Christ's Christianity and Paul's Christianity are Not the Same

[veteran]

Jesus came to save the sinners. Paul preaches to save the Christians.

Paul preached to sinners just as our Lord Jesus did. Both preached the same Gospel, for there is ONLY one Gospel of Jesus Christ for all.

 

[brightmorningstar]

The question is - did Paul teach what Jesus taught?

Short answer - No.

Ok so this is just the OP question again. As has been pointed out to you (see post #259) Paul's testimony is that he received what he preached from the risen Lord,(Gal 1) the encouter of which Luke decribed in Acts.

Paul was not an apostle as appointed by Jesus - as far as we know there is no record of Paul having met Jesus although they were contemporaries.

So as far as we know Paul did encounter Jesus.

It is also obvious that what Paul was teaching was at odds with what the 'pillars', James, Jesus brother, John and Peter were teaching in Jerusalem.

I dont see it, in what way?

This isnt really a debate is it, its just a few people ignoring what is written and trying to suggest the opposite.

 

[wayseer]

I generally agree. Now, does this doctrinal acknowledgment of difference mean we are free to throw the baby out with the bath water and dismiss 2/3 of the New Testament because it was attributed to Paul?

Again - short answer, No.

Paul’s conversion occurred after Christ’s death and ascension. Do you question the validity of Saul of Tarsus’ encounter with Christ on the road to Damascus? Must apostleship (i.e., being ‘sent forth’) be based on encountering Jesus before His death?

Depends on the use of the term 'apostle'.

By claiming to be an Apostle (capital 'A') he is claiming authority alongside the recognized Apostles. I think Paul is pulling one of the hat on this issue.

I have no issue with Paul as an evangelist - although I have problems with elements of his theology.

I couldn’t agree more.

Thank you.

I don’t know about that. Paul’s traveling companion Luke is penning the account and is bound to see the argument in favor of his friend. There were certainly other doctrinal discussions that were not recorded in the Book of Acts. All the first council agreed upon was the Paul was evidently on an anointed mission to the Gentiles and that he was given a certain freedom to preach a more lenient version of God’s Law to the scripturally ignorant Gentiles. I doubt that the Christian Church in Jerusalem headed by James, Peter and John were drastically affected in their local congregations by the conclusions of that first ecclesiastical synod. Pork wasn’t suddenly on their dinner plates.

[font="'comic sans ms"]Indeed - not with James present at any rate.[/font]

[font="'comic sans ms"]I accept that Luke/Acts were written sometime into the 2nd century which puts any first hand knowledge of Paul out of reach. The author of Luke basically acknowledges as much in the opening Luke (Luke 1: 2). So I am somewhat ambivalent as to the historic accuracy of the narrative.[/font]

[font="'comic sans ms"]It is also interesting that it seems Paul was more anxious to identify with Peter than with James of John. [/font]

Another pertinent question is: Should we accept EVERY solitary teaching in the canonized NT as the definitive WORD OF GOD or do we grant the Holy Spirit license to direct our consciences as to which of Paul’s teachings are relevant and which should be questioned?

Indeed. A thorny issue for many who treat the text literally.

Ok so this is just the OP question again. As has been pointed out to you (see post #259) Paul's testimony is that he received what he preached from the risen Lord,(Gal 1) the encouter of which Luke decribed in Acts.

If we accept such as the case then it appears Jesus 'forget' to tell Paul a whole heap of stuff like - just where does Paul square with the Gospel accounts - remembering that the Gospels were written well after Paul was dead?

Jesus readily consorted with sinners of all types and advocated private prayer. Paul issued directives against consorting with all sorts of undesirables and prayed in public.

So as far as we know Paul did encounter Jesus.

That is not the point I made.

I dont see it, in what way?

The differences are well documented in Acts.

Jesus came to save the sinners. Paul preaches to save the Christians.

I like that.

 

[IanLC]

There is One faith, we serve One Lord! Christianity is centered on the life, death, resurrection, ministry, life and teachings of Jesus by the power of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit which is the Spirit of Jesus breathed inspiration unto the apostle Paul and thus Paul's teachings and writings are inspired and given by Jesus the Christ!

