Striking Out Paul

Petr · Nov 24, 2004

His writings are not literal writings of God, but were certainly inspired by God. Paul taught doctrine and that doctrine (being inspired by God) should be considered infallible, regardless of whether our texts today are 100% accurate to the texts back then or not (and I readily admit that they aren't).

By saying that every word he says must be true, you put him next to God. You are in fact making the man infalliable.

cweb255 · Nov 24, 2004

Only God is infallible. Everything here on Earth is automatically corrupted just by being on Earth. Even what we write, dictated by God, is fallible because we use our own words instead of the language of God (which is unknowable).

wizanda · Nov 25, 2004

Well if i am saying in another post and on my site that Paul infact contridicts a lot of christs teachings
This has changed the whole face of history, if christ came back him self do you think he will be happy with the results of what Paul has said and what it has caused.
I certainly don't as if you look at the bigger picture Pauls jugdemnetal attitude has afected the whole church
It is not a church of christ, yet a church of Paul.
If it were to be a church of christ he said his yolk was light, reading paul has seriously affected my own faith and made it heavy
We would welcome all with open arms and not want the riches of this world instead be living as one community
Most of christ teachings are similar to Buddah and Lao tzu and many other major religions
From what Paul has said we have seperation, where christians only love other christians
Many of Pauls followers say they are christian and will tell you thier good works like paul. yet christ said dont watch what the other hand is doing, so this is not christ like in the slightest.
The list is so long i am trying to write it, as a book, so all can follow in the easiest way.
Yet it is a hard task, as many are so possibley in anti-christ doctrine (ie paul)
They are blinded to the truth and come back with daft arguements
Paul makes people not like christ and i feel if we changed this it would seriously help the worlds problems, as then christ would become the saviour prophocied in many religions
Pauls writing obscure this and change the princaples of christianity
It is like spoke in daniel with the ram and the goat christ came with 2 main princaples 1 to love and 2 to learn wisdom and to spread it
Paul came with new princaples that are contray to christ like we are saved by grace and not that we should help fetch in the harvest as christ taught
If anyone know what all 4 horns could be i am still trying to figure it out, not sure if it is the four churchs Paul established, four princaples would make sense as christ came with as such 2 commandments

confuzzled_one · Nov 25, 2004

I do not accept Paul's teachings as inspired by Unelanvhi (God). I view them as his opinions, some of them bad, some of them good.

Well, I reject all of the bible except for the 4 gospels, and even those I do not believe they must be 100% accurate, so take my opinion with a grain of salt I suppose.

tulc · Nov 25, 2004

[pong] Hey welcome to CF confuzzled_one! [/pong]

tulc(hope you have fun while here!)

cweb255 · Nov 26, 2004

confuzzled_one said:
I do not accept Paul's teachings as inspired by Unelanvhi (God). I view them as his opinions, some of them bad, some of them good.

Well, I reject all of the bible except for the 4 gospels, and even those I do not believe they must be 100% accurate, so take my opinion with a grain of salt I suppose.

And if you accept the gospels, reject John. It is a redaction of two different earlier gospels about a totally different Jesus with the Jesus from Nazareth. It is not commonly known but Jesus (Yeshua) roughly translates as salvation. It was more of a title than a name (cf. when the angel told Mary to name it because it was to save people from sin). In fact, Josephus reports about 22 different Jesus, most radical priests opposing Rome.

Misty Minister · Dec 25, 2004

searchingforanswers1 said:
because if paul faked the vision on the road it changes everything.

Some say Paul had a serious delusion on the road.
If as you suspect, he faked it, then his actions and writings are certainly in keeping with his original mission, which was protecting the existing Jewish religios groups from Jesus's teaching.

Foon Nerfdahl · Dec 25, 2004

Has anyone considered the possibility that Paul just had some bad fish for lunch on the way to Damascus?

Then, suffering from food poisoning, blind and delusional.....he made some statements he was just too stubborn to take back.

So, he kept on going, even though he grew cynical and mean-spirited.....and often even confused and contradictory in his "Radical Grace" theology.

He is so different from Jesus that it appears he was trying to start his own cult...........and maybe he was.

Jesus treated women as equals.......Paul treated them as inferiors (well, Paul treated EVERYONE as inferior, but women were MORE inferior).

I suppose everyone here knows that the only one who ever referred to Paul as an apostle was........Paul.

His greatest and most imaginative praises are written only by...........his own disciple, Luke.

He took up collections often. Nobody DARED to keep track of what he kept for himself or IF he ever delivered any of the money to anyone.

Maybe he built up quite a fortune over the years.

We lose track of him as he lives in his own house in Rome......where did he go?

