> General Discussions
Troubles about Paul now...real apostle or not?
newgene87:
Alright, got caught in a disturbing conversation, well, discussion, on the new testament and the Apostle Paul. It ended up being, the Gospels vs Paul. Now; this is beyond the mere James vs Paul, and are we justified by faith or works; but Paul....I'm noticing from his own epistles some disturbing notions. And I need some help and I wonder has anyone else noticed it. Now, this is ONLY regarding Paul's Epistles and writings. Not the Torah, Scriptures, or the Gospel accounts of our Lord but this figure Paul...
The first BIG one is basically where the doctrine of Communion comes from. Paul says, "For I have received of the Lord...that the Lord Jesus the night in which He was betrayed took bread...he brake and said, Take eat: this is my body, WHICH IS BROKEN FOR YOU...." (1 Corinthians 11:23-24). Now was this really 'of the Lord'? First off, neither of His bones were broken..."He keeps all His bones: not ONE of them is BROKEN" (Psalm 34:20)(John 19:36). An Jesus actually said, "...this is my body which is GIVEN for you" (Luke 22:19).
And since Paul's epistles are filled with his statements, boasts, and a lot of Self, has anyone noticed Paul's says "I" and "Me" a lot. Hes even said, "speak 'I', NOT the Lord..." (1Corinthians 7:12). And anyone else noticed how Paul speaks highly of the sufferings he's been through, he counts himself among the chiefest apostles (2Cor 12:11), every single letter he mentions himself; and not so bad, cause James did, peter but not after those verses; Paul usually rants on about himself. And it brings to mind Jesus teaching, "He that speaks of Himself seeks His own glory..." and a few verses above, "My doctrine is not MINE, but HIS that sent me" (John 7:16,18).
Interesting enough, Paul mentions "My Gospel" a view times (Rom. 2:16; 16:25; 2 Tim. 2.. The middle verse in there, Paul makes a crazy statement, "...according to MY GOSPEL, AND the preaching of Jesus Christ".....wowsers....that just strikes me in such a negative fashion. Paul speaks so much of himself and his teaching who's to say that it's even Christs words? But his own wisdom?
"Gospel of uncircumcision" (differentiating from Peters), yet Peter FIRST received the revelation of the Gentiles. And why is it any different?? Jesus came and Preached the gospel of the kingdom of the Heavens/God yet Paul is referring to "His" gospel and 'includes' Jesus. Ok...what's up with that? Next, the deal on Salvation and life. "one came and said unto...what good thing shall I do, that I may have age-abiding life? (now, Jesus did not state or even hint, 'confess with your mouth the Lord and believe in your heart you shall be saved or by grace through faith as Paul does) but went on to preaching obedience to the commandments. The boy lacked something; and it was to give to the poor and follow Him." (Matthew 19:16-21).
Reading through the Gospels which I have been doing for 2 weeks straight heavily, Jesus preached to save yourself was to essentially save/love others. From the good samaritan parable, to the parable of the sheep and goats (Matthew 25:33-46). It's about loving your neighbor, loving God, obeying his word, and giving to the poor. Paul brought teachings on the spirit, and grace and diminishing of the law, and even tho he attempted to uphold the law: by stating "all things are lawful unto me" twice kinda annuls him upholding the law. Not saying he was not a good guy but what if he was the stumbling block for followers of Jesus?
He even stated in Galatians that after his conversions he did NOT converse with those who ACTUALLY WALKED AND TALKED WITH JESUS; why?
Now, my last problem....out of the 7 churches John was told to write to in the Revelation of Jesus Christ, the first church was EPHESUS, the very church Paul wrote to. And says, "I know your works, and your labor, and your patience, and how you can not bear them which are evil: and you have tried them which SAY THEY ARE APOSTLES, and are not, and have found them liars..." (2:2). Good epistle and all but I am noticing the major differences in the Gospels and Paul. And now it's making me question him. Never the Gospels, not My lord and Savior Jesus Christ, but Paul.
How did Paul get SOOOO big in The Holy Scriptures, when He does contradict himself. (Galatians 2:11-21 = Acts 16:3)(1 Corinthians 10:33 = Galatians 1:10). And where did Jesus ever do away with circumcision as Paul so boldly states? Hes the only one so boldly that throws out circumcision (even though it doesn't matter) but, what about what Jesus taught?
***broken into paragraphs as best I could for easier reading--Dave***
lilitalienboi16:
I didn't read through your entire post just to be upfront with you but judging by your title, this topic has come up before and ray wrote an extensive article about it, I BELIEVE.
I think its one of those hidden links on the website and I can't remember the name of the direct link.
If i'm wrong about the above, than this information about paul is probably in one of rays articles and I can't remember which one. Ill try and find it for you but maybe a moderator will get to it before I do.
Basically, Paul is an apostle. You can't let every wind of change blow you around like this. Take a breath, study, grow, don't let everything shake you up.
With love,
Alex
Edit: One thread about it: http://forums.bible-truths.com/index.php/topic,13303.msg117220.html#msg117220
Nothing from ray yet, still searching!
FOUND IT!!!
http://forums.bible-truths.com/index.php/topic,9742.0.html
It's not hidden, it was an audio article. Haha. Sorry xD
Its entitled: "Do James and Paul contradict?" But it also goes into the subject as to whether Paul was really a discple of Christs or not, talks about the whole law idea you brought up in your post etc..
To put it in rays final words on the matter about this in the link I provided: "Well anyway, I hope that clears up that Paul is not a heretic and James is not a epistle of straw that needs to be burned. They both agreed on this completely, there is no contradiction and it’s not that hard to see."
I hope this helps you! :)
Dave in Tenn:
I can see this possibly turning into a long thread since you've raised so many issues.
I have a couple of questions for you first.
1. Would the answers to these concerns be for your edification? Or would they be to "argue" with your 'conversation/discussion' mate who presumably is not here. Your answer will determine my motivation to dig, search, and type replies.
2. Do you have any confidence in the book of Acts?
This study may give you some background on why Paul is sooooo big in the Scriptures.
http://forums.bible-truths.com/index.php/topic,5815.0.html
cjwood:
newgene, i think perhaps your confusion might be based in focus, translations, and different nuances of the same word.
i was looking at the different verses you used, in the different translations i had at hand. the kjv, the clt/nt, and rotherham's. then i looked at the main words you were focusing on, with regards to the words used by paul and the apostles, "broken/brake(s)/given". i think some of your confusion might be helped by looking deeper into these words . never, ever, ever, is there any contradiction in the Scriptures; only confusion in our understanding of them. "All scripture is given by inspiration of God..." (2 tim. 3:16)
anyway, i looked up these words in the strong's expanded, exhaustive concordance, and found some interesting and exciting things, leading me deeper into other verses noted in the info given. (like on a treasure hunt!)
the braking and the broken and the giving, all have to do with Jesus Christ. but, the word "broken" when speaking of the bones of Jesus, and the word "broken" when Christ is speaking of taking and eating of His body, which was "broken" for the apostle's by Jesus at the Lord's supper, carry different word meanings in the greek.
the word broken in reference to the bones of Jesus' actual physical body, carries the meaning of crushing completely/shattering/breaking to pieces. the words brakes and broken, in reference to the bread and the body of Christ, given by Him at the last supper, carry the meaning of breaking off pieces as when eating and sharing a loaf of bread. Jesus and the apostles shared a few loaves of bread with many disciples. Jesus was the one who did the initial breaking of the loaves. each time, Jesus blessed the bread, then broke it, then gave it to the apostles to share with all the people. so many hungry people. He never gave the bread without breaking it first. Jesus' words are the bread of life. the Spiritual manna. broken from the same loaf, into many, many pieces. and the Scriptures say that they did all eat and were filled.
so with regards to the stuff about paul and these words, there is NO contradiction. zip, nil, nada...
claudia
p.s. i didn't read the whole thread either. just kind of started at the beginning and got off into that, then stopped. must go to bed.....
onelovedread:
Just a suggestion, new gene, but since you've been reading the gospels, how about moving on into the book of Acts? I think a reading of it will place your issues in context. I feel it may help give you more insight into who Paul really was, and how submitted he was to Jesus Christ. Maybe it will, maybe not, but hey, give it an open-minded shot, my brother, and see if it settles some of your concerns.
Onelove
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
Go to full version