Ephesians 4:5-6 "[background=rgb(249, 253, 255)]There is one Lord, one faith, one baptism, [/background][background=rgb(249, 253, 255)]and one God and Father, who is over all and in all and living through all.[/background]

[background=rgb(249, 253, 255)]2 Timothy 3:16-17 "[/background][background=rgb(249, 253, 255)]All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,[/background][background=rgb(249, 253, 255)]God uses it to prepare and equip his people to do every good work."[/background]

[background=rgb(249, 253, 255)]Both of the above scripture written by Paul inspired by the Spirit of Jesus![/background]

[background=rgb(249, 253, 255)]Acts 9:15 "[/background][background=rgb(249, 253, 255)]But the Lord said to Ananias, "Go! This man is my chosen instrument to carry my name before the Gentiles and their kings and before the people of Israel"[/background]
[background=rgb(249, 253, 255)]Spoken by Jesus and confirming Paul's calling and writing as inspired of Jesus![/background]

 

[James Forthwright]

There is One faith, we serve One Lord! Christianity is centered on the life, death, resurrection, ministry, life and teachings of Jesus by the power of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit which is the Spirit of Jesus breathed inspiration unto the apostle Paul and thus Paul's teachings and writings are inspired and given by Jesus the Christ!

That’s all well and good but your comment doesn’t address the main point of this thread, i.e., the areas where Paul’s teachings contrast with Christ’s. Jesus revered and always obeyed God’s Law whereas Paul dispenses with most of it. Whom do you follow Christ’s or Paul’s example?

Ephesians 4:5-6 "There is one Lord, one faith, one baptism, and one God and Father, who is over all and in all and living through all.”

There is certainly one true faith in God but there are a myriad of Christian denominations that differ substantially in their doctrinal interpretations of scripture. Much of this doctrinal variance can rightfully be attributed to the oft-ambiguous and contrary teachings derived from the Pauline epistles.

2 Timothy 3:16-17 "All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, God uses it to prepare and equip his people to do every good work."
Both of the above scripture written by Paul inspired by the Spirit of Jesus!

Yes, they are generally attributed to the pen of the Apostle Paul (though some scriptural scholars and paleographers dispute this claim) and they are included in our modern collection of sacred texts but at the time they were written the “scripture” that is being referred to by each NT author is the Old Testament which repeatedly emphasized the obedience to God’s Law. A considerable portion of Paul’s teachings appear to dismiss many key tenets of the Laws of God especially those concerning circumcision, the Sabbath and food cleanliness statutes.

Acts 9:15 "But the Lord said to Ananias, "Go! This man is my chosen instrument to carry my name before the Gentiles and their kings and before the people of Israel."
Spoken by Jesus and confirming Paul's calling and writing as inspired of Jesus!

Unlike some of the Pauline epistle critics, I do not cast aside the entirety (or even a majority) of the Apostle Paul’s writings. Just as in the case of some very “inspired” Christian teachers of the modern era, most/much of what they profess is spiritually edifying and applicable for the entire body of Christian believers. However, I reserve the right to be guided by the Holy Spirit to discern where their (and Paul’s) teaching deviate from the inspired OT prophets as well as Christ’s teachings and His earthly example recorded by His disciples. Likewise, I reserve the right to be guided by that same Holy Spirit to distinguish in certain instances where some of Paul’s teachings were parochial or provincial in nature.

 

[Michael*McEvan]

I have thought it interesting that Jesus would not lay claim to what he was preaching as "my gospel", in fact , he denied that it was his gospel, whereas Paul continually boasts asserting "my gospel" this and "my gospel" that. Paul comes off as being rather too proud of himself in the way he is always making references to himself. I find myself growing quite bored with the space he takes up referring to himself, contradicting himself in wanting us to believe that he doesn't matter only Christ,yet he constantly refers to himself,touting his accomplishments and claiming to the the greatest apostle. Besides being annoying and embarrassing for Paul ,who is obviously unaware that he constantly does this type of thing, the Lord Jesus told the disciples not to do this , rebuked them for it even. There are some paragraphs where he says I and me and my so many times it is disturbing. I have noticed in some of his letters Paul calls out contemporaries of his for caring only about themselves first, then goes on to do the very thing he just judged others for. It would almost humorous if it wasn't setting a terrible example as well as putting the blatant taint of hypocrisy into what is widely believed to be 'sacred text' or God's irrefutable Word.

These are only a few of the things that I find hard to reconcile regarding the epistles of Paul as being on the same level of Authority as Jesus' teachings recorded in the gospels. Jesus said Follow Me, He did not say follow Paul. Jesus is the Living Word. In my early years as a believer in the institutionalized church I was taught to think that the entire NT was God's Word. I was also brought into contact with clearly anointed believers whose lives were an amazing witness of Christ Jesus,with signs and wonders following,who believed God had shown them that this was not so. In order to fit into the mainstream church I adopted the former outlook first, yet in later years and after much bible study I began to see these not-so-subtle discrepancies in Paul's truth vs. The Way the Truth and the Life.

 

[veteran]

Paul preached the very same Gospel that our Lord Jesus and His Apostles did, simply because there is only ONE Gospel, not more than one.

If I have two Bibles and hand you one, and keep the other, then the one you have is 'your' Bible, and the one I keep is 'my' Bible. But does that mean yours or mine in the sense of owning the very Word of God as if it began with us? No, of course not.

Likewise with Paul, when he made statements like 'my gospel', it was simply an expression he used to contrast a FALSE gospel that the crept in unawares were spreading among the brethren...


2 Cor 11:4
4 For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him.
(KJV)

Gal 1:6-12
6 I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel:
7 Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.
8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.
9 As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.
10 For do I now persuade men, or God? or do I seek to please men? for if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ.
11 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.
(KJV)


That's why Apostle Paul contrasted The Gospel he preached with calling it his gospel; it was to reveal the difference between The Gospel of Jesus Christ he was preaching vs. another gospel that came from MEN, specifically by those there which were troubling them by perverting... what again? The "gospel of Christ".

That's why this whole idea about Paul having a different gospel is IGNORANCE and CONFUSION by the likes of those whom Paul spoke against, that are STILL among Christ's Church causing this very problem!!!

 

[Michael*McEvan]

I thoroughly enjoy Paul's writings and bear witness when he is full of the Holy Spirit, in fact my heart soars with the resonance of divine truth in my spirit. I know I'm not the only one who has noticed that there is a pronounced change that is noticed while one reads some of what Paul writes. It is as though the anointing lifts and the writings seem to come from his soul vs through God's Spirit. Must be why he wrote ( so his readers would know) that we must rightly divide the word, that which is issued forth from the soul from that which is issued forth from the spirit, as the bone and the marrow.

If you believe Paul is infallible then that is what you believe. What he preached about Jesus Christ I have no problem with, yet in many other issues I believe he caused more problems (that grow larger every day all over the world) than he solved by giving his opinion too often concerning things Jesus never considered important enough to cover explicitly. I believe when Jesus spoke of the Scriptures He was referring to what had been written at that point in time as well as the words He was then and had been speaking which He also said would never pass away. Using a quote from Paul's own writings to qualify Paul's own writings as Scripture doesn't seem at all strange to anyone? I believe that if Paul knew that one day a group of religious men would decide that every single thought that he'd written down after his conversion would be considered God's Holy Word, and that should anyone have trouble with that ideology, they would automatically be reviled and hated, in earlier times killed and more recently cast out of fellowship, well, at best, he would have publicly denied it and/or at least he would have taken better care at pointing out more often than not that he, himself not the Spirit was expounding upon whatever secondary or openhanded , diverse controversial doctrinal theme he had in mind to discuss.

Whether I believe what you believe about Paul's writings or not, my Salvation is due to the shed blood of Jesus Christ,Wonderful Counselor,Almighty God,Prince of Peace, the Lamb of God who was slain before the foundation of the earth,Who bore my sins when nailed to a cross, became a curse did He who was hanged upon that tree, died and paid the price so I could go free, rose again and lives in me! My(our) salvation is assured to me(us) not by what Paul did or didn't write or do, but by what Jesus said and did, what He sacrificed for me (us). I believe many Christians will be asked when they stand before the Almighty,"Why did you idolize Paul so?" This would be so terrible,may God give us a balanced discerning wisdom to know the truth.


