Rejected passages

[Colter]

No problem and thank you too! I haven't read the book. I found out about Paul independently.

I tried to acquit him of falsehood by even looking at Greek texts but the contradictions/worthless teachings are also present.

The reason I participate in cf is not to convince people to change their minds. In my 2 years of posting here, I think there's only 2 or 3 people who did and these are people who are already having some doubts against religion so I don't think I really convinced them. I simply confirmed what they already knew or beginning to realize.

The reason I keep posting despite the overwhelming resistance is let others know that they are not alone!

And most importantly, to expose evil.. It is what Jesus wanted anyway (John 7:7, together with John 14:12). Jesus wasn't nice to evil people even in His ministry. The Jesus of Paul is different and did not uphold justice.

Paul just happened to be the first great, powerful, charismatic preacher of the gospel as he understood it, as he interpreted it through his own religious baggage. Frankly, the only real orthodoxy of the original gospel was salvation through living faith in the presence of the living God and the identity of the Son incarnate. Beyond that Jesus often taught in parabolic form, leaving the individual free to have a personal relationship with God as well as leaving the society of believers to grow in understanding of our heavenly Father.

Sincerity, that's what's important. Paul dedicated his life to carrying the gospel message as he understood it, he shouldn't be faulted for that nor is it his fault that the church elevated his teachings and associated letters to "the world of God" in order to establish its ruling authority.

 

[Der Alte]

. . . obey your leaders as ministers of God even if he is joseph stalin - coutesy of Paul!

Deliberate mischaracterization of Paul's teaching as I have shown before. But people with an adamant hatred for Paul will find something to criticize even in the most innocuous of statements in his writings.

 

[ToBeBlessed]

Paul just happened to be the first great, powerful, charismatic preacher of the gospel as he understood it, as he interpreted it through his own religious baggage. Frankly, the only real orthodoxy of the original gospel was salvation through living faith in the presence of the living God and the identity of the Son incarnate. Beyond that Jesus often taught in parabolic form, leaving the individual free to have a personal relationship with God as well as leaving the society of believers to grow in understanding of our heavenly Father.

Sincerity, that's what's important. Paul dedicated his life to carrying the gospel message as he understood it, he shouldn't be faulted for that nor is it his fault that the church elevated his teachings and associated letters to "the world of God" in order to establish its ruling authority.

Why did Jesus personally appear to Paul on the Road to Damascus? Paul was personally chosen by Jesus Himself. Paul carried forth the message that Jesus Christ had given Him.

There is no conflict in Paul's epistles. What are your examples of this? Please quote scripture of what Jesus said and what Paul said from scripture in your examples.

 

[ananda]

... I wonder if anyone here can list passages in The Old Testament (maybe in the New?) they either fully or partially reject..

I, too, reject the writings of Paul. It is my perspective that he was an opportunistic 1st century Pharisaical rabbi who promoted his own re-interpretations of Messiah and His message, and gained ascendancy, power, and converts as a result; and that, for the most part, modern-day Christianity is based primarily on him as Regent of the church.

 

[rick357]

Paul just happened to be the first great, powerful, charismatic preacher of the gospel as he understood it, as he interpreted it through his own religious baggage. Frankly, the only real orthodoxy of the original gospel was salvation through living faith in the presence of the living God and the identity of the Son incarnate. Beyond that Jesus often taught in parabolic form, leaving the individual free to have a personal relationship with God as well as leaving the society of believers to grow in understanding of our heavenly Father.

Sincerity, that's what's important. Paul dedicated his life to carrying the gospel message as he understood it, he shouldn't be faulted for that nor is it his fault that the church elevated his teachings and associated letters to "the world of God" in order to establish its ruling authority.

If this is true we must also reject Peter as he said Pauls writtings were correct but not easy to understand....as with all scripture.

 

[rick357]

I'd go further and suggest if there is an antichrist it resides in Rome.
However, I confess my perspective could be totally warped by experiences as a youth during a period of 11 years studying the pipe organ at a Catholic cathedral. The rest I leave to your imaginations.

II Thessalonians. Ch:2. V:9-12 not withstanding I bid you all farewell..Angels of Grace and Mercy Protect You All from Doctrinal Delusion.

Anti-christ lives in every person born from Adam

 

[ToBeBlessed]

I, too, reject the writings of Paul. It is my perspective that he was an opportunistic 1st century Pharisaical rabbi who promoted his own re-interpretations of Messiah and His message, and gained ascendancy, power, and converts as a result; and that, for the most part, modern-day Christianity is based primarily on him as Regent of the church.

Interesting how you capitalized the 'M' in Messiah and the 'H' in His. You obviously have some reverence for God.

Are you a messianic jew? It says in your profile you are a 'Christian Seeker', but few christians reject Paul's teaching.

 

[ananda]

Interesting how you capitalized the 'M' in Messiah and the 'H' in His. You obviously have some reverence for God.

