him, be in his presence and be his children.

Jesus Christ is laying down the kind of life that we who call ourselves Christians must follow/endure.

Jesus did far more than set us a good example.
Works don't save us; if we are not reconciled to God by accepting Jesus' atoning death on the cross, it doesn't matter how good a life we lead.

The Spirit did tell me about the deeds of Christ, but not His name.

Oh dear!
I'm not accusing you of anything, but the Holy Spirit draws people to Jesus and testifies to him, John 16:14-15. A spirit that doesn't, won't or can't point, or testify to Jesus, is suspect.

It may surprise you that Jesus never introduced Himself as "Jesus". He only did once and to Paul only. Was Paul more important than all of the twelve disciples?

No.
Jesus grew up in a family in a small town. He had brothers and sisters, relatives, neighbours; people knew him. Once he started his public ministry others quickly got to hear about him, because of his miracles and teaching. There would be no need for him to introduce himself - just as, I suspect, David Beckham, Barak Obama and the Queen do not need to introduce themselves.
When Saul was on the road to Damascus, he saw a bright light and heard a voice; he did not see a person in the flesh. His question was "who are you Lord?" and received the answer "I am Jesus". Paul did not know at that time that Jesus was Lord.

I don't think that's the case from personal experience. Spirits, angels, and Jesus Himself won't divulge their names so easily (not because they don't like you). It only gives me reason to believe that the spirit who contacted Paul was only pretending to be Christ.

No.
a) If you have met Jesus, know him, trust him, have a relationship with him, you do not need him to introduce himself to you. Jesus said that he is the Good Shepherd and that his sheep recognise his voice.
b) If it was not Jesus who spoke to Saul on the road to Damascus, it must have been a false, unclean or evil spirit - from the devil. Paul's life was completely changed after this experience. He taught about Jesus, proclaimed the Gospel and the cross, lived for Jesus and died for him. No way would the devil lead anyone to promote and teach about Jesus, or the fact that Jesus defeated Satan on the cross. Besides which, the devil may impersonate good spirits and angels; I doubt he is capable of impersonating the Lord Jesus himself.

The Holy Spirit never did as well to me. But it asked me to check it out. It was actually specific which teachings I should check.

It never told me which is right or wrong. It allowed me to carefully study and make my own conclusion.

Again, I don't want to accuse you of anything, but hearing someone calling the Spirit "it" when Jesus clearly referred to him as "he", sets off alarm bells. The Spirit is not an impersonal force, he can live in us, guide us and makes us, and confirms to us that we are, God's children. The Spirit convicts us of sin and leads us to Jesus, and it is the Spirit who transforms us into Jesus' image and likeness.

I eventually made my conclusion and it wasn't in favor of the Bible and Holy Spirit did not object to my decision.

Any spirit that is not from God will not want to lead you to God and the true Gospel. Of course it won't object if you do not choose the Bible; it wants you to do so, and is probably celebrating if you do.

The Holy Spirit, the Spirit of TRUTH, will lead you to the One who is the Way, the truth and the life. He will lead you to the Bible, which is God's word and where the truth can be found.

I actually found many of the things the Spirit said to me in non-canon scriptures. But why are those NOT in our Bible?

Because those who compiled the Bible, inspired by the Holy Spirit, considered that they were not authentic or in line with the Gospel.

I guess it will be a surprise would it? We'll see at the judgement stand. I'm not betting on anything. I only want's Christ judgement to carry out justice and truth. If I'm wrong, then I'd be condemned and so be it.

It's very sad if you are living your whole life in a state of uncertainty, and are prepared to say, "well I'll find out the truth later and if I'm condemned to spend eternity without God, so be it". Jesus said, "you will know the truth and the truth will set you free". John wrote his 1st epistle so that those who read it would KNOW - check out how many times he uses that word. Why would you wait until after death to find out - why "wait and see" when you can know the truth now?

 

[Stabat Mater dolorosa]

One has to ask oneself why on earth St Paul would leave judaism and enter persecution for the sake of spreading lies and heresy only to wind up dying as martyr ?

To question his sincerity is truely ridiculous.

If people can come up with a reasonable explanation for this I'll be baffled , until then nah...
Not so much.

 

[Stabat Mater dolorosa]

This is a man after all that stood stand by and concurred when St Stefan were killed for his testamony and profession of a deep felt love and faith in Christ.

