what's with this paul guy? (sincere)

Scholar in training · Jul 11, 2005

Reformationist said:
No he didn't.

How many books did Luke write? Isn't Paul the author of 13 books?

I think he means more as far as content is concerned. Paul wrote many epistles, but they were usually short. Paul did play a larger role in the early church than Luke did, though.

Reformationist · Jul 11, 2005

Scholar in training said:
I think he means more as far as content is concerned. Paul wrote many epistles, but they were usually short.

Ah. I see. Thank you for clearing that up.

Paul did play a larger role in the early church than Luke did, though.

Absolutely, though Luke's writings are essential to a well rounded faith.

God bless

Sketcher · Jul 11, 2005

Amandine said:
Most responses are pretty good. I will say that all the references to II Peter I still question, b/c most scholarship says it wasn't written by him and is actually a late work.

The reason for that discrepancy is that Silas helped Peter write his first letter (1 Peter 5:12). Peter was just an uneducated fisherman, and Silas taking dictation from Peter would have doubtless been an enormous help. 2 Peter is said to have been written only by Peter himself, as the Greek in that one is much less sophisticated and is consitent with Peter's uneducated background. This makes sense because he was at death's door and may have written it in prison. He may not have had the luxury of visitors at this time, as Nero was really cracking down on believers. Either fear or Roman authority would have hindered them.

Born2Fly · Jul 12, 2005

Amandine said:
I wasn't questioning the authenticity of Paul's writings, I was doing so for one attributed to Peter. I'm fairly aware of how authentic his writings are, the question is, why used so much? I'd feel a little more secure in this whole thing if one of the Twelve had written something that we know is real.

Could explain that a little more clearly? I Think I have an answer, but I want to make sure I'm answering the wright thing.

JimB · Jul 12, 2005

The book of Acts in the New Testament gives a lot of space to Paul more than half the book. Apparently, the author, Luke (who, admittedly, was mentored by Paul) felt he deserved the space. And it is apparent that the Twelve Apostles accepted his apostleship (see Acts 15 and 2 Peter 3.15).

His mission was to non-Christian Gentiles and he elected, he would say by divine command, to adapt the Gospel to them less legalism, more grace. Being a Gentile, myself, who has no interest in becoming a circumcised (ouch!) Jew or observing their holidays and ordinances, I am grateful that there was a Paul as, apparently, are many others. Not too long ago, Newsweek took a readers poll (secular, Christian, non-Christian readers) to find out who they felt the 100 most important people in history were. The list became a book and the can be found at this link - http://www.adherents.com/adh_influ.html. The Apostle Paul ranked number 6 above Moses, Galileo, Einstein, Aristotle, among others.

My history instructor at the University of Houston once told the class that the most significant event in the history of western civilization was Pauls decision to take the Christianity into Europe (see Acts 16.9-11). Can you imagine what civilization would be today if that event had not happened. It staggers the imagination.

~Jim

Amandine · Jul 12, 2005

Again I know WHY Paul is influential and I agree. I just don't get it... why couldn't Jesus mention this plan about gentiles right up front? Why is everything filtered through one person in such a way? It seems too awkward to be divine, and to outsiders even looks fishy.

JimB · Jul 12, 2005

Amandine said:
Again I know WHY Paul is influential and I agree. I just don't get it... why couldn't Jesus mention this plan about gentiles right up front? Why is everything filtered through one person in such a way? It seems too awkward to be divine, and to outsiders even looks fishy.

Jesus did say his gospel was for Gentiles. He said whosoever will in John 3.16. That includes Gentiles and Jews, everybody. Jesus took his gospel to Syro-Phoenicia (Matthew 15.21-28) and Samaria (John 4) and offered it to the women there. While his mission was primarily to Jews (as Messiah) and his offer of the kingdom was first to them (this is a lot of theology you probably do not want to hear), it was understood that if Israel rejected him, there was an auxiliary plan. Think Gentiles.

He used Gentiles as heroes in his parables (the Good Samaritan).

He once said, The men of Nineveh (Gentiles) will arise at the judgment with this generation and condemn it; for they repented at the preaching of Jonah, and behold, something greater than Jonah is here in Matthew 12.21. See also Matthew 11.21-24; 10.15.

And theres more:

The Gospel accounts identify this servant as Jesus in unmistakable terms (Matthew 12:15-21). After Jesus has spoken to His disciples about His own suffering and the greatness of service, He concludes:

"For the son of Man (Jesus) also came not to be served but to serve, and to give His life as a ransom for many." (Mark 10:45)

He dies

not for the nation only, but to gather into one the children of God who are scattered abroad. (John 11:52; se also 1 John 2:2)

It is to these sheep that Jesus refers when He says:

And I have other sheep, that are not of this fold; I must bring them also, and they will heed my voice. So there shall be one flock, one shepherd. (John 10:16)

Jesus, the Son of Man, will return as king to judge all nations:

"When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit on his glorious throne. Before him will be gathered all the nations, and he will separate them one from another as the shepherd separates the sheep from the goats." (Matthew 25:31,32)

"I tell you, many will come from east and west and sit at table with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven, while the sons of the kingdom will be thrown into the outer darkness; there men will weep and gnash teeth." (Matthew 8:11,12)

Jesus' concern for the Gentiles, apart from immediate confrontation with them, is indicated in the following passage:

He entered the temple and began to drive out those who sold and those who bought in the temple, and he overturned the tables of the money-changers and the seats of those who sold pigeons; and he would not allow any one to carry anything through the temple. And he taught, and said to them, "Is it not written, 'My house shall be called a house of prayer for all the nations?' But you have made it a den of robbers." (Mark 11:15-17)

Jesus is disturbed by the business transacted in the Temple. In fact it is transacted in the outer court of the Temple, the first part of the Temple into which anyone coming into the Temple had first to enter. Beyond the outer court Jews alone can proceed. Yet precisely this outer court is reserved for the Gentiles to worship God.

By cleansing the Temple Jesus acts more for Gentile worship of God in peace than against the transaction of business by various vendors, as His quotation from the Old Testament suggests. Moreover this quotation from the prophets Isaiah (56:7) and Jeremiah (7:11) provides him with authority to act. His action takes on greater significance when He refers to Himself as the Temple which the Jews will destroy and which He will raise again in three days, or when He states that He is greater than the Temple. (John 2:19-22; Matthew 12:6)

It is clear that Jesus limits His ministry and that of His disciples, as long as He was on earth, to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. At the same time His ministry has eternal significance for the Gentiles also. Can these two conclusions be reconciled?

Apparently!

"All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations...." (Matthew 28:18,19)

Peter observes this sequence when he addresses the Jews shortly after Jesus' ascension:

"You are the sons of the prophets and of the covenant which God gave to your fathers, saying to Abraham, 'And in your posterity shall all the families of the earth be blessed.' God, having raised up his servant, sent him to you first, to bless you in turning every one of you from your wickedness." (Acts 3:25,26)

Soon after, Paul and Barnabas echo only what Peter has indicated about this sequence:

"It was necessary that the word of God should be spoken first to you. Since you thrust it from you, and judge yourselves unworthy of eternal life, behold, we turn to the Gentiles. For so the Lord has commanded us, saying,

'I have set you to be a light for the Gentiles,
that you may bring salvation to the uttermost parts of the earth.'" (Acts 13:46,47)

Thus also the Letter to the Romans reads:

For I am not ashamed of the gospel: it is the power of God for salvation to every one who has faith, to the Jew first and also to the Greek (Gentile). (1:16; cf. 2:9,10)

This sequence, first to the Jew and then to the Gentile, is followed consistently by the early Church, as reported in the Book of Acts. No doubt, members of the early Church, composed of sons and daughters of Abraham, disputed among themselves about the position of the Gentiles in this new community. Yet the dispute focused more on the conditions to be laid upon convert Gentiles (e.g., should they be circumcised?) than on the need to witness to them. Indeed the Book of Acts exhibits a vigorous Christian ministry among Samaritans and Gentiles. As this ministry antedates the conversion of St. Paul, it is clear (to me) that St. Paul did not initiate Christian mission among Gentiles, however much he contributed to it.

~Jim

skepticismskeptic · Jul 13, 2005

Amandine said:
This is a major issue I've had for a long time and one of my biggest obstacles to the Christian message... Why so much Paul? All of the oldest canonical writings and theology come from him. I would feel a little bit better if Peter or James had added a little more meat to the authentic writings stew..
I mean, he wasn't an original apostle while Jesus was on the earth, and all of his insights seem to be from his vision of Jesus, with hardly any matchup to what the 12 experienced. Especially since he had some arguments with the group at Jerusalem, I don't see why we can trust him sooo much. Any help here? Especially all of you from apostolic churches, INPUT!

Hello Amandine,

One key question one should consider is why should Paul not be trusted?

Pauls sincere belief in what Paul was claiming is strongly supported by multiple attestations. First, Clement of Rome, one of the earliest Church Fathers, testifies to Pauls willingness to suffer for and die for his claims. Clement of Rome mentioned the martyrdoms of both Paul and Peter in 1 Clement 5:2-7:

Because of jealousy and envy the greatest and most upright pillars were persecuted, and they struggled in the contest even to death. We should set before our eyes the good apostles. There is Peter, who because of unjust jealously bore up under hardships not just once or twice, but many times; and having thus borne his witness he went to the place of glory that he deserved. Because of jealousy and strife Paul pointed the way to the prize for endurance. Seven times he bore chains; he was sent into exile and stoned; he served as a herald in both the East and the West; and he received the noble reputation for his faith. He taught righteousness to the whole world, and came to the limits of the West, bearing his witness before the rulers. And so he was set free from this world and transported up to the holy place, having become the greatest example of endurance. 1.

There are three crucial points to observe in this passage: 1. Clement of Rome associated Paul with Peter and gave both Peter and Paul great respect. 2. Paul received a noble reputation. 3. Paul was willing to suffer and die for his claims.

Second, Paul also recorded the trials and hardships he faced for what he proclaimed:

Are they ministers of Christ? I am talking like a madman-I am a better one: with far greater labors, far more imprisonments, with countless floggings, and often near death. Five times I have received from the Jews the forty lashes minus one. Three times I was beaten with rods. Once I received a stoning. Three times I was shipwrecked; for a night and a day I was adrift at sea; on frequent journeys, in danger from rivers, danger from bandits, danger from my own people, danger from Gentiles, danger in the city, danger in the wilderness, danger at sea, danger from false brothers and sisters, in toil and hardship, through many a sleepless night, hungry and thirsty, often without food, cold and naked. And, besides other things, I am under daily pressure because of my anxiety for all the churches. 2.

Thus, one can establish that Paul sincerely believed that he believed he was teaching the truth.

In terms of Paul teaching the same things as and being accepted by the other apostles:

Paul wrote the following in 1 Corinthians 15:11: Whether then it was I or they, so we proclaim and so you have come to believe.

Paul also wrote the following in Galatians 2:2:

I went up in response to a revelation. Then I laid before them (though only in a private meeting with the acknowledged leaders) the gospel that I proclaim among the Gentiles, in order to make sure that I was not running, or had not run, in vain.

Paul later wrote the following in Galatians 2:6-9:

And from those who were supposed to be acknowledged leaders (what they actually were makes no difference to me; God shows no partiality)-those leaders contributed nothing to me. On the contrary, when they saw that I had been entrusted with the gospel for the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been entrusted with the gospel for the uncircumcised, (for he who worked through Peter making him an apostle to the circumcised also worked through me in sending me to the Gentiles), and when James and Cephas and John, who were acknowledged pillars, recognized the grace that had been given to me, they gave to Barnabas and me the right hand of fellowship, agreeing that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised (emphasis added).

First, notice that Paul conferred with the acknowledged leaders.

Second, notice that those leaders contributed nothing to him. In fact, Paul wrote that the acknowledged leaders gave Paul and Barnabas, one of Pauls companions the right hand of fellowship.

Third, notice that both Peter and James were among the acknowledged leaders who gave Paul the right hand of fellowship. Therefore, Paul, Peter, and James both believed the same key elements.

Thus, New Testament scholars are capable to tracing Pauls gospel back to the original apostles themselves, and demonstrate they were in agreement.

Another interesting point to ponder is that if Paul did obtain all of his information from his visionary encounters with what Paul deemed the risen Jesus is the fact that Paul obtained the same information as the other apostles independently of them. As far as I know no naturalistic theory has been proposed to account for how Paul and the acknowledged leaders managed to develop identical core beliefs independently of each other.