Are you a messianic jew? It says in your profile you are a 'Christian Seeker', but few christians reject Paul's teaching.

Shalom! I do have great reverence for Messiah and God.

And I consider myself Messianic ... but I am ethnically a Gentile I have a Seeker icon because the Messianics on the MJ board here on CF do not consider me Messianic due to my views on Paul.

 

[ToBeBlessed]

Shalom! I do have great reverence for Messiah and God.

And I consider myself Messianic ... but I am ethnically a Gentile I have a Seeker icon because the Messianics on the MJ board here on CF do not consider me Messianic due to my views on Paul.

Shalom!

I do have a question. Why would you describe Paul as a Pharisaical rabbi when Paul preached that Jesus fulfilled the Law and salvation was of due to the grace of Jesus Christ? Why do you qualify Paul as a pharisee and a rabbi when he did not preach the Law for the forgiveness of sin or salvation?
http://www.christianforums.com//www.pinterest.com/pin/create/extension/

 

[ananda]

Shalom!

I do have a question. Why would you describe Paul as a Pharisaical rabbi when Paul preached that Jesus fulfilled the Law and salvation was of due to the grace of Jesus Christ? Why do you qualify Paul as a pharisee and a rabbi when he did not preach the Law for the forgiveness of sin or salvation?

IMO the Pharisees were not adamant about the necessity of strictly following YHVH's written Law. They were, however, adamant about the need to follow their so-called "oral Law" - that is, their traditions about YHVH's Written Law. In essence, the Pharisees were lax about following YHVH's Law. (The Sadducees were, in actuality, the group that was strict about YHVH's Written Law, and rejected the Pharisees' "oral law" traditions).

I see, in the same way, Paul requiring his disciples to follow his traditions (Col 2:8, 2Th 3:6, Gal 1:6-12, etc.) regarding the Law and Jesus, and he was quite lax about the Law. So, in that regard, I see Paul as clearly a Pharisee.

 

[ToBeBlessed]

IMO the Pharisees were not adamant about the necessity of strictly following YHVH's written Law. They were, however, adamant about the need to follow their so-called "oral Law" - that is, their traditions about YHVH's Written Law. In essence, the Pharisees were lax about following YHVH's Law. (The Sadducees were, in actuality, the group that was strict about YHVH's Written Law, and rejected the Pharisees' "oral law" traditions).

I see, in the same way, Paul requiring his disciples to follow his traditions (Col 2:8, 2Th 3:6, Gal 1:6-12, etc.) regarding the Law and Jesus, and he was quite lax about the Law. So, in that regard, I see Paul as clearly a Pharisee.

Colossians 2:6-9

6 As you therefore have received Christ Jesus the Lord, so walk in Him, 7 rooted and built up in Him and established in the faith, as you have been taught, abounding in it with thanksgiving.


8 Beware lest anyone cheat you through philosophy and empty deceit, according to the tradition of men, according to the basic principles of the world, and not according to Christ. 9 For in Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily; 10 and you are complete in Him, who is the head of all principality and power.


2 Thessalonians 3:6-12

6 But we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you withdraw from every brother who walks disorderly and not according to the tradition which he received from us. 7 For you yourselves know how you ought to follow us, for we were not disorderly among you; 8 nor did we eat anyone’s bread free of charge, but worked with labor and toil night and day, that we might not be a burden to any of you, 9 not because we do not have authority, but to make ourselves an example of how you should follow us.


10 For even when we were with you, we commanded you this: If anyone will not work, neither shall he eat. 11 For we hear that there are some who walk among you in a disorderly manner, not working at all, but are busybodies. 12 Now those who are such we command and exhort through our Lord Jesus Christ that they work in quietness and eat their own bread.


Galatians 1:6-16

6 I marvel that you are turning away so soon from Him who called you in the grace of Christ, to a different gospel, 7 which is not another; but there are some who trouble you and want to pervert the gospel of Christ. 8 But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed. 9 As we have said before, so now I say again, if anyone preaches any other gospel to you than what you have received, let him be accursed.


10 For do I now persuade men, or God? Or do I seek to please men? For if I still pleased men, I would not be a bondservant of Christ.


11 But I make known to you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not according to man. 12 For I neither received it from man, nor was I taught it, but it came through the revelation of Jesus Christ.
13 For you have heard of my former conduct in Judaism, how I persecuted the church of God beyond measure and tried to destroy it. 14 And I advanced in Judaism beyond many of my contemporaries in my own nation, being more exceedingly zealous for the traditions of my fathers.


15 But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother’s womb and called me through His grace, 16 to reveal His Son in me, that I might preach Him among the Gentiles

I have included the verses you are referencing above, can you tell me what exactly bothers you about Paul and his writings?

 

[ToBeBlessed]

duplicate

 

[Meta Tron]

Shalom!

