what's with this paul guy? (sincere)

[Amandine]

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!

 

[jnhofzinser]

The way the "Paul guy" explains himself is "as an apostle to the gentiles." The Jewish culture in the first century was considerably disconnected with the popular "Roman" (i.e., Greek-speaking Roman) culture. Paul was a bridge between those cultures. And, considering that our culture has a greater affinity to the "Roman", it is no surprise that modern churches put plenty of stock in Paul's writings.

Paul also had the vision to plant churches throughout the world and write letters to those churches. Without these revolutionary ideas, it is unlikely that the church would have survived Titus' visit to Palestine in 70CE.

 

[Faith In God]

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..

Luke wrote more of the new testament than Paul.

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.

And even they accepted him as a disciple of Christ.

Especially since he had some arguments with the group at Jerusalem, I don't see why we can trust him sooo much.

Stephen argued and died at Jerusalem. Christians aren't popular when they speak the truth. We can trust him because the early apostles trusted him, and that is as good as it gets. They related Paul's teachings to "other Scriptures".

 

[Jinn_Ku]

Paul knew how to write. It was not a common skill in those times, and I would wager few fishermen were skilled with a quill.

 

[Amandine]

Luke wrote more of the new testament than Paul.

And he wasn't an original disciple either. He was a companion of Paul.

And even they accepted him as a disciple of Christ.

Who? The original twelve? I have yet to find definitive early sources.

Stephen argued and died at Jerusalem. Christians aren't popular when they speak the truth.

I mean, like the council and the church at Jerusalem... Paul mentions having a disagreement with Peter and James... isn't that a little odd?

We can trust him because the early apostles trusted him, and that is as good as it gets. They related Paul's teachings to "other Scriptures".

Which apostles said this?

 

[sandman]

II Peter 1:20 &21

Knowing this first, that no prophecy (forth or foretelling) of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
21: For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

II Timothy 3:16

All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

Galatians 1:11 & 12

But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man.
12: For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.



I guess it comes down to what we believe of the written Word. Do we believe it was just Paul, John, Luke, etc….. or is this truly given by inspiration of God. I for one choose the latter. If I thought for a moment this was just written by man, as great as these guys were you could color me gone….. With the years of research I have done I am convinced beyond a shadow of a doubt that no man no matter how smart they were could have put together the written Word that we have.

The intricacy and the accuracy of this never cease to amaze me; not only in syntax but in every way conceivable this Word of God is perfect. It fits together with such precision and it works with a mathematical exactness. …..40 writers one author …it’s got to be God.

How we view what is written will determine how far we go with God.

People of great renowned have hammered away at Gods word with disbelief and criticism for years; they are all gone, the Word still stands ….. and I stand with it.

 

[Amandine]

I guess it comes down to what we believe of the written Word. Do we believe it was just Paul, John, Luke, etc….. or is this truly given by inspiration of God. I for one choose the latter. If I thought for a moment this was just written by man, as great as these guys were you could color me gone….. With the years of research I have done I am convinced beyond a shadow of a doubt that no man no matter how smart they were could have put together the written Word that we have.

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?

 

[Neeter]

The Lord uses who He will do deliver His Word.. What a better witness than Paul? I believe the Lord used Paul for a example. Christ saved Paul after everything he did, so you can know, Christ will save anyone no matter what they have done, if you accept Him as your Lord and Savior.


Love in Christ,
Nita

 

[Scholar in training]

Who? The original twelve? I have yet to find definitive early sources.

Peter wrote well of Paul in one of his letters:

2 Peter 3:15-16
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. He 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.

I mean, like the council and the church at Jerusalem... Paul mentions having a disagreement with Peter and James... isn't that a little odd?

Are you referring to the incident in Galatians 2? Why would it be odd for them to disagree over something like that? Paul was pointing out Peter's hypocricy in living like a Gentile while the Hebrew Christians were away, but then siding with the Hebrew Christians when they were present.

