Would Christianity be different without St Paul?

[Lost4words]

St Paul then, unravels the Gospels, the teachings of Jesus In a way that we all can understand?

 

[SolomonVII]

Paul is a teacher. Not just a disciple. Sometimes when I read the Bible, I find joy in reading Paul's letter than even Jesus' teaching. (Sincerely).
Let's be truthful here, the God inspired word of God needs people to pass it across and Paul was a valued asset.
But it never meant that no other person could do it so perfectly

I do appreciate your post and found much to agree with in it.
A question that it raises for me though is whether any other person could do what St Paul did? For sure it is possible for God to raise an army out of rocks, but another point of view might wonder how much the world would be different is any particular individual did not exist at a specific time and place?
Every Christmas, we are presented with that question with the fictional account of Its a Wonderful Life.

Created in the image of Christ, we are the hands and heart of God in this world today. We are all important and have been created for the purpose of furthering along God's plan. Without us living out our role in the Divine Plan, the world ends up in a very different place. That would be as true for St Paul as it is for each and every one of us.

 

[hedrick]

Then how can you trust the men who wrote the gospels that that was even what Jesus did? Your entire premise of follow Jesus falls flat if the words of scripture are not God inspired.

That's silly. We make all kinds of important decisions based on evidence that isn't inerrant. People are used to evaluating less than perfect evidence. Inerrancy replaces the problem of deciding what we know about Jesus with the problem of proving inerrancy. There's a lot better evidence for Jesus than there is for inerrrancy.

 

[Lost4words]

Anybody can say why should we believe the Bible are the words of God. Its all about faith. True, undying faith, love and belief in God.

 

[Doug Melven]

The error with your reasoning is that Jesus says that if you don't bear fruit you will be cut off the vine... So unless you believe that you can be saved without being attached to the vine, you should agree with what I'm saying.

If you are a disciple you are saved, if you aren't a disciple you aren't saved. It's pretty obvious.

Luke 13
6 And He began telling this parable: “A man had a fig tree which had been planted in his vineyard; and he came looking for fruit on it and did not find any. 7 And he said to the vineyard-keeper, ‘Behold, for three years I have come looking for fruit on this fig tree without finding any. Cut it down! Why does it even use up the ground?’ 8 And he answered and said to him, ‘Let it alone, sir, for this year too, until I dig around it and put in fertilizer; 9 and if it bears fruit next year, fine; but if not, cut it down.’”

There are many people, who I disagree with, who will show you that Paul is not preaching OSAS.
So the difference isn't between what Jesus and Paul say, but in our interpretations of what they say.
And in people's interpretations lies all kinds of contradictions. Don't put this on Paul, put it where it belongs, on man's interpretation.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Ah, a double negative (or rather is it , stating what cannot be and why?) , the poster you replied to, from his posts, believes in a utopia called urantia or some nonsense like that.

From his posts the last couple years, he shows no trust (did this change, btw?) in Yahweh (God), in Jesus, nor in Yahweh's Word ... let alone the messengers Yahweh Himself Chose for Himself to Breathe His Word through ..... (Yahweh certifies / verifies His Own Word - no need to "trust" men therefore - tested, guarded and proven by Yahweh , His Word, Scripture, is always TRUTH)

Another problem is those who claim something not from Yahweh (the urantia deceptions) is from Yahweh - there is no hope and no truth in that belief system at all...
....============================================
QUOTE="ToBeLoved, post: 73035939, member: 345030"]Then how can you trust the men who wrote the gospels that that was even what Jesus did? Your entire premise of follow Jesus falls flat if the words of scripture are not God inspired.

So how do you even know who Jesus was or what He said or did?

That’s the problem with those who say God’s Word is not from God. Then you have to throw it all out or explain why you believe the Gospels but not the rest[/QUOTE

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

The error with your reasoning is that Jesus says that if you don't bear fruit you will be cut off the vine... So unless you believe that you can be saved without being attached to the vine, you should agree with what I'm saying.

If you are a disciple you are saved, if you aren't a disciple you aren't saved. It's pretty obvious.

Remember that most of Jesus' disciples WALKED AWAY/ left Him, and Jesus did not try to get them to come back.
Many today left Him (left Jesus), and Jesus does not try to get them back - the Father in heaven has given them over to believe their own delusions (whether 'ur', 'osas', or whatever) ..... Some (or many) have not reached the point of no return yet.... we pray they never get to the point of no return, but that as many as Yahweh has called and chosen will return to Him and remain with Him on earth, and in the life to come.

 

[ToBeLoved]

That's silly. We make all kinds of important decisions based on evidence that isn't inerrant. People are used to evaluating less than perfect evidence. Inerrancy replaces the problem of deciding what we know about Jesus with the problem of proving inerrancy. There's a lot better evidence for Jesus than there is for inerrrancy.

Your not addressing the post I answered from another poster. Read it again

 

[RDKirk]

St Paul then, unravels the Gospels, the teachings of Jesus In a way that we all can understand?

At least in a way his audience at the time could understand.

I could understand Romans more easily after I'd read Aristotle--and that was simply a matter of better understanding the style of rhetoric.

 

[RDKirk]

That's silly. We make all kinds of important decisions based on evidence that isn't inerrant. People are used to evaluating less than perfect evidence. Inerrancy replaces the problem of deciding what we know about Jesus with the problem of proving inerrancy. There's a lot better evidence for Jesus than there is for inerrrancy.

Hedrick, ToBeLoved didn't say anything about inerrancy.

When faced with "less than perfect evidence," we look to many other factors.

I haven't heard anyone yet explain to me why the people who knew the apostles and accepted certain gospels are reliable reporters, but when those same people were also very quickly willing to accept the Pauline letters, they're suddenly unreliable reporters.

 

[hedrick]

Hedrick, ToBeLoved didn't say anything about inerrancy.

OK, then I apologize. The response seemed to be sparked originally by this: https://www.christianforums.com/thr...-without-st-paul.8076293/page-5#post-73032246, which says every word was put into their minds by God.

I do understand that Colter seemed to be denying inspiration at all.

 

[zoidar]

There are many people, who I disagree with, who will show you that Paul is not preaching OSAS.
So the difference isn't between what Jesus and Paul say, but in our interpretations of what they say.

And in people's interpretations lies all kinds of contradictions. Don't put this on Paul, put it where it belongs, on man's interpretation.

I think I showed in my first post in this thread that I don't accuse Paul, but the reformers and those who use Paul's writings to misinterpret Jesus teachings.

"Every branch IN ME that does not bear fruit, He takes away"

 

[Doug Melven]

I think I showed in my first post in this thread that I don't accuse Paul, but the reformers and those who use Paul's writings to misinterpret Jesus teachings.

"Every branch IN ME that does not bear fruit, He takes away"

You were saying in your post that we needed to interpret Paul's words in light of Christ's Words.
But, many people interpret Jesus' words through what Paul said, and I asked for examples of this.

But I say Jesus and Paul were not at odds, Paul's words have the same weight as Jesus' words for Jesus' words were not His own, but those of the Father and Paul's words were inspired by the Holy Spirit.

 

[RDKirk]

But, many people interpret Jesus' words through what Paul said, and I asked for examples of this.

But I say Jesus and Paul were not at odds, Paul's words have the same weight as Jesus' words for Jesus' words were not His own, but those of the Father and Paul's words were inspired by the Holy Spirit.

The letter to the church at Roman, for example, does that.

But Jesus said that the Holy Spirit would continue to counsel us beyond what He Himself said during His earthly ministry.

 

[SolomonVII]

OK, then I apologize. The response seemed to be sparked originally by this: https://www.christianforums.com/thr...-without-st-paul.8076293/page-5#post-73032246, which says every word was put into their minds by God.

I do understand that Colter seemed to be denying inspiration at all.

More than that, Colter was declaring that claims of inspiration were being designed by God's ministers to oppress and control the flock.

 

[zoidar]

You were saying in your post that we needed to interpret Paul's words in light of Christ's Words.
But, many people interpret Jesus' words through what Paul said, and I asked for examples of this.

But I say Jesus and Paul were not at odds, Paul's words have the same weight as Jesus' words for Jesus' words were not His own, but those of the Father and Paul's words were inspired by the Holy Spirit.

I fully agree! But it's easy to get the wrong understanding of Paul, starting with his writings instead of Jesus' teachings. Of course Jesus and Paul taught the same gospel. Luther and Calvin used Paul's letters to interpret Jesus' teachings, when it should be the other way around. If we understand Jesus, we can understand Paul.

 

[Doug Melven]

I fully agree! But it's easy to get the wrong understanding of Paul, starting with his writings instead of Jesus' teachings. Of course Jesus and Paul taught the same gospel. Luther and Calvin used Paul's letters to interpret Jesus' teachings, when it should be the other way around. If we understand Jesus, we can understand Paul.

We shouldn't elevate Jesus' words over Paul's or Paul's words over Jesus. Neither spoke on there own.
We need to compare Scripture withScripture to uncover the truth.

 

[RDKirk]

I fully agree! But it's easy to get the wrong understanding of Paul, starting with his writings instead of Jesus' teachings. Of course Jesus and Paul taught the same gospel. Luther and Calvin used Paul's letters to interpret Jesus' teachings, when it should be the other way around. If we understand Jesus, we can understand Paul.

That's kind of like saying a private soldier can take the Congress' document of declaration of war and then carry out combat all by himself without an intervening authority outlining his particular role in the fight.

In general, Jesus did not give specific instruction on how His Body should operate. He left that to His apostles and to following teachers and elders.

Although Jesus confirmed that His commandments were in accord with the "weightier" matters of scripture, Jesus rarely explained how. Paul did. Jesus certainly said to the sinner, "Your faith has saved you," that left the Jews scratching their heads about how that could be, Paul explained how.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

At least in a way his audience at the time could understand.

I could understand Romans more easily after I'd read Aristotle--and that was simply a matter of better understanding the style of rhetoric.

Since the Greek way of life and of thinking and of religion , ("Aristotle"?) , was wrong,
and without any other details from you , it is entirely likely or possible that reading Aristotle , as you said, gave you a wrong understanding, not a good nor a correct understanding. "Selah" (dwell on this prayerfully, seeking Yahweh, over the next few months, as Yahweh permits.)

That's kind of like saying a private soldier can take the Congress' document of declaration of war and then carry out combat all by himself without an intervening authority outlining his particular role in the fight.
In general, Jesus did not give specific instruction on how His Body should operate. He left that to His apostles and to following teachers and elders.
Although Jesus confirmed that His commandments were in accord with the "weightier" matters of scripture, Jesus rarely explained how. Paul did. Jesus certainly said to the sinner, "Your faith has saved you," that left the Jews scratching their heads about how that could be, Paul explained how.

This seems to confirm the definite, specific possibility at least, that some other way of understanding has wrongly affected understanding Jesus.

It is a 'vague' observation for now...... I don't know specifics, per se, nor if any specifics would help at this point.....

Yet perhaps one 'specific' - concerning "following" teachers and elders..... this was the way the "many anti-christs in our midst" were able to mislead the congregations within a few centuries of the first century.

 

[RDKirk]

Since the Greek way of life and of thinking and of religion , ("Aristotle"?) , was wrong,
and without any other details from you , it is entirely likely or possible that reading Aristotle , as you said, gave you a wrong understanding, not a good nor a correct understanding. "Selah" (dwell on this prayerfully, seeking Yahweh, over the next few months, as Yahweh permits.)

I said, in terms of rhetorical style.

When debating in Greek, Paul used a rhetorical style familiar to the Greeks. Paul was being Greek to the Greeks so that they might understand his meaning better. As Paul himself said:

To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God’s law but am under Christ’s law), so as to win those not having the law. -- 1 Corinthians 9

After slogging through Aristotle, i became more accustomed to the style of the rhetoric, the same style Paul used in Romans, so Paul's meaning became easier to understand.