I do have a question. Why would you describe Paul as a Pharisaical rabbi when Paul preached that Jesus fulfilled the Law and salvation was of due to the grace of Jesus Christ? Why do you qualify Paul as a pharisee and a rabbi when he did not preach the Law for the forgiveness of sin or salvation?

Paul self identified as a Pharasee

Acts 23:6 But perceiving that one group were Sadducees and the other Pharisees, Paul began crying out in the Council, "Brethren, I am a Pharisee, a son of Pharisees; I am on trial for the hope and resurrection of the dead!"

 

[ToBeBlessed]

Paul self identified as a Pharasee

Yes he did. He was formerly Saul a Pharisee.

When he came to Jesus Christ and the gospel of grace through the revelation he received from Jesus Christ Himself, he changed his name to Paul.

Paul wrote about his former life as a pharisee

Galatians 1:11-14
11 But I make known to you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not according to man. 12 For I neither received it from man, nor was I taught it, but it came through the revelation of Jesus Christ.
13 For you have heard of my former conduct in Judaism, how I persecuted the church of God beyond measure and tried to destroy it. 14 And I advanced in Judaism beyond many of my contemporaries in my own nation, being more exceedingly zealous for the traditions of my fathers.

 

[ananda]

I have included the verses you are referencing above, can you tell me what exactly bothers you about Paul and his writings?

The verses I referenced shows how Paul required that his disciples follow his particular interpretations aka his traditions.

Yes he did. He was formerly Saul a Pharisee.

Paul did not give up his status as a Pharisee: In Acts 23:6, he claimed that he was then and there a Pharisee, eimi ("I am a Pharisee") being in the present indicative. This was said well into his "Christian ministry".

 

[ToBeBlessed]

Paul did not give up his status as a Pharisee: In Acts 23:6, he claimed that he was then and there a Pharisee, eimi ("I am a Pharisee") being in the present indicative. This was said well into his "Christian ministry".

I feel Paul explains this in this verse.

1 Corinthians 9:19:
“For though I am free from all men, I have made myself a servant to all, that I might win the more; 20 and to the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might win Jews; to those who are under the law, as under the law, that I might win those who are under the law; 21 to those who are without law, as without law (not being without law toward God, but under law toward Christ), that I might win those who are without law; 22 to the weak I became as weak, that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all men, that I might by all means save some. 23 Now this I do for the gospel's sake, that I may be partaker of it with you.”

Don't you think that this explains this?

 

[ToBeBlessed]

duplicate

 

[ananda]

I feel Paul explains this in this verse.

1 Corinthians 9:19:
“For though I am free from all men, I have made myself a servant to all, that I might win the more; 20 and to the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might win Jews; to those who are under the law, as under the law, that I might win those who are under the law; 21 to those who are without law, as without law (not being without law toward God, but under law toward Christ), that I might win those who are without law; 22 to the weak I became as weak, that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all men, that I might by all means save some. 23 Now this I do for the gospel's sake, that I may be partaker of it with you.”

Don't you think that this explains this?

In multiple places, Paul states that he is for the law (e.g. Rom 7:12, etc.), and in other places, Paul states that he is against the law (e.g. Gal 5:4,18, etc.). I believe that 1Cor 9:19-23 explains this dichotomy, admitting that he taught different things to different groups of people. So, I have no reason to believe that Paul wouldn't claim to be a Pharisee in one place, and to not be a Pharisee in another place - whatever suited him at the time.

I believe James, Peter, John, and Jude recognized this dichotomy, and wrote against it in warning.

 

[RevelationTestament]

I believe if one takes Paul too literally, they can get very befuddled, which is where I put the OSAS movement.
To the Jews he would say he was for the law, but would stress the prophecies of Christ and His gentle commandments - I do not think he taught them to keep all the old traditions, rituals and practices. He was trying to teach them the true spiritual law I think, but they would think "rituals" when the word "law" was used.
To the Gentiles he would preach against "the law" meaning the rituals and feast keeping and the other rote practices of Judaism, and would stress that Christ fulfilled the law, and that they did not have to follow those rote legal traditions but were "freed" from the "law."
So he was preaching to their thought processes to try to help them understand.
This is why I think he is confusing. Because among other things he uses the word "law" differently in different contexts. Somewhat similarly with "faith" and "salvation." I believe there are modern Christian sects which take passages from his epistles all too literally, and in an interpretation which conflicts with the very words of Christ.
I don't find Paul to be rogue, but just interpreted too literally or legalistically at times.

 

[Colter]

Why did Jesus personally appear to Paul on the Road to Damascus? Paul was personally chosen by Jesus Himself. Paul carried forth the message that Jesus Christ had given Him.

There is no conflict in Paul's epistles. What are your examples of this? Please quote scripture of what Jesus said and what Paul said from scripture in your examples.

Before the cross there was the good news gospel which Jesus had commissioned his apostles to carry to all the world.

Paul had a spiritual experience just like millions of others have had. Paul's new gospel was about Jesus the risen Christ.