Paul

[Pacman]

Ok so the legitimacy of Paul has been called into question recently on a couple of threads and rather than derailing those threads I figured I would start a new one.

There is a lot said about it in this thread. Too much for me to copy the entire discussion over to here. So please read through that if you haven’t already...



This was my response to @Herbie in this thread. And the continued conversation.

Misinterpretation of Pauls teaching does not make the teaching invalid or unscriptural.

Are you also going to throw out the teaching of Peter? Because he affirmed that Paul’s writings are part of scripture. Also Luke who chose to write extensively about Paul in the book of Acts. You see where this is going?

This has already been discussed (and tabled). Peter wasn't saying that Paul's writings were scripture, per say, Scripture as we know it hadn't been created yet. Luke is Paul's friend and travel companion, not a witness to Paul's claim of 'seeing' the Son of God.

@Herbie

You do realise if your were correct, your not, that that means Paul deceived the Apostles and that all of scripture is suspect. If any of the original language was alter and parts of it omitted then all of scripture is suspect and there is no word of God because you can't prove it wasn't. Your belief invalidates all of scripture.


Then you called Yeshua, satan. You can argue you didn't say Yeshua/Jesus is satan but by saying it was not Yeshua on the Road to Damascas, it was, but satan you did call Yeshua, satan. Right now at least with me you have no credibility.

Indeed, most of Paul's letters were written before the Gospels.

Which raises the question how could Peter's statement about Paul's writings being 'scripture' when they were just writings before the scriptures were actually put in place?

The same way as Jesus considered the Old Testament as scripture before any of the New Testament was written. God's word is all scripture.

But yet the book of Enoch and the book of jasher are not included. Somehow this all seems off to me, but I'll have to think about the statement you made.

I would say Peter knew and understood the validity and Torah basis of Paul's writings... maybe it was revealed to him by the Holy Spirit?...

More accurately, scripture contains God's word. Fine distinction but true nonetheless.



You're confusing cannon with scripture. Not all scriptures ever written are included in the cannon. And even then you're not accurate as the Ethiopian cannon includes Enoch. Jasher would also be scripture, being referenced in the OT, it just happens to be lost (allegedly).

OK where is scripture defined? Who decides what is scripture and what is not? So there is lost scripture?

2 Peter 3:14-18 WEB
[14] Therefore, beloved, seeing that you look for these things, be diligent to be found in peace, without defect and blameless in his sight. [15] Regard the patience of our Lord as salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also, according to the wisdom given to him, wrote to you; [16] as also in all of his letters, speaking in them of these things. In those, there are some things that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unsettled twist, as they also do to the other Scriptures, to their own destruction. [17] You therefore, beloved, knowing these things beforehand, beware, lest being carried away with the error of the wicked, you fall from your own steadfastness. [18] But grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To him be the glory both now and forever. Amen.

However it’s defined Peter clearly indicates that Pauls letters are part of it... it wasn’t yet compiled as we have it today and obviously was still being written by men under the inspiration of God. But I don’t see why that makes it any “less scripture”

 

[rockfox]

Personally, anyone questioning the authenticity, perfectness or status of scripture of Paul immediately throws up giant red flags for me. I've only seen that idea trotted out when someone's theology is so clearly contradicted by Paul they have to throw it out. That's just not good exegesis, highly dangerous, and separates you from Christian tradition. It's also a slippery slope without end.

 

[Cap]

Personally, anyone questioning the authenticity, perfectness or status of scripture of Paul immediately throws up giant red flags for me. I've only seen that idea trotted out when someone's theology is so clearly contradicted by Paul they have to throw it out. That's just not good exegesis, highly dangerous, and separates you from Christian tradition. It's also a slippery slope without end.

From a man who has now changed what scripture is. This raises red flags for me.
That's just not good exegesis, highly dangerous, and separates you from Christian tradition. It's also a slippery slope without end.

Don't over spiritualize it. Scripture simply means sacred writings. (also this)

Yes. For example, a quick search found me this list of references to non-extant writings that were mentioned in the Bible (including ones containing prophecy and so are self-evidently scripture and not simply just government chronicles or other supporting non-inspired documentation).

I realize that will rub some Protestants the wrong way. But just because the Bible contains everything we need for righteousness and godliness does not mean it contains everything God ever communicated to man. It quite obviously does not considering we have very few complete speeches of prophets recorded and no course material from the ancient schools of the prophets. We also like to think of the cannon of scriptures as absolutely perfect, but in truth there are several different cannons; of which the Protestant is both the newest (by over 1000 years), smallest (which should bother you), and the only one divorced from direct apostolic tradition. Things are significantly more complex than black & white evangelical theology would have you believe. And I speak as one from the evangelical protestant tradition.

Enoch is an interesting case. While the Protestants leave it out it is in the Ethiopian cannon, was recognized as scripture by the pre-Christ Jews, was quoted by Jude, is the oldest known scripture, contains the earliest known prophecy of Christ and was widely read in the early church. And Enoch specifically wrote it was recorded for those of us in the last days; that is us, today. But it was effectively lost to us until very recently, the last 50-100 years. Only the Ethiopians preserved it in their canon. And while one could have cast doubt on its authenticity, being only preserved in the Ethiopian language and by that church, all such doubts were removed with the discovery of the Dead Sea scrolls.

I love to trot out Enoch whenever a Catholic takes sole credit for the preservation of the scriptures as they buttress their claim to be THE church. Drives them up a wall. Not only were they not the ones to pick and choose scripture, they even failed to preserve it all. And the church which preserved that scripture predates the RCC.

But don't let any of that trouble your faith dear reader. Even though humans have been an imperfect vehicle, God is mighty and able to preserve His scriptures for us. There are a host of reasons for which we can have complete confidence in both the preservation and authenticity of our holy writings; which I can go into if anyone like.

 

[ContraMundum]

Premise 1: Peter equates Paul's letters to sacred scripture.

Premise 2: Sacred scripture's defining feature is that it is inspired by God.

Conclusion: Therefore Paul's letters are inspired by God.

This seems like sound reasoning if the premises are true.

 

[Cap]

2 Corinthians 11:5 I do not think I am in the least inferior to those "super-apostles."

There it is, end of discussion.

 

[Slumberfreeze]

To jump off what @ContraMundum said, the only danger in Paul's writing is the same danger that exists with all other scripture : That unsettled and ignorant people will twist it. Pharisees and Sadducees both quoted Moses, and horribly twisted the meaning, practice, and intent behind his writings. Both sides argued with Jesus for their own purposes, but that's no reason to call Moses into question. Moses was found speaking with Jesus on the top of the mountain, right where he was supposed to be. Ananias questioned the wisdom of baptising Saul, but Jesus told him not to worry, and (to paraphrase) He had him well in hand.

A libertine can twist Paul's writings and try to justify a licentious lifestyle, and a legalistic man can twist Paul's writings to justify his dogmatic life devoid of love. Paul would be equally horrified at both, but Paul himself will be found with Jesus, right where he's supposed to be.

 

[Slumberfreeze]

2 Corinthians 11:5 I do not think I am in the least inferior to those "super-apostles."

There it is, end of discussion.

I'll fence with you a bit, if you won't take it poorly.

At the beginning of this chapter Paul states he is going to be speaking as a fool and he reiterates that several times and gives the reason for that in this passage. He knows very well that boasting and 'commending himself' is folly, because it exactly what the 'super apostles' that he is speaking about are doing. Paul doesn't think of himself as 'The Man", but actually knows and claims often to be "Christ's slave". He is warning the Corinthians not to discount his words just because he is observably meek in person and doesn't require the tribute that these other apostles levy, and only compares his bona fides with the them reluctantly and with obvious distaste.

 

[Phillip]

At the beginning of this chapter Paul states he is going to be speaking as a fool and he reiterates that several times and gives the reason for that in this passage.

While I worked in Baghdad, I had the spoken New Testament to listen to. I had always thought of Paul as being harsh. That is, till I listened to the scriptures of Paul.

I’ve never thought of him as being harsh since. I see him more as a teacher and corrector now. But someone who’s intentions were love. When corrections and teaching are done in love, much more can be accomplished. And that’s I personally see Paul.