Veteran, Why do you only quote Paul? Do know what Jesus said about not calling the gospel his?

 

[veteran]

If you believe Paul is infallible then that is what you believe. What he preached about Jesus Christ I have no problem with, yet in many other issues I believe he caused more problems (that grow larger every day all over the world) than he solved by giving his opinion too often concerning things Jesus never considered important enough to cover explicitly.

That idea is based on nothing but 'assumption' that one knows better than Apostle Paul and... our Lord Jesus Christ, as to how Paul was to go about his Christ-chosen duty in The Gospel, and as overseer of the Churches in those days. I find NO conflict with Apostle Paul's Epistles and Christ Jesus at all.

But among the Judaizer converts to Christ from groups like the Pharisee Jews, there appears to have been a continued conflict against Paul and Christ. This is why Paul would point out "false brethren unawares brought in" (Gal.2:4) who were trying to preach "another gospel" to pervert the "gospel of Christ", like he said there in Galatians and 2 Corinthians.

Before "false brethren" can bring in their "another gospel", which is no gospel, they must first attempt to discredit the authority Apostle Paul was given directly by Christ Jesus, and not from any man. And you sound like you're doing a pretty good job of trying to do that.

 

[teamventure]

the title of the thread says it all. trying to undermine the validity of scripture.
"if you take away any of the words of prophecy from this book, i will take away your place in the book of life."

 

[Michael*McEvan]

The quote is from the book of Revelations written by John, rightly divide the word teamventure, It says if anyone takes away any of the words of this prophecy...of this prophecy,of this prophecy from this book?...from the book of Revelations or from the entire Bible? The Book of Revelations is a book of prophecy in it's entirety, but not all of the Bible is prophecy. Jesus Christ alone is the pure spirit of prophecy,
When Paul writes from his soul about himself it is from his soul and when he writes from his spirit it is the holy spirit coming though his spirit. God expects us to be able to tell the difference,that's why Paul was shown to instruct us that way concerning the soul and the spirit ,the bone and the marrow.

Jesus set the example of how to speak concerning whose doctrine or word (logos) it was he was teaching in Jn 14:24. I always wondered why Paul's approach seemed so contrary to Jesus' superior humility. I am considering the reasons given above...he was making a distinction between what he preached concerning salvation and that of false brethren? And what of all the other apostles, weren't they also preaching the gospel? Of course they were. I still think he was being too prideful and exclusive,why doesn't he include the others especially those who were eyewitnesses. I have trouble with him acting as though he was not in any way influenced by any man. He was influenced by Stephen's preaching of the gospel ( the first time he heard it preached that we see written) even if he rejected it at that time because as we know God's word never returns void, it always accomplishes that which it was sent forth to do.

Paul was influenced by men,contrary to his boast to the contrary. We are all influenced by others no matter what we think. may it be for the better or for the worse everyone has some kind of impact upon us. God gave him a thorn in the flesh which was to remind him that he was too arrogant. That he needed to constantly humble himself. Many believe the "thorn"was something wrong with his eyes, that after he was blinded his eyes or his vision never quite healed perfectly. Perhaps The Heavenly Father was showing us a symbolic irony in this confession on Paul's part in reference to his brethren wanting to pluck out their own eyes to give to him because of his infirmity.

Paul's last visit in Jerusalem is a good example of Paul being adversely influenced by mere men when he allowed the local messianic jews to influence him with their fear, doubt and unbelief. Many read the 21st chapter in Acts and miss entirely the way Paul yields to the pressure and becomes persuaded and then blinded how he had then become a pleaser of men instead of a pleaser of God. King David made many mistakes that we read about in Scripture, however we do not then hold up his example of sin as an excuse to follow him in the same ways he sinned, All this was recorded for teaching us about the reality of anointed believers sin. I believe we also read about Paul's mistakes and are not expected to swallow whole that he was without sin and always right on point with every decision he made.

Anyone else see the heresy of Paul's actions in Jerusalem right before he was arrested?

 

[teamventure]

well anyone who takes away from the word in general will be judged. oh and it's revelation not revelations.

 

[Michael*McEvan]

Revelation, right, good save, I wouldn't want to make a mistake adding to or subtracting from that particular book after a warning like that. I'm sure you'd agree that I won't be condemned or judged for that...after all, God is not petty nor vindictive.You can be sure I will not forget that even though it is a book full of revelations it is not titled Revelations! Yes, great , thank you!

You don't really get the whole debate thing, do you t-venture? Your answer is not an answer, it is just your opinion. You don't seem to be willing to address what is specifically being offered in debate.You appear to like to brusquely shut people down who differ in their outlook than you do, just toss your words at them like a verbal hand-grenade with as little consideration as you can muster. It is as tho you are feeling threatened by the challenge of actually asking for God's wisdom and understanding in how you reply to someone in debate.There are questions I have had for along time, I am new here and really do not like to be the victim of cyber-bullies who are stubbornly short on graciousness and/or people who are lacking in an honorable attitude, Do everyone a favor, share what you believe to be truth with love and respect. I believe the admonition is to season your words with grace as it were with salt, giving the person asking for an explanation of your faith in a way that might persuade them to see things as you do. it behooves you to be kind and considerate not dismissive and off-putting. This you will answer for especially If it is a crucial point on which their salvation might rest, God will hold you responsible, sobering but true. If you wish to debate with me, please honor my request or I will ignore you. Thanks.

 

[veteran]

The quote is from the book of Revelations written by John, rightly divide the word teamventure, It says if anyone takes away any of the words of this prophecy...of this prophecy,of this prophecy from this book?...from the book of Revelations or from the entire Bible? The Book of Revelations is a book of prophecy in it's entirety, but not all of the Bible is prophecy. Jesus Christ alone is the pure spirit of prophecy,
When Paul writes from his soul about himself it is from his soul and when he writes from his spirit it is the holy spirit coming though his spirit. God expects us to be able to tell the difference,that's why Paul was shown to instruct us that way concerning the soul and the spirit ,the bone and the marrow.

Jesus set the example of how to speak concerning whose doctrine or word (logos) it was he was teaching in Jn 14:24. I always wondered why Paul's approach seemed so contrary to Jesus' superior humility. I am considering the reasons given above...he was making a distinction between what he preached concerning salvation and that of false brethren? And what of all the other apostles, weren't they also preaching the gospel? Of course they were. I still think he was being too prideful and exclusive,why doesn't he include the others especially those who were eyewitnesses. I have trouble with him acting as though he was not in any way influenced by any man. He was influenced by Stephen's preaching of the gospel ( the first time he heard it preached that we see written) even if he rejected it at that time because as we know God's word never returns void, it always accomplishes that which it was sent forth to do.

Paul was influenced by men,contrary to his boast to the contrary. We are all influenced by others no matter what we think. may it be for the better or for the worse everyone has some kind of impact upon us. God gave him a thorn in the flesh which was to remind him that he was too arrogant. That he needed to constantly humble himself. Many believe the "thorn"was something wrong with his eyes, that after he was blinded his eyes or his vision never quite healed perfectly. Perhaps The Heavenly Father was showing us a symbolic irony in this confession on Paul's part in reference to his brethren wanting to pluck out their own eyes to give to him because of his infirmity.

Paul's last visit in Jerusalem is a good example of Paul being adversely influenced by mere men when he allowed the local messianic jews to influence him with their fear, doubt and unbelief. Many read the 21st chapter in Acts and miss entirely the way Paul yields to the pressure and becomes persuaded and then blinded how he had then become a pleaser of men instead of a pleaser of God. King David made many mistakes that we read about in Scripture, however we do not then hold up his example of sin as an excuse to follow him in the same ways he sinned, All this was recorded for teaching us about the reality of anointed believers sin. I believe we also read about Paul's mistakes and are not expected to swallow whole that he was without sin and always right on point with every decision he made.

Anyone else see the heresy of Paul's actions in Jerusalem right before he was arrested?

That's JEWISH FABLE.

 

[Michael*McEvan]

The book of Acts Chapter 21: !7-30 records Paul's actions quite clearly , so unless you believe that the Book of Acts is a JEWISH FABLE perhaps you might want to refresh your memory as to what is written there.Read it yourself. He arrives in Jerusalem and shares all that God has been doing in his ministry. He is approached by the brethren who are afraid of being persecuted for what controversies Paul's presence might arouse in the more traditional Jews who were zealous for the law,who believed Paul was teaching the Jews who lived among the Gentiles to turn away from Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children or live according to the traditional customs.
Full of fear, not faith,seeking to avoid any uncomfortable conflict, they asked Paul to do as they told him to do ( this is your clue...what they were going to tell him to do, not what God was going to tell him to do ) and to enter into a vow with 4 other men and join them in their purification rites in the temple, as well as pay their expenses for the high priests who would do an offering at the end of the 7 day 'purification rites".
WAIT a minute here....most readers miss this completely but this is the place where we see Paul fall into a serious compromise. Agreeing that there was any reason to shave his head in a vow was strange enough, but coming into agreement with and then acting out the religious practices of a purification rite and an offering??? This practice being outside of or in addition to Jesus Christ crucified would amount to heresy.This is Paul going backwards, blinded by his desire to be accepted in the Jerusalem fellowship,then made blind was deceived into denying Christ in order to please men who were motivated by fear and unbelief. His inability at that time to think the whole thing through or to ask God for His will to be done, not the will of the weaker brethren who wanted peace at all costs amounts to a denial of Jesus' sacrificial offering once for all....His divine blood that PURIFIES us, CLEANSES us from sin...supporting anything else as a substitution or in addition to Christ crucified is, was and always will be heresy. That is why God, in His mercy stopped the ritual before the offering part could take place, which we see when the crowd began rioting and literally yanked Paul out of the temple. Can you imagine? The priests standing in the holy place offering some animal as a sacrifice to purify and cleanse Paul from sin? Big no-no. Huge mistake.

There are more places in the New Testament where you can catch Paul in less than godly form that caution me not to idolize him. Yes, Paul sinned and fell short of the glory of God, he made bad judgement calls even towards the end of his ministry years, just like everyone else who's ever lived except The Lord Jesus the Christ!


This is why I believe we are to rightly divide the words we read, and God has given us His Holy Spirit who helps us to wield the sword of the spirit, enabling us to discern between soul and spirit. Hallelujah!

 

[James Forthwright]

First of all, I’d like to welcome you, Michael*McEvan, to the ChristianityBoard.com forum. Your profound spiritual insights and thoughtful comments are highly appreciated (at least by me). An earlier comment regarding Paul’s oft egotistical “I, Me, Me, Mine” attitude was recently made clear to me while reading the first chapter of Philippians.

I thoroughly enjoy Paul's writings and bear witness when he is full of the Holy Spirit, in fact my heart soars with the resonance of divine truth in my spirit. I know I'm not the only one who has noticed that there is a pronounced change that is noticed while one reads some of what Paul writes. It is as though the anointing lifts and the writings seem to come from his soul vs through God's Spirit. Must be why he wrote (so his readers would know) that we must rightly divide the word, that which is issued forth from the soul from that which is issued forth from the spirit, as the bone and the marrow.

The epistles of the Apostle Paul are, indeed, very spiritually uplifting and beneficial, however, as a favorite pastor of mine once said, “A Christian needs to strive to be at least as intelligent as a cow. That is, learn to eat the hay and spit out the sticks.” Paul and his writings were certainly not infallible.

If you believe Paul is infallible then that is what you believe. What he preached about Jesus Christ I have no problem with, yet in many other issues I believe he caused more problems (that grow larger every day all over the world) than he solved by giving his opinion too often concerning things Jesus never considered important enough to cover explicitly. I believe when Jesus spoke of the Scriptures He was referring to what had been written at that point in time as well as the words He was then and had been speaking which He also said would never pass away. Using a quote from Paul's own writings to qualify Paul's own writings as Scripture doesn't seem at all strange to anyone? I believe that if Paul knew that one day a group of religious men would decide that every single thought that he'd written down after his conversion would be considered God's Holy Word, and that should anyone have trouble with that ideology, they would automatically be reviled and hated, in earlier times killed and more recently cast out of fellowship, well, at best, he would have publicly denied it and/or at least he would have taken better care at pointing out more often than not that he, himself not the Spirit was expounding upon whatever secondary or openhanded , diverse controversial doctrinal theme he had in mind to discuss.

Well stated! Paul was a particularly headstrong individual with numerous faults and foibles, just like any other individual. Perhaps, this was the reason God was reluctant to remove Paul’s “thorn in the flesh” (and in Paul’s oft-ambiguous style, he never describes exactly what this “thorn” was) even though Paul prayed earnestly for deliverance?

Whether I believe what you believe about Paul's writings or not, my Salvation is due to the shed blood of Jesus Christ, Wonderful Counselor, Almighty God, Prince of Peace, the Lamb of God who was slain before the foundation of the earth, Who bore my sins when nailed to a cross, became a curse did He who was hanged upon that tree, died and paid the price so I could go free, rose again and lives in me! My (our) salvation is assured to me (us) not by what Paul did or didn't write or do, but by what Jesus said and did, what He sacrificed for me (us). I believe many Christians will be asked when they stand before the Almighty, "Why did you idolize Paul so?" This would be so terrible, may God give us a balanced discerning wisdom to know the truth.

You’re absolutely right, Michael. Too many Christians possess a juvenile “Paul says it, I believe it, That settles it!” myopic mindset. It’s quite foolish and spiritually immature to believe that the Christian fellowships in Jerusalem (pastored by the Apostles Peter, James and John) were identical in doctrinal beliefs and religious practices to those Gentile churches established by the Apostle Paul.

Veteran, Why do you only quote Paul? Do know what Jesus said about not calling the gospel his?

IMO, the reason they ONLY quote Paul is because without the Pauline epistles their anti-nomianist (complete rejection of the Law of God) vacuous doctrines would quickly be exposed as utterly without scriptural substantiation.

 

[Michael*McEvan]

Well Hello, James! Thanks for responding, I was wondering if you'd lost interest in this thread of debate. As I was reading through it all to see if I had anything to add that had not already been covered, I was encouraged by your comments to step into the fray, so to speak and point out/share some things I believe the Holy Spirit has been showing me for well over a decade. It is a rare thing to find folks who can discuss these discrepancies without rancor, hateful strife or simply limited small-mindedness.

Please, I do not know what IMO means,will you explain this for me? Anti-nomianist is a new word for me as well, is that spelling right,my pc does not recognize it. I appreciate the definition via parentheses.

What do you think about the passage describing Paul's movements in Jerusalem in Acts ch 21:17-31?


Interesting that 4 men plus Paul =5 take part in this ritual farce, I could not help but see it as a possible symbolic prophetic foreshadowing of a subtle backsliding towards religiosity for the entire 5 fold ministry. When the manipulative plan to distract and appease those likely to persecute Paul, and by association some of the local brethren, backfires, it seems as though Paul unable to face his own likely crucifixion then appeals to Caesar as a Roman citizen vs a citizen of heaven as he preaches.

 

[veteran]

Pretty easy to tell who here is continuing the jealousy of the Pharisees that wanted to murder Apostle Paul because He was converted to Christ Jesus.

Judaism 101 = hatred of Christ Jesus and all His Apostles, especially Apostle Paul which Christ said was His "chosen vessel" to preach The Gospel to the Gentiles, and to kings, and to the children of Israel (Acts 9). Christ would chose Paul to write the majority of The New Testament. And those of the "Jews religion" hate that.

 

[brightmorningstar]

What I think Michael McEvan is missing is a holistic appreciation of the NT.
Taking another unholistic and biased view one might say Paul's epistles should have the words in red instead of the gospels' words of Jesus. Paul encountered the risen Lord who spoke to him, and was blind for three days in prayer where one assumes he received the gospel from the risen Lord. This is the risen and ascended Lord in glory and disciples empowered with the Holy Spirit. Of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, only John are we sure they had quite the same exposure to Jesus.

But in reality and holistically we have to remember the context. The gospels were written by people in the same community as Paul, filled with the promised Holy Spirit and writing about what happened. Only John's gospel as opposed to the synoptics has retrospective insight rather than merely how the disciples thought, questioned and acted at the time. Take Peter. In the gospels he makes mistakes and is timid, in Acts and the epistles he still makes mistakes but is reminded and corrected by the Spirit of what Christ taught (ie dietry laws) and is bold.
Furthermore Jesus mainly spoke to the Jews, Paul was mainly speaking to the Gentiles. Take the epistle to the Romans. After the greeting Romans 1 addresses the gentile believers about gentile worldviews and susceptibility to license and sin, Romans 2 to the Jewish believers and their susceptibility to legalism and judgementalism.

Whether I believe what you believe about Paul's writings or not, my Salvation is due to the shed blood of Jesus Christ, Wonderful Counselor, Almighty God, Prince of Peace, the Lamb of God who was slain before the foundation of the earth, Who bore my sins when nailed to a cross, became a curse did He who was hanged upon that tree, died and paid the price so I could go free, rose again and lives in me! My (our) salvation is assured to me (us) not by what Paul did or didn't write or do, but by what Jesus said and did, what He sacrificed for me (us). I believe many Christians will be asked when they stand before the Almighty, "Why did you idolize Paul so?" This would be so terrible, may God give us a balanced discerning wisdom to know the truth.

Where did you get this revelation from if not primarily from the epistles of Paul?

Am I guessing that you have an issue with Biblical condemnations of homosexual practice?

 

[afaithfulone4u]

When you read the Bible , it is obvious that the letters of Paul are not the same message as the message that Christ sends us, that is, if we assume that we are to emulate Christ.

"When the Pharisees saw this, they asked his disciples, 'Why does your teacher eat with tax collectors and 'sinners'? When Jesus heard this, he said, 'Healthy people don't need a doctor--sick people do.' (Matthew 9:11-12)

Paul the Apostle says

"When I wrote to you before, I told you not to associate with people who indulge in sexual sin not at all meaning the people of this world who are immoral, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters. In that case you would have to leave this world. But now I am writing you that you must not associate with anyone who calls himself a brother but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or a slanderer, a drunkard or a swindler. With such a man do not even eat. (Cor. 5:9-11)

Are we to assume that these brothers who are immoral are to be outcasts in the mind of Paul but for Jesus it is exactly these same people who NEED Christ's love. And doesn't Paul's Christianity assume a Judgemental and holier-than-thou point of view that "I, who am not sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or a slanderer, a drunkard or a swindler are outcasting YOU, brother , and I shall not eat with you." ???

The error is that not all people are our brothers. When it says "who calls himself a brother" we must ask, Who are considered Jesus' brother and therefor ours?
Matt 12:47-50
47 Then one said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren stand without, desiring to speak with thee.
48 But he answered and said unto him that told him, Who is my mother? and who are my brethren?
49 And he stretched forth his hand toward his disciples, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren!
50 For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother.
KJV

So, we are to go out unto the hurting world that is held captive to sin with no hope and offer them the gift of God to bring them into the kingdom of God which is the gospel that Jesus taught BEFORE he was crucified. Many think that the gospel is that Jesus died for us, but Jesus told them to preach the gospel before anyone knew that Jesus would die on the cross. The way to enter into the kingdom is to KNOW the Word/the Christ, love the Word and honor the Word. That is what eventually sets us free from our sinful ways and out of the hands of Satan's domain that is a living hell by being washed with the Word, by the Word and in the Word . Abiding in the Word is life!

We are not to associate with those who claim to know the Word yet walk contrary.. for to walk contrary is anti-Christ aka opposing-the Word of truth. How can we claim to love the Father, but hate His Word who is His exact image?
We are not to hang out as in friendship with the ungodly who have rejected Christ for what does light have in common with darkness? Jesus never kept coming back to plead with them. I know that we keep hoping for our loved ones to change their mind and I know that someone can come to Christ at a later time even though they have been offered but rejected.. because I did. But Jesus did not hang out with them without being on assignment and that is the same as us, we must always be on assignment when we are in the company of the lost.
Blessings