This radial change in St Paul seems very odd if it's not God calling him.
Besides one has to keep in mind that St Paul were running a serious risk by coming to the deciples as they knew him quite well through his reputation as a persecutor of Christians and for his role in the killing of St Stefan.

 

[sparow]

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?

Calling Paul a fraud is dangerous yet I have done that myself; calling him a heretic is ridiculous. Even if Paul was authentic there are people who worship Paul while giving lip service to Christ the Lamb.

Fraud is criminal deception and I believe Paul always had good intentions but wasn't sent by Christ; most likely sent by the Pharisees.

My position regarding Paul is I do not use him, whether he can be trusted is not relevant; Paul was two thousand years ago and his epistles are of a private nature addressed to private individuals about ongoing matters about which they knew but we do not know; we only have part of the conversation in the epistle. Paul should not be our business today.

Being deceived is not a sin, we read in revelation that the whole world is deceived; but sinning as a function of deception is still sin; there is no excuse for sin. One of the problems often credited to Paul is the Gospel of Grace (which seems to be considered the New Covenant by many). There is a booklet called "The Gospel and The Kingdom", that refutes Dispensationalism which at that time of it evolution had 28 gospels. The author establishes that there is only one Gospel and that is the Gospel of the Kingdom regardless of what it may have been called on any occasion. Is this the Gospel Paul taught; the Gospel such that if anyone taught a different Gospel they would be cursed; or are more than one Gospel? Check out the "Everlasting Gospel" in Revelation, the three angels messages; is this a different Gospel?

Always one should receive it directly from God and not follow men into the ditch.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

The root cause of all this is the cosumerist mentality which grips the world today. You expect to have a ride range of cars from which to pick your next model; a range of audio visual systems to suit your taste; a supermarket full of foods from which to make your choices - so why not a range of different Christianities from which to make your choice, and, if you don't like any of them, just come up with your own designer Christianity.

And, just to give all that extra impetus, we have got Post Modernism on hand, to tell us that truth is whatever we want it to be.

Designer christianity is an extension of the reformation, Don't like the current church? start a new one. Everything the church does eventually re-translates back into society. Getting mad at society, just means you're mad at last generations' version of the church, following the line back before the first change happened.

 

[lesliedellow]

Designer christianity is an extension of the reformation,

No it isn't. The reformers would have been horrified at the idea that the truth was whatever the culture of the time happened to find congenial.

Don't like the current church? start a new one.

I'm not getting mad at the Church. I am getting mad at the mentality of the present day. Creating a designer God is to create an idol, and that flies directly in the face of the second commandment.

Everything the church does eventually re-translates back into society. Getting mad at society, just means you're mad at last generations' version of the church, following the line back before the first change happened.

There are a lot of things which have brought us to where we are.

 

[timewerx]

One has to ask oneself why on earth St Paul would leave judaism and enter persecution for the sake of spreading lies and heresy only to wind up dying as martyr ?

To question his sincerity is truely ridiculous.

If people can come up with a reasonable explanation for this I'll be baffled , until then nah...
Not so much.

If false teachers had to endure persecution, and martyrdom as well, it makes them a lot more believable and a lot more popular.

Even better if the false teacher thinks he or she is doing the right thing (plus points for sincerity!)

The devil sure knows what it's doing. It doesn't think like a four year old. He had to try to pull off the performance that Christ did.
.
.

 

[Colter]

,

Colter, I do like your point about unity over uniformity; sure, there is room I believe for some diversity of perception and understanding regarding Jesus. But there should be some limit to where that diversity in viewpoint ends.

What would be "orthodox" in first century terms, Colter? (And as I'm sure you surmise, this kind of orthodoxy wouldn't be identical to that which was so identified and/or categorized in later Roman circles a few centuries later. We're not referring to Eastern, Byzantine Orthodoxy, right?)

Moreover, it's hard to say that Peter had his act together on an "orthodox" level at all times either, even though he was chosen by Christ as "the Rock."

2PhiloVoid

I hesitate to use the term orthodox because its indicative of the formulation of doctrines, creeds, rules and a whole new Sanhedrin which is in fact what happened. It was inevitable, a gallon can't fit into a quart. In religious evolution we tend to unconsciously take new revelation and make it more like that which we are already are familiar with.