 

[mannysee]

Hi Amandine,

sincere questions. While i am not from an apostolic church......a couple of points:-
1. reading through the NT, you will come across arguments between the apostles themselves, as well as Christ himself arguing with the apostles. Who is free from arguments in life?
2. as previous posts have mentioned, the theology in scripture comes from God himself working through men. Does he have the right to work through whom he desires?
3. we, in Christ, do not trust in men, but in God's promises which are revealed in the scriptures.

 

[heron]

I think you have a very valid question, especially since this was the man who persecuted Christians so vehemently. (Acts 9:2) When he first believed in Jesus, the Christians didn't trust him either.

Jinn_Ku mentioned that he knew how to write. He was also trained in Scriptures, probably bringing more insights into the Messiah's fulfillment of prophecy than the disciples could have. And he had connections with the high priest.

Besides being a confident and daring personality type, I think that a lot of people trusted him for his knowledge and ability to influence people of many levels.

This excerpt is from Easton's Bible Dictionary:

"Tarsus was also the seat of a famous university, higher in reputation even than the universities of Athens and Alexandria, the only others that then existed. Here Saul was born, and here he spent his youth, doubtless enjoying the best education his native city could afford. His father was of the straitest sect of the Jews, a Pharisee, of the tribe of Benjamin, of pure and unmixed Jewish blood (Acts 23:6; Phil. 3:5)."
http://www.biblegateway.com/resources/dictionaries/dict_meaning.php?source=1&wid=T0002871

"Saul was sent, when about thirteen years of age probably, to the great Jewish school of sacred learning at Jerusalem as a student of the law. Here he became a pupil of the celebrated rabbi Gamaliel, and here he spent many years in an elaborate study of the Scriptures and of the many questions concerning them with which the rabbis exercised themselves. During these years of diligent study he lived "in all good conscience," unstained by the vices of that great city."​

 

[MbiaJc]

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!

What the devil likes to do with Christians today is the same thing he did with Eve. Plant the little seed of doubt. "Yeah just what did God say". He is doing this with a lot of Christians today with Paul writings. "Is Paul writtings really authorative or are they just Pauls openions"? All he hast to do is put that little seed of doubt there.

 

[Faith In God]

No one answered for me, so I'll fend.

And he wasn't an original disciple either. He was a companion of Paul.

He researched it. And Paul said all Scripture up to that point was God-inspired. Now let's get back to Paul to make this work...

Who? The original twelve? I have yet to find definitive early sources.

[bible]Acts 9:26-30[/bible]Look especially from 27 on.

I mean, like the council and the church at Jerusalem... Paul mentions having a disagreement with Peter and James... isn't that a little odd?

Addressed.

Which apostles said this?

Peter.[bible]2 Peter 3:15-16[/bible] "other Scriptures", as my version says it.

Paul's word is as good as the other apostles. Repent for the Kingdom of heaven is near. http://www.prophecycode.com/meeting-list.asp If you don't believe it, go there. Prophecy seminars that are excellent.

 

[Neeter]

What the devil likes to do with Christians today is the same thing he did with Eve. Plant the little seed of doubt. "Yeah just what did God say". He is doing this with a lot of Christians today with Paul writings. "Is Paul writtings really authorative or are they just Pauls openions"? All he hast to do is put that little seed of doubt there.

​

It is amazing how a tiny little seed can make one question their salvation or weather the Word of God is true. That is why we must stay planted in His Word and turn to Him to strengthen us in Him...

Love in Christ,
Nita

 

[sandman]

What is your research?

My research involves seeing how the word of God fits. So many people give their interpretation of scripture mixed with philosophy, with world events, with experience, with presuppositions or whatever blows their skirt up; I believe that the Bible interprets itself and that is the direction of my research ….to see how

Approaching the Word of God from the viewpoint that, as God is perfect so must also be his Word (in the original God breathed form) for God has magnified His Word above all his name. Psalms 138:2 I will worship toward thy holy temple, and praise thy name for thy lovingkindness and for thy truth: for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name.