Did he take the money and disappear?

Ah yes, Paul is a mysterious guy and his letters, I think, are not worth the trouble it takes to reconcile all the confusion.

QuestForTruth · Dec 25, 2004

I have some issues with some of the teachings of Paul, It seems almost everytime I have a problem talking with a christian it is due to something from Paul. Interestingly enough when I was a little boy and first learned about Jesus I was taught to read the bible, a KJV red letter edition, when I was told the red letters were what Jesus said I read the red letters and skipped everything else, I figured why pay any attention to the preachers(Paul was a preacher) when I could listen directly to Jesus by reading the red letters. I would look for sections that had lots of red letters and read them. Having done so many times and remembering much of it I have a problem reading some of Pauls writtings because to me they do seem to contradict what I have already came to accept as the truth.

Dukey · Dec 26, 2004

cweb255 said:
What does Paul really do for individual Christians? I mean, I can see his purpose in the early church, but his obvious lack of information on Jesus discredits our entire religion. People ask "Are you Christian, or are you Paulian?" I firmly stand by the words of the Jesus, not the words of some man who dreamt he met the saviour.

paul brought christianity to the gentiles

Foon Nerfdahl · Dec 26, 2004

Dukey, I think the point being made is that Paul brought PAULIANITY to the gentiles......not Christianity.

jgarden · Dec 26, 2004

cweb255 said:
What does Paul really do for individual Christians? I mean, I can see his purpose in the early church, but his obvious lack of information on Jesus discredits our entire religion. People ask "Are you Christian, or are you Paulian?" I firmly stand by the words of the Jesus, not the words of some man who dreamt he met the saviour.

Other than being Christianity's greatest missionary, theologian, letter writer/NT contributor, apostle, martyr and advocate for Gentile Christians, what was his purpose in the early Church? What more could one expect?

PastorFreud · Dec 26, 2004

I'm not surprised that so many are confused by Paul, but I don't think it is necessary to completely disregard him. The main problem is that we lack the context of his writings, and his writings are all letters. Paul was, in some cases, responding to a letter from the church and writing his reply. We don't know what they said. We can't tell when he is quoting them and then answering the quote. It would be like going through some of these posts and trying to make sense of them if we removed the quote boxes. What they said is mixed in with what the poster is now saying. Or, in the case of some who respond without quoting, if you don't read the post ahead you can't understand sometimes.

One clear example of this is in Corinthians where Paul says "now about the things you wrote: It is good for a man not to touch a woman. ...." This would be the more likely punctuation for the sentence, but Greek doesn't have capitals and punctuation like our modern languages. It's easy to get confused.

In the same vein, the religious climate of the time is important. Paul was battling several competing religions, and sometimes his wording is a deliberate distortion of some principle that this religion was teaching in a effort to bring correction.

In short, reading Paul could leave you quite confused. Studying Paul resolves many of the supposed contradictions and problems. For me, it has resolved all of the ones I care about. And I find this to be true with the whole bible. Reading the text and thinking you know what the author was trying to convey to his audience simply because you have an English translation and know the current meanings of these words is extremely dangerous. I think that we are called to study to show ourselves approved, and this involves more than surface level reading.

Foon Nerfdahl · Dec 26, 2004

Let us look at Paul objectively.

Paul's "gospel" is one of defeat. Paul says he tries and tries, but he just keeps on sinning (apparently constantly). Poor sap is obsessed with sin and sees it behind every bush......for himself and others. He thinks he's chained to a body of death. He has a thorn in his side, he says.

Thorn in his brain, maybe.

Paul's "gospel" is sort of pathetic.

Jesus, on the other hand, is exceedingly positive. He rather calmly tells people not to sin.

Paul would have a cat if he heard that one.

See the difference here?

Zacchaeus says, "I have given half of what I own to the poor and made amends to those I have cheated."

Jesus responds: "This man is going to heaven."

Jesus told the woman caught in adultery, "Go now and leave your life of sin."

Paul would get a severe cramp in the side on hearing that one.

Jesus said, "If the son sets you free (from sin, in context) then you shall be free indeed."

John wrote,

NO one who is born of God will continue to sin, because God's seed remains in him; he cannot go on sinning, because he has been born of God. 10This is how we know who the children of God are and who the children of the devil are: Anyone who does not do what is right is not a child of God; nor is anyone who does not love his brother.

Paul, however, says..........

17As it is, it is no longer I myself who do it, but it is sin living in me. 18I know that nothing good lives in me, that is, in my sinful nature. For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out.

Paul is in direct opposition to Jesus and John (and everybody) on sin......and to make it worse--Paul invented a theology of Radical Grace to cover his bizarre stance on sin.