I hope my comments above will be helpful to you, and if you would like to persue this issue or any other issue further, feel free to send me a personal message.

Kindest regards,

skepticismskeptic

1. Bart D. Ehrman, Lost Scriptures: Books that Did Not Make It into the New Testament (New York, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003), 170.

2. 2 Corinthians 11:23-28. NRSV.

Knowledge3 · Jul 13, 2005

Amandine said:
Again I know WHY Paul is influential and I agree. I just don't get it... why couldn't Jesus mention this plan about gentiles right up front? Why is everything filtered through one person in such a way? It seems too awkward to be divine, and to outsiders even looks fishy.

In my shoes, I certainly believe that it is possible to understand God when you receive a vision from Jesus Christ.That kind of thing is usually a permanent and life transforming event. My personality is like Paul's in several ways, so when I read them, I can relate.

Galatians 1:12
For I neither received it from man, nor was I taught it, but it came through the revelation of Jesus Christ.

Knowledge3 · Jul 13, 2005

Amandine said:
This is a major issue I've had for a long time and one of my biggest obstacles to the Christian message... Why so much Paul? All of the oldest canonical writings and theology come from him. I would feel a little bit better if Peter or James had added a little more meat to the authentic writings stew..
I mean, he wasn't an original apostle while Jesus was on the earth, and all of his insights seem to be from his vision of Jesus, with hardly any matchup to what the 12 experienced. Especially since he had some arguments with the group at Jerusalem, I don't see why we can trust him sooo much. Any help here? Especially all of you from apostolic churches, INPUT!

I understand where you are coming from.

Paul was a prolific writer, so it is likely that he carried around bundles of papers and wrote his accounts about Jesus Christ in a careful and articulate manner. If you write letters to someone, how will someone know who wrote the letter without signing your name to it?

It is also possible to reason that the other disciples may have conferred to Paul and helped them convey thier own messages through his own writing. To have the consent of actual disciples of Jesus himself, you would have be full of the Holy Spirit, which is the agent for uniform agreement between believers.

ALIOSIAS · Jul 13, 2005

Remember the disciples response to the crucifiction of Jesus:

Simon Peter saith unto the, I go a fishing. They say unto him, We also go with thee. They say unto him, We also go with thee. They went forth, and entered into a ship immediately; and that night they caught nothing.

The disciples did not have a clue about they what they were to do with the Gospel. It wasn't until their filling with the Holy Spirit (Acts Chapter 2) that they had the devine guidance and power to preach the gospel.
So it was with Paul who was persecuting Christians. Once he saw Jesus and got the infilling of the Holy Spirit he too had the guidance and power to preach the Lord Jesus Christ to the unsaved world.
It was the Holy Spirit that drove the disciples and Paul; not their own intellect and reasoning. So one cannot apply intellect and reasoning to what they did and how they did it.
You may not agree with what Paul said or preached but it was the Holy Spirit and not him.

Faith In God · Jul 14, 2005

Amandine said:
Again I know WHY Paul is influential and I agree. I just don't get it... why couldn't Jesus mention this plan about gentiles right up front?

Because God made a covenant with His own people. The gospel was to go first to the Jews, then the Gentiles.

Why is everything filtered through one person in such a way? It seems too awkward to be divine, and to outsiders even looks fishy.

?? It's not all filtered through one person. Peter himself said that he was shown that the gospel was meant for the Gentiles as well.

bethdinsmore · Jul 14, 2005

[Portions of QUOTE=Amandine]Well I guess I don't know what to believe, as I am not a Christian. I thought maybe looking deeply at my question would give me a true witness from these early followers of Jesus and see that their beliefs were from God. What is your research?[/QUOTE]

You've gotten some good answers. I think your issue concerns the canonicity of Scripture - why certains books and writers were chosen to be included in the Bible. The research is:
www.probe.org/content/view/961/77/
www.rbc.org/questions/answer.php
www.reformed.org/bible/warfield_canon.html
or the book "More Evidence that demands a verdict" by McDowell

Hope these help. Aloha in Jesus

what's with this paul guy? (sincere)

sine ira et studio

Non nobis domine sed tuo nomine da gloriam

Born Imperishable

Active Member

Legend

Senior Member

Legend

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Regular Member

A little FIG is all we need...

Veteran

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency