Please Explain Paul

[Wisdom's Child]

This thread seems to be part of a movement Questioning the Writings of Paul.
Is there some new publication or website that is spreading this stuff?

 

[SelahCrys]

Serepha,

Thank you.

 

[SelahCrys]

Just removing more of my demonic thinking.

 

[SelahCrys]

Peter says Paul is God-Inspired

Look What Peter wrote

Bear in mind that our Lord's patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. 16He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction. 2 Peter 3.15, 16

For the record, I'm not saying your ignorant, nor unstable.

Theseed,

I understand exactly what Peter means. It is another devastating statement against Paul.

Jesus said:
Mar 10:42, 43 But Jesus called them and said to them, You know that they who are accounted rulers over the nations exercise lordship over them. And their great ones exercise authority on them. But it shall not be so among you. But whoever desires to be great among you, let him be your servant.

Paul said: Paul named many offices and layers to the church and made some in the church "lords" over others. Others to sit in obedience to those over them.

The result? The church has followed Paul. We recieved a hugh catholic church that for hundreds of years even a millenium exercized "lordship" over christians. Making christians virtual slaves to what they wanted.

Peter is right, a lot of people twisted Paul's words and ignored Jesus words and caused the destruction of a lot of souls.

I do not see Peter's words as vindicating Paul. I see Peter's words as confirming what I see. Based on a lot of doctrines found only in Paul's writings and almost directly opposite of what Jesus said.

The church has been laid to waste.

Its supposed to be that way...I thought...Pauls books were canonized because they met that standard (canon=standard in greek). Other books were rejected b/c they had unusual doctrine that did not fit the stories of Christ

theseed,

Canonization is okay but can border on being meaningless. The book of Barnabus was read in all the churches for 300 to 400 years after Christ. Were those early christians wrong just because later it was decided that Barbabus should not be in the canon?

3 of Jesus parables can be found in "the wisdom of Jesus" {Sirach} that is found in the catholic bible. It was written 200 to 175 years before Jesus came. This means that Jesus either a.) read the book and quoted from it {as he did for instance Isaiah} or b.)that the author was inspired by the same Spirit of God that caused Jesus to say the exact same thing.

So on either ground: Jesus quoted from it and it is therefore valid and able to instruct us, or the author is by Jesus confirmed as being inspired from the Holy Spirit.

Yet this book is not in our protestant bible. It is not in our protestant canon. If I quoted from this book, most of the christians I know would dismiss what I had to say as unbiblical. Canons by making some closed minded can even be harmful.

The only point you made was that you notice the details. I do to. I have read the entire bible, and study everyday. You say that we can't see the forest for the trees. I disagree. Its you that are looking at the trees [details] and can't see the forest. Many commetaries look at the bark on the trees and still see the forest. Hence, we can see both the forest and the trees

theseed,

Do you know who C.S. Lewis is? He was a writer who says that for all the gifts that God gave Paul, he wishes that God had blessed him with lucidity.

C.S. Lewis was a gifted writer and author of many books. Mere Christianity, might be one of the books you have heard of his.

The point being is that I notice along with C.S. Lewis that Paul does not make very much sense. I am a writer. {despite my poor grammatical skills}

I do not know, maybe it has something to do with writing that makes me remember that two chapters back you just said the exact opposite. Maybe it is my writers way of looking at each individual word and each individual sentence that makes me not walk pass the "illogicalness" of Paul's writing.

Most christians refer to Paul as a man of his day, when they do not want to follow his writings in regards to "women preachers".

This is something you have to work out, but our culture is nothing like Pauls. And our Churches, are not like the New Testment Churches in regards to practice.

theseed,

Exactly. My point is, that if it is not invalid to dismiss the church practices of the NT and it is not invalid to dismiss individual scriptures of the NT {say for instance the women preachers scriptures} then why is it invalid to dismiss Paul altogether?

The old testament is the living word of God. A person can not in any way dismiss it. For it is God himself talking. The gospels are a continuation of the story from the old testament.

I have even considered that being a person taken to proverbs and stories. Maybe because Paul is not telling stories nor giving proverbs, I do not take to him to well, and that causes me to have to dissect him and there in lies the problem.

It is a mess to wade through the name calling, the nearly thousand times he mentions himself, the predjudices of his, his calling for christians to be destroyed, his cursing others and all of his illogical arguments.

I do not know. Your right, God will guide me. My problem is that I fear God is guiding me to see the "confusion" of Paul but I am too fearful of men to accept what I see and act accordingly. It is easier to act like I did not notice and just get in with the rest of the crowd.

Paul said that above faith and hope and obedience is "love".
Jesus only mentioned "loving" you 2 times, if you were obedient.

Now I am surrounded by a whole bunch of christians who are "loving" each other to hell, the whole time proclaiming that "Jesus loves you" which is not something that Jesus emphasized. Churches full of liars, fornicators, thieves and covetous people. Who in the name of "love" will not confront nor confess their sins.

Once again: I see what Peter means about people using Paul to their own destruction.

 

[pmarquette]

Without scriptural references and badly paraphrazed:

Question 1:

The temple of God is your physical body. >Paul
yes , providing you are baptised in water and the Holy Spirit
All those who destroy the temple of God shall be destroyed. >Paul
not literal eye for eye -- old testament , see Rom 12.18-21 Mt. 18.15
I destroyed the Temple of God [stephen's case is documented]. I was forgiven because of ignorance of Jesus.>Paul
no , because of 1 John 1.8-9 , the cross , the dispensation of grace
Question: Does this mean that any unbeliever who destroy's i.e. kills Christians are forgiven because of the same ignorance that caused Paul to be forgiven? no ... thou shalt not kill .... 1 Cor 6.9 murder's won't make the boat

Thus only Christians are destroyed for killing other Christians?
no one is destroyed .... some choose to submit to God -Jas 4.7 ; some choose both the death of the body and the soul - hell
destroyed for lack of wisdom and knowledge - Hos. 4.6 ; Prov 29.18
Question 2:

The Law is Holy >Paul yes , proverbs 30.5 ; only Jesus could keep it ...
The Law is good >Paul

The Law is abolished>Paul

Question: When Jesus came He abolished Holy and Good things in this world?
no , fulfilled the Law [ Pentaeuch , first five books of the bible , Genesis to Deuteronomy ; fulfilled the words of Moses and the Prophets
Would a person be correct in saying that Jesus coming abolished -among other things-Holy and Good things in this world? no ... Jesus was the
source of Holy and good things John 1.14 ...

Question 3:

All christians are called Holy >Peter no , Jesus said only the Father is good / holy , sanctified , worthy , of praise .... we are redeemed , reconciled , and discipled for service ; we will do > things , for the Holy Spirit is within us , and there are more of us

Paul called himself the father of some christians and other christians he called his sons. >Paul yes , brethren , His disciples , bible students , preachers he mentored , as the " father's " are disciples of the original 12 . Paul raised up the 7 churches discussed in Revelation chapters 2 & 3

Question: Doesn't this mean that the Catholic Church is correct when they assert that on this basis {above} it is perfectly fine to adress the pope as "Holy Father"? yes , in a sense .... the pope is the " spritual " stand in for our father " Jehovah " ; as our male parent is the corporal stand in for " Father God "

In otherwords, it is not blasphemy for any spiritual leader to call himself the Holy Father of his congregation or followers? most do not , it is a term of honor , like " Father v's Old Man "

Question 4:

Can a person be saved if they do not believe in Pauls writings?
yes , salvation is due to faith in Jesus , which Paul speaks of with the Jailer after the earth quake .... we will suffer in our witness , walk , and power if we reject the epistles [ the meat of the gospel ]
Thus believeing in Jesus is enough for your salvation or is believing in Paul's writings a requirement for salvation? no .... the devil believes and trembles at the name of Jesus , but does not serve him [ Mt. 25.32-42 ] faith + works --- James chapter 2 ; confession 1 John 5.14-18 ; our walk and heart -- Jas 4.7 ; Mt. 6.33 ; 1 Peter 3.4 .... are also required ...
you're welcome
Thank you

 

[theseed]

Maybe it is my writers way of looking at each individual word and each individual sentence that makes me not walk pass the "illogicalness" of Paul's writing.

I'm a writer too. And have no problems. (I'm in graduate school, so my writting skills are sufficient). I've not contradicted myself. I said don't be too literal, but you can disect, and still see the bark on trees as you study the forest.

Paul does not say that love is above obiedance. You are referring to 1 Cor. 13. You don't understand Paul, because you twist scripture and try to add words. And you twisted my agruments by taking away the word "too."

You taking Paul too literally. And Paul does not say that Christ bones were broke, but that he said Christ was broken. And if you compare the Gospels, you find that details aren't the same in each Gospel. Such discrepencies do not refute Christ. Their testimonies are so simular that they would hold up in a court of law. We know they did not make things up, b/c of the discrepancies.

We know from the book of Acts that Christ Himself called Paul. So the matter of whether Paul was doing the Lord's work is settled. Unless you reject, Peter and Luke as well. Acts 9. (Luke and Acts are a 2-volume set).


I will say no more on the subject, as you will believe and see what you chose to see.

 

[theseed]

Now I am surrounded by a whole bunch of christians who are "loving" each other to hell, the whole time proclaiming that "Jesus loves you" which is not something that Jesus emphasized

Click on the link to read where Jesus talked about love over 50 times. the word "love" is mentioned 75 times in the Gospels (NIV)

http://www.biblegateway.com/cgi-bin...pp=100&language=english&searchpage=0&x=16&y=4

 

[Svt4Him]

We all have broken the law in ignorance, and the penalty is the same. If God gives you grace, God will also give it to Paul.

I agree.

Please bear with me. I am slow. Paul gives the reason He is forgiven is because of ignorance. So thus all those in ignorance who destroy Christians {unbelievers} will be similarily forgiven if they are saved later? Thus only Christians can be really destroyed for destroying the temple? Maybe I could clarify that unrepentant unbelievers will not be forgiven?

God resists the proud, gives grace to the humble. God always deals with people when they are ready to repent. Someone like Paul was a murderer, but not a murderer like a serial killer. He believed it was God's will to kill, and when he realized his mistake, he did repent.

The law is not abolished. Bad exegesis for that one.

Could you clarify for me what is abolished in the verses, where the word abolished is used?

15having abolished in His flesh the enmity, that is, the law of commandments contained in ordinances, so as to create in Himself one new man from the two, thus making peace,

Is this the verse you are talking about?


I am a father to my son. He calls me father. What's the issue again? If you are talking about maturity, then yes, there are some fathers of the faith.

The issue for me is I have always been taught to think of God {of the highest ranking member of the trinity} as the Holy Father and the pope as blaspheming for taking God's name. After investigation I have found not only are Catholics seemingly scriptural in that regard but also in regards to almost all issues that I was raised to think of as Catholics having crazy beliefs. i.e. Mary being a virgin, talking to the dead _saints, etc. Very confusing for me not to have the old "protestants are biblical", "catholics are not" argument to fall back on. I now see Catholics as scriptural as protestants, whether I agree with their interpretation of scripture or not, they do have scriptural basis for their beliefs. For some reason, I have always had the idea that they were just making their beliefs up out of thin air based on what the pope said and that there was no scriptural basis for their "strange" beliefs.

Some of them they do. To call a person 'father' as a title, and to have a father in the faith who will nurture you as a child of God are different. We are all equal, but some more mature than others. Paul never said he was Father Paul, he said he was father to spiritual children. There is a difference. I am father to my children, but to have all children call me father is not correct.
[sarcasm] Nope, there is no salvation apart from Paul.[/sarcasm]

Praise God. I just need to hear that and be assured that it is okay for me to ask questions about Paul.

You may ask question about anything. God never tells us to turn off our minds, He actually says to love God with our mind, which involves questioning and studying. Never feel bad to question things. There are a lot of wishy-washy Christians who don't have a clue about things they know. Paul calls them children in the faith.

Sometimes I think I want to write off his writings because of sin in me, I just do not understand or maybe it is because I can relate to the proverbs of Jesus much more cleanly than I can the words of Paul and then I find myself getting defensive and resentful, when people tell me not to listen to Jesus, listen to Paul. Jesus words are always disputed by the words of Paul. {i.e. Jesus said call no man father. Paul said he was the father. Therefore the Catholics are justified in calling the pope Holy Father.}

No, again Paul is a father to spiritual children, when Jesus was talking about it it was more in respect to what the Catholic church does. I hope my last example cleared that up. When Jesus was talking about the title of 'Father', that was a title that the religious leders were using to make them feel important. The context shows that there were some who were proud of being called Rabbi or Father, and I believe Jesus was addressing that, as he was talking to mature Christians. Personally Jesus and Paul should both agree.

It kind of bothers me that what Jesus, the Creator of the World said is easily dismissed by many christians in favor of what Paul says.

I would like the tension in my mind to be over by one of two methods. 1. I find that my thinking is just wrong or 2. that Paul can be dismissed as someone whose writings are not for Christians.

 

[SelahCrys]

theseed et al,

Thanks for being patient with me. I was under the influence of demons but as the bible says all sin comes from lust of the flesh and I have a bad problem with thinking I am so clever and intelligent. So the demons used my intelligencePRIDE as a weapon against me.

Thanks for your help.

 

[SelahCrys]

theseed,

Your persistence in correcting me, was a really big factor in my admitting that I am totally wrong and that using my pride about my intelligence that demons had crept into my thinking and were using me to hurt baby christians.

Forgive me and Thank you.

 

[theseed]

HE WAS CRUSHED (Is. 53.10)

by the way, Jesus blood and fluids were actually poured out for us. The bible says they came out and spilled all over the ground. Not that I do not accept the metaphorical grounds on which you state that Jesus blood was not actually poured out for us. So Jesus stating that would make more sense. The word "Broken" in Paul's writings does not in any way match up to what happen to Jesus? He was not broken physically or spiritually.

he poured his blood, not himself. He was wipped with a cat-of-nine-tails before, he was crucified. I cite Isaiah 53 in regards to testify that he was broken,

"But the Lord was please to cruch Him, putting him to grief" Is. 53.10

The book of acts could keep a person going for weeks if they were just looking for reasons to condemn Paul. The book of acts is not a confirmation of Paul.

Luke, the writer of the Gospel of Luke wrote Acts, so I would imagine you have problems with Luke.

No doubt there are reasons to codemn Paul. We all deserve to die and burn in the Lake of fire, forever and ever and ever (Revelation). It was not fair, but Christ died for us, that why might be justified in God's eyes. (John 3).

1Co 13:3 And though I give out all my goods to feed the poor......... and have not charity, I am profited nothing.

Paul is talking about service, not obediance. Jesus did many things in the Gospels to show love, like touch and heal lepers. Love here, means agape, or sacrificial love, just like Christ had on the cross.

"By this shall all men know that you are my deciples if you love one another" John 13.35.

Jesus told us to love one another.

Paul seems to almost contradict Jesus here again. And isn't it illogical to expect people without love to sell all they have and give to the poor?

We must have agape love to sell our goods to the poor. Love here is an action, a work. Ours come from our faith (James), The spirit gives us these kings of gifts Galations 5






Acts is clear about Christ calling Paul to ministry

 

[SelahCrys]

theseed,

You are right about that. I will have to repent of thinking Paul misquoted Jesus.

Luke, the writer of the Gospel of Luke wrote Acts, so I would imagine you have problems with Luke.

I have no problems with Luke, except for the fact that Luke is the only "gospel" which does not record the story of the woman at Jesus feet.

Mat 26:13 Verily I say unto you, Wheresoever this gospel shall be preached in the whole world, that also which this woman hath done shall be spoken of for a memorial of her.

I give the book of Luke a pass though based on the fact that it is normally contained in the NT. When Luke is considered as a part of a set of 4, then the other books cover the fact that the "gospels" must have this story in them.

No doubt there are reasons to codemn Paul. We all deserve to die and burn in the Lake of fire, forever and ever and ever (Revelation). It was not fair, but Christ died for us, that why might be justified in God's eyes. (John 3).

Amen!

Acts is clear about Christ calling Paul to ministry.

God calls all of us to our role, whether we are the wicked Egyptians or whether we are the chosen Israelites. As Paul convinces me in Roman chapter 9.

Theseed et al, I do want to thank you, you have dispelled a few of the erroneous notions I had about Paul's writings. I feel better and fully intend to wipe them off my list of things wrong with Paul. Thank you.

 

[theseed]

have no problems with Luke, except for the fact that Luke is the only "gospel" which does not record the story of the woman at Jesus feet.

Each Gospel has unique material not found in the other. That's great.

 

[Svt4Him]

theseed,

You are right about that. I will have to repent of thinking Paul misquoted Jesus.



I have no problems with Luke, except for the fact that Luke is the only "gospel" which does not record the story of the woman at Jesus feet.

Mat 26:13 Verily I say unto you, Wheresoever this gospel shall be preached in the whole world, that also which this woman hath done shall be spoken of for a memorial of her.

I give the book of Luke a pass though based on the fact that it is normally contained in the NT. When Luke is considered as a part of a set of 4, then the other books cover the fact that the "gospels" must have this story in them.



Amen!



God calls all of us to our role, whether we are the wicked Egyptians or whether we are the chosen Israelites. As Paul convinces me in Roman chapter 9.

Theseed et al, I do want to thank you, you have dispelled a few of the erroneous notions I had about Paul's writings. I feel better and fully intend to wipe them off my list of things wrong with Paul. Thank you.

What the woman did is still spoken of, but that doesn't mean we all need to speak of it always. Otherwise there is no Bible apart from the three gospels. As for the abolished, I believe He abolished the conflict with His flesh and the law, but I will get back to you on this.

 

[SelahCrys]

Svt4him,

Why not tell this story every time the gospel is preached?

Why not tell a story that would show a person the total committment and humbleness they need to have with Jesus. They should not think of themselves or their committment to Christ more highly than a prostitute's higher committment to Christ?

Christ even cements the idea that the prostitutes will be in heaven before preachers [pharisees] in another verse.

I have always thought he says this because prostitutes see our beloved trustworthy leaders in their sin {so many leaders and preachers are caught with them} so prostitutes kind of understand that none of us is "good" or rather that in all of us, is a degraded perverted human being, only some of us hide it better.

I remember one old very famous preacher whose sermons are collections now{can't remember his name} who shocked people on his death bed when he said, the closer I get to God, the more I see that my soul is a deep well of depraved thinking.

I think that "pride" is the only sin to God. The devil is called the "King of the children of pride". {not technically the only sin, but all sin comes from pride}.

Following what Jesus says in this regards might result in New Christians who mature quickly, repent faster, learn in humbleness.

Maybe one day, we will just do what Jesus says, instead of just justifying why we do not do what Jesus says.

 

[theseed]

What the woman did is still spoken of, but that doesn't mean we all need to speak of it always. Otherwise there is no Bible apart from the three gospels. As for the abolished, I believe He abolished the conflict with His flesh and the law, but I will get back to you on this.

plus, that fact that it made it into Luke, meant that it was spoken of. You have to remember, Jesus said it, then it was written. Luke gives alot of credit to women, more than the other Gospels. That's a good thing

 

[theseed]

God calls all of us to our role, whether we are the wicked Egyptians or whether we are the chosen Israelites. As Paul convinces me in Roman chapter 9.

Could you explain what this means? The word Egyptian is none of Pauls writings. Do you God choses some to go to hell? And some to be saved? Just like the Calvinist believe? I respectfully disagree with that, but there is much scripture either way, and not just in Pauls writings. You can learn more about Calvinism and Armenianism in IDD.

 

[SelahCrys]

theseed,

Your right. On both accounts. The story although different is in Luke.

And Paul says Pharoah not Egypt.

Thanks for correcting me. {What an idiot I am?} Smile

 

[SelahCrys]

theseed,

I am a calvinist. I believe this verse: I the Lord create the good and the evil, I the Lord do it all. Isaiah 45 verse 7

 

[SelahCrys]

Thank God for Paul and His writings. Sorry for imposing my demonic thinking on you guys. Praise be to God that everything dark brought to the light will be cleansed.

I am glad I got these demonic thoughts out, so that God could get rid of them for me. Praise Him.