To answer your question, sticking as close as possible to the original Gospel of the Kingdom of Heaven taught and preached by Jesus & company before the tragic rejection and cross, we would be more orthodox. It's the gospel that the Jews would be teaching today from Jerusalem had they accepted Jesus and his good news.

Of all the remarkable events experienced by the often perplexed apostles in the years leading up to the departure of Jesus, the arrest, trial, crucifixion and resurrection was the most spectacular! Suddenly, overnight, the gospel message changed from the religion of Jesus to a religion about Jesus.

* Jesus taught salvation by faith, not Christ and him crucified. [Jesus both Lived and Died for us.]

* The triumphant and inspiring life lived by Jesus was overshadowed by his death and resurrection.

* Jesus lived for the positive cause of salvation, he didn't die for the negative cause of sin.

* In the original Gospel of Jesus the "good news" was the positive truth that we are ALL sons and daughters of the Living God. The post cross speculation produced the theory that Jesus was a human sacrifice for sin, a belief already familiar to the Pagan world.

* Well meaning attempts were made to make the message more acceptable to Jews (by trying to justify Jesus with the Old Testament). But those attempts neither brought Judaism into the fold and worked to confuse future generations of disciples of Jesus.

The original gospel was contaminated and the ideals of the Kingdom of heaven delayed.

 

[Stabat Mater dolorosa]

If false teachers had to endure persecution, and martyrdom as well, it makes them a lot more believable and a lot more popular.

Even better if the false teacher thinks he or she is doing the right thing (plus points for sincerity!)

The devil sure knows what it's doing. It doesn't think like a four year old. He had to try to pull off the performance that Christ did.
.
.

Again there's no evidence brought forward only false accusations and conspiracy theories.

FYI Satan is a he not a it.
He used to be one of the archangels in heaven prior to the riot.

 

[ToBeLoved]

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?

What is the gospel first of all?

You may want to come to an understanding of what the gospel is before you let all the Paul hater's run amuck with their own agenda.

This thread will become helter skelter soon.

The gospel simply is that Jesus Christ, God became man and died on the cross for the sins of the world. That God and man can be once again reconciled back to each other through Jesus Christ and His atonement for the sins of His Own.

They will pick apart Paul, because they figure if they can destroy Paul, they can shed doubt on much of the New Testamemt.

If we look at everything Paul said, did and died for, it was clearly for Christ and the gospel that the Savior of the world died for sin and that through His blood mankind is saved.

 

[ToBeLoved]

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.

Yes, all the other disciples accepted Paul. One thing the anti-Paul people avoid like the plague.

It's mostly there lack of knowledge of the Bible that causes them to fall for clever dividers of Christ's Kingdom.

 

[ToBeLoved]

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.

So you are adding to any kind of confusion by implying Paul spent three years in Arabia.

Nice work there.

 

[ToBeLoved]

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.

Wrong. Wrong. Wrong.

How many times does Paul use the word 'grace' and by God's grace. In Christ and through Christ.

What are you talking about? You don't even know the Bible yet tell us what and who Paul was.

Start quoting verses and facts. Your two sentence explanations with your own lack of knowledge are pure speculation.

Up your game. If you don't know, say you don't know. Own your own ignorance and lack of knowledge.

 

[ToBeLoved]

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.

People who want to have this conversation and actually conversate would be good to know a few facts.

Fact 1: Jesus ministry was only on earth for 3 years. From the age Jesus was 30 yo to 33 yo. Jesus died at 33.
Fact 2: No Christian churches were established for Jesus ministry until after His death. So it was up to the apostles to establish those churches as more people came to belief in Christ. They did that from scratch. The ground up.
Fact 3: Paul was specifically named by Jesus Christ as the Apostle to the Gentiles. The Gentiles were all people who were not Jewish (or Old Testament Hebrew believers).
Fact 4: The Epistles or Letters written by Paul to the churches he founded are the Books of Ephesians (Church in Ephesus), Galatians (Church in Galatia), Phillipians 1 & 2 (Church in Phillipi), Thesselonians 1 & 2 (Church in Thesolanica), Romans (Church in Rome), Hebrews (Hebrew people who were former Jews), Corinithians 1 & 2 (Church in Corinth). I'm sure there may be a few more, but those come to mind off the top of my head.
Fact 5: Paul died by getting his head chopped off for the cause of Christ.

So let the issues come forth and I will defend my Lord's apostle.