So it’s not a matter of interpreting Gods Word, it’s a matter of seeing how it interprets itself; how it fits, how it works …. and the intricate beauty of how it all meshes together. What this entails for me is the study of Eastern culture in biblical times, Orientalisms, Idioms, Figures of Speech (over 212 types used in the bible) and Numerics which can be divided up into two levels: the first is the significance of numbers used in the bible, the second is the numerical value and it’s significance to words, phrases, etc. as the Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic letters have a numerical value to each; this is not something I do all the time, but when time permits.

The majority of my study is basic research into the Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek words to get a better understanding of what was originally meant as opposed to how it was translated into the English language. To give you an example:

In reading the Bible you come across the word receive in English, which in our thinking generates the conception of getting something. Now this word receive may have been translated from the word lambano which is to receive into manifestation {objectivly} or it may have been translated from the word dechomai which is merely just to receive it {subjectively} both of these words are translated into our English word receive but may have come from two different Greek words, each with a significant difference. A good comparison is that of a cell phone. If I give you a cell phone and you receive it from me but do nothing with it you received it dechomai {subjectively} but if you receive it and use it for it’s intended purpose you have received it lambano {objectivly} into manifestation.

There are basic principles and keys as to how the bible interprets itself. I won’t take the time to go through them right now, but if your interested let me know I would be happy to post them.

The problem with people interpreting the Bible is as I mentioned above. What one verse can mean to you, might mean something totally different to me; one of us could be right but for sure one of us is going to be wrong. When God states in his Word in I Corinthians 1:10 Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment. If everyone has an interpretation, then as is evident by the multiple denominations today, we will not all be speaking the same thing.

The books of Timothy are written to the leadership in the church, the first century as well as today. God exhorts those leaders in II Timothy 2:15. Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. This verse does not say to interpret the word of truth, but to rightly divide. Everybody who reads the Word divides it….. the question is; is it rightly divided. Because if there is a right way to divide it, most certainly there are wrong ways to do it also. The word rightly divide is translated from the one Greek word orthotomounta. orthos means “perfectly right” or “perfectly straight” temno means “to cut”. This word orthotomounta in the KJV literally means “a perfectly right cutting” Its intricate nuance of meaning is that there is only one way to rightly cut the Word all other ways are wrong. If we allow the Bible to interpret itself and if the leaders {pastors teachers theologians etc.} take the time to rightly divide the Word with the help of the spirit of truth John16:13a Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth… then we will all be speaking the same things as I Corinthians 1:10 states.

I guess that is a long answer to a short question, I apologize, I guess I felt the need to qualify my answer.

 

[Amandine]

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. One thing that is helpful is looking at the apostolic line in Antioch...It goes from Peter to..Eu something who has historical reference, then to Eusebius(?) who has authentic writings so..that's helpful

 

[andypnash]

Hi Amandine,

Not sure how much of this is relevant, but hopefully some will help. I am a theology student at Bristol University (UK), and studying theology as a Christian, in a predominantly non-Christian context.

You are right, in that some academics do dispute the author of some of Paul's letters, however, there is strong evidence to support Paul as the writer of each one that Christians say were written by Paul. The style of writing is similar in each of them, and also the format of the letters are the same - they all have a similar structure. The same can be said of the other apostolic letters - they can all be shown to be written by the relevant people.

As to the incident in Galatians 2, I would say that quite often there are differences in opinions in some doctrinal issues within the church (for example the differences on views on homosexuality in the church at the moment), however if you read the first half of the chapter Paul says that James, Peter and John had given him 'the right hand of fellowship' and agree that he should go and preach to the Gentiles. Also there are plenty of other places where Paul is given approval by the other apostles.

Surely having Paul as an outsider from the original twelve also adds more credibility to the NT as if it was all by the twelve one could claim it was just twelve nutters - instead through the work God does through Paul, who had previously killed Christians, we can see the amazing grace that is available to each one of us through the death of Jesus on the cross.

Not sure if that answers your question, if not let me know and I will see what else I can say!!

God bless

Andy Nash

 

[Amandine]

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.

 

[andypnash]

How about Matthew's gospel, or John's gospel, Or John's letters?

 

[Reformationist]

Luke wrote more of the new testament than Paul.

No he didn't.

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