 

[Cap]

I'll fence with you a bit, if you won't take it poorly.

At the beginning of this chapter Paul states he is going to be speaking as a fool and he reiterates that several times and gives the reason for that in this passage. He knows very well that boasting and 'commending himself' is folly, because it exactly what the 'super apostles' that he is speaking about are doing. Paul doesn't think of himself as 'The Man", but actually knows and claims often to be "Christ's slave". He is warning the Corinthians not to discount his words just because he is observably meek in person and doesn't require the tribute that these other apostles levy, and only compares his bona fides with the them reluctantly and with obvious distaste.

No threat perceived here. And I can align with your preceding statement before this one.

I do not question that Paul is being used by God for His purpose. And I never would get to the place as it appears @Herbie is suggesting that he is a false prophet deceived by the devil. My only statements I have ever made is that I think Paul is elevated more than he should be, and if this is correct then, even as @Phillip seems to states, he wouldn't want it that way either. I question the church's reason for the elevation, and as far as I know the church (today) has failed, so I am one that will take a look at all that comes from it to make sure I am not being lead astray (monogamy, others). So, even the original Apostles questioned Paul, why can't we?

 

[Asforme&myhouse]

2 Corinthians 11:5 I do not think I am in the least inferior to those "super-apostles."

There it is, end of discussion.

Do you think the “super apostles” Paul is referring to are Peter, John, etc.?

 

[Cap]

Do you think the “super apostles” Paul is referring to are Peter, John, etc.?

I really don't know who they are. All I know is there was clearly contention between those trying to preach a message from the Christ they knew. Paul had a lot of people that had difference with him. But yet, not one of the original argued with each other.

 

[Asforme&myhouse]

I really don't know who they are. All I know is there was clearly contention between those trying to preach a message from the Christ they knew. Paul had a lot of people that had difference with him. But yet, not one of the original argued with each other.

Paul is not referring to real apostles. Given the context he’s actually mocking some false teachers who have been bragging about their own spirituality, claiming to be apostles, and are misleading the recipients of Paul’s letter, hence Paul’s “foolish boasting”.

 

[rockfox]

From a man who has now changed what scripture is. This raises red flags for me.
That's just not good exegesis, highly dangerous, and separates you from Christian tradition. It's also a slippery slope without end.

In that other thread I'm not 'changing what scripture is', I'm explaining basic dictionary definitions and history of the cannon.

I think Paul is elevated more than he should be

I actually agree with this. Although not so much in the elevation as in the neglect of Christ's perspective. The character of the Protestant's take on the Gospel is very Pauline, and leaves out some critical things which Christ put great emphasis on.

 

[Slumberfreeze]

I question the church's reason for the elevation, and as far as I know the church (today) has failed, so I am one that will take a look at all that comes from it to make sure I am not being lead astray (monogamy, others). So, even the original Apostles questioned Paul, why can't we?

oh, ok!

I'm still in need of education about pauline doctrine and how it has gotten the church into trouble. Especially because my history is seeing how the church was (terrible) and observing how the church wasn't doing anything that even resembled what Paul wrote about. My initial criticism was that the church was in a weird sort of classroom or lecture environment where one person brought the message and everyone else was expected to just listen for almost the entire duration, instead of contributing what God had gifted them to do. So from my perspective the church isn't messed up because they are doing anything that paul said to do, but that they have done just about everything they could to completely ignore his teachings on almost every subject.

I can agree that the church, or most churches, are unrecognizeable from what scripture prescribes. What I haven't had anyone explain to me is what exactly paul said or did that is the culprit.


Edit: So in answer to your question: That the original apostles questioned paul is a phrase I don't understand. Did they indeed? And if they did, it seems at least that Peter came to the end of his questions and upheld paul, And if Peter is satisfied with paul, why would anybody question paul unless they also are willing to say that they question peter's assessment of paul? And if I question that, then I am bound to say that peter's assesment of paul was not god-breathed scripture and my whole new testament is rapidly going to crap.

Because my understanding of what peter had to say about paul's writings is loosely : "Paul's alright and if you don't get it, it's not him, it's you". But if paul is actually a menace then peter is off his nut!

 

[steve]

I'm still in need of education about pauline doctrine and how it has gotten the church into trouble. Especially because my history is seeing how the church was (terrible) and observing how the church wasn't doing anything that even resembled what Paul wrote about. My initial criticism was that the church was in a weird sort of classroom or lecture environment where one person brought the message and everyone else was expected to just listen for almost the entire duration, instead of contributing what God had gifted them to do. So from my perspective the church isn't messed up because they are doing anything that paul said to do, but that they have done just about everything they could to completely ignore his teachings on almost every subject.

I can agree that the church, or most churches, are unrecognizeable from what scripture prescribes. What I haven't had anyone explain to me is what exactly paul said or did that is the culprit.

Boom!

 

[PeteR]

In @Herbie 's defense, it is not uncommon for those coming to a more Biblical, or Torah foundatonal, view of Scripture to question Paul because of how the Church has twisted him. Often, Paul is literally used to correct Yeshua/Jesus. Usually it is done in an underhanded way based on emphasis and de-emphasis.

Examples: Heavy focus on grace using Paul's writings, but a limited focus on the hard words of Yeshua dealing with obedience and the fact that not a single letter will pass from the Torah until heaven and earth pass away.

I know way too many believers who began to understand the foundations of all Scripture from the Torah who then had to jettison most of what they thought they understood of Paul and rebuild on the correct foundation. If not done properly, the result is abandoning Paul altogether. It can be a real faith crisis that takes WORK.

Personally, as a seminary trained pastor, when I began to understand the everlasting nature of ALL Scripture, I had to start from square one. Paul was the last piece I took up and I began from the premise that he had to agree with Moses, else I was misunderstanding him. Only then can you understand Paul correctly without seeing him contradict himself, nevermind all of Torah.

Simply, Torah is the foundation and does not change. Every prophet, including the Messiah, pointed to Torah as the everlasting standard of righteousness. Matthew 5-7 affirm that multiple times. My encouragement to @Herbie and any other is to study and understand Torah, then Paul.

 

[Pacman]

oh, ok!

I'm still in need of education about pauline doctrine and how it has gotten the church into trouble. Especially because my history is seeing how the church was (terrible) and observing how the church wasn't doing anything that even resembled what Paul wrote about. My initial criticism was that the church was in a weird sort of classroom or lecture environment where one person brought the message and everyone else was expected to just listen for almost the entire duration, instead of contributing what God had gifted them to do. So from my perspective the church isn't messed up because they are doing anything that paul said to do, but that they have done just about everything they could to completely ignore his teachings on almost every subject.

I can agree that the church, or most churches, are unrecognizeable from what scripture prescribes. What I haven't had anyone explain to me is what exactly paul said or did that is the culprit.


Edit: So in answer to your question: That the original apostles questioned paul is a phrase I don't understand. Did they indeed? And if they did, it seems at least that Peter came to the end of his questions and upheld paul, And if Peter is satisfied with paul, why would anybody question paul unless they also are willing to say that they question peter's assessment of paul? And if I question that, then I am bound to say that peter's assesment of paul was not god-breathed scripture and my whole new testament is rapidly going to crap.

Because my understanding of what peter had to say about paul's writings is loosely : "Paul's alright and if you don't get it, it's not him, it's you". But if paul is actually a menace then peter is off his nut!

Spot on!

 

[Slumberfreeze]

@Ancient Paths I think I'm starting to understand the mindset thanks to you. I can say I understood Paul well ahead of the hard words of Yeshua, and understood grace before most other things because of that.

I've seen that at play among my own small circle of believers, but we never characterized it in terms of paul vs torah. I personally understood grace quite well, but waffled on preaching repentance and had to have God paddle me for it. A good brother of mine was the exact opposite, could only articulate judgment and repentance and could only mouth token words about grace until God paddled him for it.

 

[Verifyveritas76]

No threat perceived here. And I can align with your preceding statement before this one.

I do not question that Paul is being used by God for His purpose. And I never would get to the place as it appears @Herbie is suggesting that he is a false prophet deceived by the devil. My only statements I have ever made is that I think Paul is elevated more than he should be, and if this is correct then, even as @Phillip seems to states, he wouldn't want it that way either. I question the church's reason for the elevation, and as far as I know the church (today) has failed, so I am one that will take a look at all that comes from it to make sure I am not being lead astray (monogamy, others). So, even the original Apostles questioned Paul, why can't we?

@Cap, I ran across something in the Testament of the Patriarchs /Benjamin (the last words of Benjamin to his sons) that I found to be somewhat startling and yet broadened my understanding of who Paul was and why he was used so immensely in the NT.

. . . And I shall no more be called a ravening wolf on account of your ravages, but a worker of the Lord, Distributing food to them that work what is good, and one shall rise up from my seed in the latter times, beloved of the Lord, hearing upon the earth his voice, enlightening with new knowledge all the Gentiles, bursting in upon Israel for salvation with the Light of knowledge, and tearing it away from it like a wolf, and giving it to the synagogue of the Gentiles. And until the consummation of the ages shall he be in the synagogue of the Gentiles, and among their rulers as a strain of music in the mouth of all; and he shall be inscribed in the Holy Books, both his work, and his word, and he shall be a chosen one of God forever; and because of him, my father Jacob instructed me, saying, He shall fill up that which is lacking of thy tribe.
Compare Genesis 49:27 (the last words of Jacob to Benjamin) Benjamin shall ravin as a wolf: in the morning he shall devour the prey, and at night he shall divide the spoil.

You can imagine my surprise when I was reading back through his epistles and ran across Romans 1:2. Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, separated unto the gospel of God, (Which he had promised afore by his prophets in the holy scriptures.)
I now understand this passage in an entirely new way.

There is more to the mystery of Paul than that, including why he is one of only a couple of men to have their tribe listed in the New Testament. There is also the friend of the bridegroom whose job it is to prepare the bride (as opposed to the one who declares “he is nigh, even at the door” John the Baptizer). And you have the example of the first Saul of the tribe of Benjamin.

 

[rockfox]

And I shall no more be called a ravening wolf on account of your ravages, but a worker of the Lord, Distributing food to them that work what is good, and one shall rise up from my seed in the latter times, beloved of the Lord, hearing upon the earth his voice, enlightening with new knowledge all the Gentiles, bursting in upon Israel for salvation with the Light of knowledge, and tearing it away from it like a wolf, and giving it to the synagogue of the Gentiles. And until the consummation of the ages shall he be in the synagogue of the Gentiles, and among their rulers as a strain of music in the mouth of all; and he shall be inscribed in the Holy Books, both his work, and his word, and he shall be a chosen one of God forever; and because of him, my father Jacob instructed me, saying, He shall fill up that which is lacking of thy tribe.

Oh, wow! So that is a prophecy of Paul? Was he of the tribe of Benjamin? What does it mean "he shall be a chosen one of God forever"?

[edit: read it in the original work, it almost sounds like a prophecy of Christ. but I'm not sure. Are these testaments TO the children of that tribe or generally?]

I can agree that the church, or most churches, are unrecognizeable from what scripture prescribes. What I haven't had anyone explain to me is what exactly paul said or did that is the culprit.

Look at my signature (summarizing Luke 9:22-24) and then pair that with the Great Commission. Not only is that a key, base understanding of Christ's gospel, it is an understanding completely absent from virtually every American denominations presentation of the Gospel (and the lives of their parishioners). They are all very heavily focused on a free grace, ticket to heaven kind of Gospel that features heavily on Paul's writings ('by grace through faith'). Yes Paul doesn't leave out such aspects from Christ, but he is less direct about it.

We even have things like the Roman's Road, which presents solely out of one book written by Paul.

It's not that Paul said anything wrong, it's that he writes from a different and more pastoral perspective that emphasizes things differently. Between that and the relative volume of teachings, it is easy to focus heavily on Paul and neglect Christ and come out with something that has a different emphasis or character.

All the more so since the evangelical impulse is to attempt to convert as many as possible, which is quite different from Christ's approach to throw up hurdles and drive people away so that only the sheep would come (and not the goats).