What Paul's writings do is encourage people to think they have no choice but to sin.......but hey.....Paul says that's ok because we have the Radical Grace theology to cover us.

Unfortunately, what Paul wrote is simply wrong.

Paul's words are not confusing.

They are wrong.

PastorFreud · Dec 26, 2004

And Foon, everything you have written takes Paul's words on their English meaning at face value. If you read it that way, even Jesus contradicts himself as well as lots of contradictions in the rest of the Bible.

Fat · Dec 26, 2004

cweb255 said:
What does Paul really do for individual Christians? I mean, I can see his purpose in the early church, but his obvious lack of information on Jesus discredits our entire religion. People ask "Are you Christian, or are you Paulian?" I firmly stand by the words of the Jesus, not the words of some man who dreamt he met the saviour.

Acts was not written by Paul.

Acts 9:11*"Get up and go to the street called Straight," the Lord said to him, "to the house of Judas, and ask for a man from Tarsus named Saul, since he is praying there. 12*In a vision he has seen a man named Ananias coming in and placing his hands on him so he may regain his sight." 13 "Lord," Ananias answered, "I have heard from many people about this man, how much harm he has done to Your saints in Jerusalem. 14*And he has authority here from the chief priests to arrest all who call on Your name."15*But the Lord said to him, "Go! For this man is My chosen instrument to carry My name before Gentiles, kings, and the sons of Israel. 16*I will certainly show him how much he must suffer for My name!"

Fat

Foon Nerfdahl · Dec 27, 2004

Correct, Fat.

Acts was not written by Paul--it was written by Paul's disciple, Luke.

Anything said about Paul in Acts has to be taken with a huge grain of salt.

Foon Nerfdahl · Dec 27, 2004

PastorFreud said:
And Foon, everything you have written takes Paul's words on their English meaning at face value. If you read it that way, even Jesus contradicts himself as well as lots of contradictions in the rest of the Bible.

Of course, there are many contradictions in the Bible, that is not in question.

But Paul's whole theology disagrees with Jesus and the rest of the Bible.

The sooner we admit Paul was simply wrong, the sooner we can make progress in understanding the Bible.

MANY of us have.

searchingforanswers1 · Dec 27, 2004

Foon Nerfdahl said:
Let us look at Paul objectively.

Paul's "gospel" is one of defeat. Paul says he tries and tries, but he just keeps on sinning (apparently constantly). Poor sap is obsessed with sin and sees it behind every bush......for himself and others. He thinks he's chained to a body of death. He has a thorn in his side, he says.

Thorn in his brain, maybe.

Paul's "gospel" is sort of pathetic.

Jesus, on the other hand, is exceedingly positive. He rather calmly tells people not to sin.

Paul would have a cat if he heard that one.

See the difference here?

Zacchaeus says, "I have given half of what I own to the poor and made amends to those I have cheated."

Jesus responds: "This man is going to heaven."

Jesus told the woman caught in adultery, "Go now and leave your life of sin."

Paul would get a severe cramp in the side on hearing that one.

Jesus said, "If the son sets you free (from sin, in context) then you shall be free indeed."

John wrote,
Paul, however, says..........
Paul is in direct opposition to Jesus and John (and everybody) on sin......and to make it worse--Paul invented a theology of Radical Grace to cover his bizarre stance on sin.

What Paul's writings do is encourage people to think they have no choice but to sin.......but hey.....Paul says that's ok because we have the Radical Grace theology to cover us.

Unfortunately, what Paul wrote is simply wrong.

Paul's words are not confusing.

They are wrong.

Some speculate Pauls attitude can be explained in another way:
http://www.beliefnet.com/story/142/story_14299_2.html

elman · Dec 27, 2004

Foon Nerfdahl said:
Of course, there are many contradictions in the Bible, that is not in question.

But Paul's whole theology disagrees with Jesus and the rest of the Bible.

The sooner we admit Paul was simply wrong, the sooner we can make progress in understanding the Bible.

MANY of us have.

You mean where Paul says the only thing that counts is faith working itself out in love or 1 Cor 13 where the most important thing is love or Rom 14 where it is not about eating and drinking but about loving one another? Is this what is in disagreement with Jesus?

Striking Out Paul

Gnostic Christian

Active Member

Active Member

Active Member

loves "SO'S YER MOM!! posts!

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Foon Nerfdahl

Guest

Active Member

Dukey

Guest

Foon Nerfdahl

Guest

Senior Veteran

Lie back on the couch.

Foon Nerfdahl

Guest

Lie back on the couch.

Active Member

Foon Nerfdahl

Guest

Foon Nerfdahl

Guest

Well-Known Member

elman

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency