Questioning Paul

[Astrapho]

Hey guys!

Anyway I was having a discussion with someone over the internet, and he brought up something quite interesting...

A difference that I have, that I have noticed among people who follow Jesus is that they seem to be less adamant on quoting his actual words and favor quoting other peoples more, I only quote Jesus because I KNOW his word is no argument, more valid than anyone else. Reading the other words of people is very relevant, as it is part of the whole search, yet when you start to really pick at scripture you discover some startling truths.
I feel safe enough to raise anything as I have already stated that I have a thinking character and I will continue this way otherwise truth will never come about. I appreciate the letters to the Romans you quote yet, at the end of the day these were written by Paul. Obviously Paul never met Jesus so to me he automatically loses credibility. I cannot even be sure that he was not the first version of Joseph Smith (founder of mormonism). He had a vision of Jesus just like Paul claims. I start to question the reliability of Paul when he even has differing viewpoints of James and the original disciples of Jesus, who were actually with him. Straight away I must ask, "Who is more reliable? the one who says he had a vision, the ones who lived and walked with him, or even better, Jesus himself?"

It is basically a question of Jesus came and taught truth, he fulfilled his calling, died and resurrected, he himself admitting that his death and resurrection is the ONLY sign that would be given to the people of who he is(Matt 16;4), not to mention on the cross Jesus final words were..."It is finished" before finally saying "Father,into your hands I commend my spirit."

"It is finished" he is saying "Mission complete." His disciples were who had to carry on the message as he revealed all to them,after doing all he did in his life and choosing the twelve and revealing everything to them, Pauls whole story seems out of place, maybe even not required. It might sound blasphemous to doubt Paul, but I will not let man stop my inquiring mind, I cannot honestly rule out that he was the first opportunist for starting a religion, Scurrying about sending his opinion to all surrounding provinces, Jesus warned of false teachers coming after him, I understand that he glorified Jesus but so do many Charlatans today but we know it does not mean they are true, in fact a lot of his warnings about a lot of things happened very soon after, it doesn't mean it all has to take place 2000 years later., after all Jesus founded the rock of his church on Peter, not Paul (Matt 16:18)

I've been thinking about this, but quite frankly I'm going nowhere other than, "Hey, this kinda makes sense." .

What do you guys think?

[Wallaby]

Hi

I also used to think that because Paul never knew Jesus personally that maybe something wasn't quite right. Then I realised how important the conversion of Paul really was. Isn't it amazing to think that Paul was on his way to torture and kill the early Christians when Jesus himself spoke to Paul. It is much better that someone who never met Jesus personally was so converted and did such good work than should it have been somebody who has always been part of the inner circle and who had met Jesus personally. Doesn't it sometimes have more impact when somebody who was seen to be a real big sinner comes to the Truth and starts following the Word?

Marius

[onelovedread]

Are we really questioning Paul? Consider the following excerpt from the Concordant New Testament Commentary:
"...Paul comes to that which is doubtless, his greatest ground for glorying. Fourteen years before finds him on his first missionary journey after his severance at Antioch. At Lystra he is stoned and left for dead (Ac.14:26). It is more than likely that this, the time when his battered body was supposed to be finished with this life, is when he is transported in spirit to the third heaven. There are three heavens in Scripture. The first was of old (2Pet.3:5) and perished, but was followed by "the heavens which are now" (2 Pet.3:7). But these, too, are transient. The third heaven is viewed by the apostle John in Revelation (Rev.21:1). John, however, does not enter the new heaven, but confines himself to a description of the new earth. Paul entered the third heaven and there saw (what he afterward revealed in his Perfection Epistles) the universal supremacy of Christ and the supernal dignity and bliss conferred on the ecclesia which is Christ's body. He also enters the new earth and its park, which John describes (Rev.22:2) . All of this he had seen, but he was not allowed to disclose it until the time was ripe. This came when Israel's apostasy was full blown, as recorded at the close of the book of Acts. Till then he does not even claim to be the man who had seen and heard such transcendent revelations. Who would not be elated beyond measure at such revelations as had been confided to him? But Paul had good reason to refrain from boasting. A painful physical infirmity was given him to keep him humble. A thorn in the flesh is hardly adequate, a splinter is nearer, but still too weak an expression, for Paul would not entreat thrice for the removal of some minor distress. But it was not removed. Instead, he received grace and the assurance that God's power finds infirmity its fittest tool..."
I humbly suggest that we go back and look at God's dealing and purposes in Paul's life. Perhaps he is the most pivotal character beside
Jesus Christ.

[Kat]

Hi Astrapho,

Either you believe the Bible is God's word or you do not.  As Paul has 13 Epistles that take up a large portion of the New Testament, you would have to discredit quite a bit.  Here is what Peter thought of Paul.

2Pe 3:14  Therefore, beloved, looking forward to these things, be diligent to be found by Him in peace, without spot and blameless;
v. 15  and consider that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation--as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, has written to you,
v. 16  as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures.

Now at the Jerusalem Council we see that Paul is among those there as a prominent member/Apostle and it is obvious that he is considered by the rest to be equal with them in the work.  

Act 15:6  Now the apostles and elders came together to consider this matter.

Act 15:12  Then all the multitude kept silent and listened to Barnabas and Paul declaring how many miracles and wonders God had worked through them among the Gentiles.

Act 15:22  Then it pleased the apostles and elders, with the whole church, to send chosen men of their own company to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas, namely, Judas who was also named Barsabas, and Silas, leading men among the brethren.

Act 15:25  it seemed good to us, being assembled with one accord, to send chosen men to you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul, v. 26  men who have risked their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ.

So why would we doubt Paul if the rest of the Apostles did not?

after all Jesus founded the rock of his church on Peter, not Paul (Matt 16:18)

Mat 16:18  And1161 I say also2504, 3004 unto thee,4671 That3754 thou4771 art1488 Peter,4074 and2532 upon1909 this5026 rock4073 I will build3618 my3450 church;1577 and2532 the gates4439 of hell86 shall not3756 prevail against2729 it.846

G4074
Πέτρος
Petros; a noun akin to G4073, used as a proper name; "a stone" or "a boulder," Peter, one of the twelve apostles.

G4073
πέτρα
petra; a prim. word; a (large mass of) rock.

As you can see these are two different words used for rock in that verse, the first is referring to Peter, but the second is referring to Christ Himself.  It is Jesus Christ that is the "Cornerstone."

Eph 2:20  having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief cornerstone,

There is a Bible study that goes into a lot of detail about 'Do James And Paul Contradict?'  This will give you much information on the validity of the work that Paul did as an Apostle.

http://forums.bible-truths.com/index.php/topic,9742.0.html

mercy, peace and love
Kat

[meee]

The Bible is the inspired word of God, Holy Spirit breathed. It speaks of Paul being taught by Jesus. How can Paul be compared to Joseph Smith? I don't think he can or should be.
just my thoughts.PS:Thanks Kat, I was looking for what you posted about Paul. I'm soooo slow, but had remembered this and wanted to post it.
hugs,meee

So why would we doubt Paul if the rest of the Apostles did not?

after all Jesus founded the rock of his church on Peter, not Paul (Matt 16:18)

Mat 16:18  And1161 I say also2504, 3004 unto thee,4671 That3754 thou4771 art1488 Peter,4074 and2532 upon1909 this5026 rock4073 I will build3618 my3450 church;1577 and2532 the gates4439 of hell86 shall not3756 prevail against2729 it.846

G4074
Πέτρος
Petros; a noun akin to G4073, used as a proper name; “a stone” or “a boulder,” Peter, one of the twelve apostles.

G4073
πέτρα
petra; a prim. word; a (large mass of) rock.

As you can see these are two different words used for rock in that verse, the first is referring to Peter, but the second is referring to Christ Himself.  It is Jesus Christ that is the "Cornerstone."

Eph 2:20  having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief cornerstone,

There is a Bible study that goes into a lot of detail about 'Do James And Paul Contradict?'  This will give you much information on the validity of the work that Paul did as an Apostle.

http://forums.bible-truths.com/index.php/topic,9742.0.html

mercy, peace and love
Kat

just my thoughts,
hugs,meee

[Samson]

Hey guys!

Anyway I was having a discussion with someone over the internet, and he brought up something quite interesting...

A difference that I have, that I have noticed among people who follow Jesus is that they seem to be less adamant on quoting his actual words and favor quoting other peoples more, I only quote Jesus because I KNOW his word is no argument, more valid than anyone else. Reading the other words of people is very relevant, as it is part of the whole search, yet when you start to really pick at scripture you discover some startling truths.
I feel safe enough to raise anything as I have already stated that I have a thinking character and I will continue this way otherwise truth will never come about. I appreciate the letters to the Romans you quote yet, at the end of the day these were written by Paul. Obviously Paul never met Jesus so to me he automatically loses credibility. I cannot even be sure that he was not the first version of Joseph Smith (founder of mormonism). He had a vision of Jesus just like Paul claims. I start to question the reliability of Paul when he even has differing viewpoints of James and the original disciples of Jesus, who were actually with him. Straight away I must ask, "Who is more reliable? the one who says he had a vision, the ones who lived and walked with him, or even better, Jesus himself?"

It is basically a question of Jesus came and taught truth, he fulfilled his calling, died and resurrected, he himself admitting that his death and resurrection is the ONLY sign that would be given to the people of who he is(Matt 16;4), not to mention on the cross Jesus final words were..."It is finished" before finally saying "Father,into your hands I commend my spirit."

"It is finished" he is saying "Mission complete." His disciples were who had to carry on the message as he revealed all to them,after doing all he did in his life and choosing the twelve and revealing everything to them, Pauls whole story seems out of place, maybe even not required. It might sound blasphemous to doubt Paul, but I will not let man stop my inquiring mind, I cannot honestly rule out that he was the first opportunist for starting a religion, Scurrying about sending his opinion to all surrounding provinces, Jesus warned of false teachers coming after him, I understand that he glorified Jesus but so do many Charlatans today but we know it does not mean they are true, in fact a lot of his warnings about a lot of things happened very soon after, it doesn't mean it all has to take place 2000 years later., after all Jesus founded the rock of his church on Peter, not Paul (Matt 16:18)

I've been thinking about this, but quite frankly I'm going nowhere other than, "Hey, this kinda makes sense." .

What do you guys think?

Astrapho,

               If we take what this Guy on the internet said regarding as to what Jesus said from the Gospels in
               comparison to what Paul and others have said, then follow that line of reasoning to it's ultimate
               conclusion, one could reason further, that we don't even know what Jesus actually said.

               Why do I say this ? Because none of the original writings remain from the First Century, only copies
               of copies remain of the original Manuscripts, we have the Vatican 1209 from 332 A.D. and the Sinaitic.
               The Vatican 1209 Manuscript is the oldest of the fully complete Manuscripts. Further we know from
               our studies at this Site that Man has tampered with the Scriptures, mistranslating certain key words,
               adding spurious passages, relying on their God of "context" for interpretation, etc, etc. My point is that
               " All Scripture is inspired of God and is beneficial for teaching, reproving, setting things straight, so the
                 Man of God can be fully competent for every good work. " The Words that Jesus is recorded as saying
                in the Gospels don't weaken or lessen those Scriptures that are credited to Paul. Paul through inspiration
                wrote most of the New Testament. If we take that one step further, what about the Hebrew/Aramaic
                Scriptures(Old Testament), as Ray had said on at least one occasion, the Old Testament is a much
                bigger book, we can't discount that either, even though Jesus is not credited with putting that directly in
                written form.

                I brought this entire Post of mine up, only because, either way, Faith is required to believe the Scriptures,
                not a blind faith and only God can cause us to have a genuine faith in the reliability of the Scriptures
                and to comprehend them.

                                                       Kind Regards, Samson.

[Marky Mark]

Hey guys!

Anyway I was having a discussion with someone over the internet, and he brought up something quite interesting...

A difference that I have, that I have noticed among people who follow Jesus is that they seem to be less adamant on quoting his actual words and favor quoting other peoples more, I only quote Jesus because I KNOW his word is no argument, more valid than anyone else. Reading the other words of people is very relevant, as it is part of the whole search, yet when you start to really pick at scripture you discover some startling truths.
I feel safe enough to raise anything as I have already stated that I have a thinking character and I will continue this way otherwise truth will never come about. I appreciate the letters to the Romans you quote yet, at the end of the day these were written by Paul. Obviously Paul never met Jesus so to me he automatically loses credibility. I cannot even be sure that he was not the first version of Joseph Smith (founder of mormonism). He had a vision of Jesus just like Paul claims. I start to question the reliability of Paul when he even has differing viewpoints of James and the original disciples of Jesus, who were actually with him. Straight away I must ask, "Who is more reliable? the one who says he had a vision, the ones who lived and walked with him, or even better, Jesus himself?"

It is basically a question of Jesus came and taught truth, he fulfilled his calling, died and resurrected, he himself admitting that his death and resurrection is the ONLY sign that would be given to the people of who he is(Matt 16;4), not to mention on the cross Jesus final words were..."It is finished" before finally saying "Father,into your hands I commend my spirit."

"It is finished" he is saying "Mission complete." His disciples were who had to carry on the message as he revealed all to them,after doing all he did in his life and choosing the twelve and revealing everything to them, Pauls whole story seems out of place, maybe even not required. It might sound blasphemous to doubt Paul, but I will not let man stop my inquiring mind, I cannot honestly rule out that he was the first opportunist for starting a religion, Scurrying about sending his opinion to all surrounding provinces, Jesus warned of false teachers coming after him, I understand that he glorified Jesus but so do many Charlatans today but we know it does not mean they are true, in fact a lot of his warnings about a lot of things happened very soon after, it doesn't mean it all has to take place 2000 years later., after all Jesus founded the rock of his church on Peter, not Paul (Matt 16:18)

What do you guys think?                        (())  
                                                                             I   
                                                                             I
                                                                             I
                                                                             I
                                                                             I
                                                                             I
                                                                             I
                                       You Asked 


Peace...Mark

[Astrapho]

(()) 
                                                                             I   
                                                                             I
                                                                             I
                                                                             I
                                                                             I
                                                                             I
                                                                             I
                                       You Asked  Wink

Zocrapxorz! God has not opened my eyes!

[Akira329]

(()) 
                                                                             I   
                                                                             I
                                                                             I
                                                                             I
                                                                             I
                                                                             I
                                                                             I
                                       You Asked  Wink

Zocrapxorz! God has not opened my eyes!

What does that mean??
Have you been helped by what was said?

[Astrapho]

(()) 
                                                                             I   
                                                                             I
                                                                             I
                                                                             I
                                                                             I
                                                                             I
                                                                             I
                                       You Asked  Wink

Zocrapxorz! God has not opened my eyes!

What does that mean??
Have you been helped by what was said?

Yep, I've been helped immensely, thanks guys!! I've finished typing up a reply to the guy now, in fact.

'Twas a joke, I couldn't see "anything" in Marky's post...

[Akira329]

oh ok! I'm glad
Antaiwan

[cjwood]

bottom line is this. do we really think that God, Who inspired ALL scripture, would have had letters of paul included in His Divine Word if paul was not credible. the person you were having an internet conversation with is, well, a bone-head.

claudia

[eggi]

Nonsense! Aren't the words that Jesus spoke to Paul on the road to Damascus also Christs words? If we cannot believe any post-resurrection records, than we can't know if Christ is resurrected, and our faith is in vain. I don't see that he has any point at all. God bless you, Eirik

[Dave in Tenn]

I wouldn't understand or know very much at all if it wasn't for Paul, and those who teach him. 

If your internet contact believes he can follow the teachings of Jesus in the Gospels, then more power to him.  It's Paul who 'lived the life' and informs us what it means to be alive in the Spirit while still being 'meat' and under the influence of sin.  We don't have a closer bother in fellowship, to my mind. 

Some of the scattered 'objections' to Paul I've encountered over the years are from more 'libertine' sources.  I don't believe many who 'contrast' Christ's message and Paul's Teaching have ever actually READ (nor do they understand) Christ's teachings, just soft Sunday School platitudes.

[Marlene]

I so, agree with you Dave. I could not have put that better.

In His Love,
Marlene

[daywalker]

Paul's writings are part of the Scriptures. The Scriptures are the Word of GOD. Whenever you quote "Paul's writings" your not quoting "Paul"....

YOU'RE QUOTING GOD.


Best believe it!

- Daywalker. 

[kenny]

Hey guys!

Anyway I was having a discussion with someone over the internet, and he brought up something quite interesting...

A difference that I have, that I have noticed among people who follow Jesus is that they seem to be less adamant on quoting his actual words and favor quoting other peoples more, I only quote Jesus because I KNOW his word is no argument, more valid than anyone else. Reading the other words of people is very relevant, as it is part of the whole search, yet when you start to really pick at scripture you discover some startling truths.
I feel safe enough to raise anything as I have already stated that I have a thinking character and I will continue this way otherwise truth will never come about. I appreciate the letters to the Romans you quote yet, at the end of the day these were written by Paul. Obviously Paul never met Jesus so to me he automatically loses credibility. I cannot even be sure that he was not the first version of Joseph Smith (founder of mormonism). He had a vision of Jesus just like Paul claims. I start to question the reliability of Paul when he even has differing viewpoints of James and the original disciples of Jesus, who were actually with him. Straight away I must ask, "Who is more reliable? the one who says he had a vision, the ones who lived and walked with him, or even better, Jesus himself?"

It is basically a question of Jesus came and taught truth, he fulfilled his calling, died and resurrected, he himself admitting that his death and resurrection is the ONLY sign that would be given to the people of who he is(Matt 16;4), not to mention on the cross Jesus final words were..."It is finished" before finally saying "Father,into your hands I commend my spirit."

"It is finished" he is saying "Mission complete." His disciples were who had to carry on the message as he revealed all to them,after doing all he did in his life and choosing the twelve and revealing everything to them, Pauls whole story seems out of place, maybe even not required. It might sound blasphemous to doubt Paul, but I will not let man stop my inquiring mind, I cannot honestly rule out that he was the first opportunist for starting a religion, Scurrying about sending his opinion to all surrounding provinces, Jesus warned of false teachers coming after him, I understand that he glorified Jesus but so do many Charlatans today but we know it does not mean they are true, in fact a lot of his warnings about a lot of things happened very soon after, it doesn't mean it all has to take place 2000 years later., after all Jesus founded the rock of his church on Peter, not Paul (Matt 16:18)

I've been thinking about this, but quite frankly I'm going nowhere other than, "Hey, this kinda makes sense." .

What do you guys think?

Frankly "what kinda sense does this make and where"?
Do you realise what you just said?
Do really think this kinda makes sense?

[Astrapho]

Do really think this kinda makes sense?

No, frankly no. Only reason why I said that was because I let him lead me into his train of thinking, but after I thought about it just seems impossible that Paul's writings were not really "part of Scripture". 

[meee]

Do really think this kinda makes sense?

No, frankly no. Only reason why I said that was because I let him lead me into his train of thinking, but after I thought about it just seems impossible that Paul's writings were not really "part of Scripture". 

Gald you've recovered Astrapho.  I know we can be deceived very easily if we let our guard down.  God has brought you back to right thinking ,as He has done me, many~many times. It's all of Him!   
           luv & hugs,meee   

[Astrapho]

Ok, guess what, he replied...

When I speak of early Church History, there are too many to cite. I say just simply grab any History book on the topic, carefully choosing that it is a historian with facts, preferably not aligned with any religion, just to make sure it is told how it is.
Although speaking of Paul again, I can refer a book by a very credible historian/scholar Elaine Pagels, it is called The Gnostic Paul, she really demonstrates that half the books that are supposedly written by Paul were not even, I also watched a documentary called: Who wrote the new testament? and again various experts did a process of elimination to show this, right down to comparing writing styles and some historical claims.
I still stand to say, that forgery was rampant back then, which is disappointing, if you take a look at Acts 21:15-21, is another clear example of Paul and the law and actually demonstrates what I was speaking of yesterday regarding him and James differences.
When i say a theory that Paul wanted his teachings to be more appealing, I mean that by eliminating certain things from the law, that people found either hard to live by or plain annoying circumcision etc, he seemed to "do away" with, where it still seems that, even in the verses I mentioned above, this is not to be.
All I can say at this point(as i am currently studying more Paul myself) that even all the verses you mentioned about Paul being persecuted or argued with, it was by the very people who were trying to keep the original law in place as they could see he was making "changes", again this is in the verses above, they speak about James and the elders questioning why, and that they have heard about him making the changes, and having people turn their backs on Moses.

-headdesk-. I don't know what to make of this... In Acts 21:15-21 sure they were pointing out that Paul was encouraging people not to do the Mosaic law stuff, but I don't see them rebuking him anywhere for it. I mean, they praised God!

Anyway I've searched on Elaine and I've found an equally great number of critics and praisers. But... Gnosticism!  I heard that they believe that all spiritual things are good or something. And there's the Gospel of Thomas thing. And she says to "search within yourself" for God? I mean... Oh gosh. =_= -headdesk-

Were the Apostles the ones who originally compiled the scriptures, btw? I remember reading in "How the bible came about" that it was them. 

Forgery? Rampant? I don't know, I've always only heard about how reliable the scribes were.

"By the people who were trying to keep the law in place"? I don't know... Doesn't sound like a very plausible theory. Why would they want to fabricate it? How would they? If I believe that even the people who wrote the scriptures can't be trusted, then I wouldn't know which part of the scriptures to trust.

I got a lot of stuff to type to this guy... But apparently he did way more research than me. :-/ Zooiiinks.

(I hope he doesn't mind me asking others about what he typed... D: )