Was Paul nasty?

[belantos]

Gal. 5: 12 I wish those who unsettle you would castrate themselves! (NRSV)

Sounds pretty nasty in our ears, doesn't it?

But is Paul really malicious against his Jewish brethren who sought to circumcise these Gentile converts? That would have been very weird and very unloving.

Why don't we consider Yeshua's teaching about becoming an eunuch?

Matthew 19:
10 His disciples said to him, “If such is the case of a man with his wife, it is better not to marry.” 11 But he said to them, “Not everyone can accept this teaching, but only those to whom it is given. 12 For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others, and there are eunuchs who have *made themselves eunuchs* for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Let anyone accept this who can.”

Paul simply says he wished these Jewish brethren, rather than bothering Gentile converts with circumcision, would wholly devote themselves to the service of the Kingdom of God.

There is not the slightest maliciousness in his words. Why is it that so many people read such an antisemitic meaning into it?

 

[aspen]

Gal. 5: 12 I wish those who unsettle you would castrate themselves! (NRSV)

Sounds pretty nasty in our ears, doesn't it?

But is Paul really malicious against his Jewish brethren who sought to circumcise these Gentile converts? That would have been very weird and very unloving.

Why don't we consider Yeshua's teaching about becoming an eunuch?

Matthew 19:
10 His disciples said to him, “If such is the case of a man with his wife, it is better not to marry.” 11 But he said to them, “Not everyone can accept this teaching, but only those to whom it is given. 12 For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others, and there are eunuchs who have *made themselves eunuchs* for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Let anyone accept this who can.”

Paul simply says he wished these Jewish brethren, rather than bothering Gentile converts with circumcision, would wholly devote themselves to the service of the Kingdom of God.

There is not the slightest maliciousness in his words. Why is it that so many people read such an antisemitic meaning into it?

Origen did it, why not you, belantos?

 

[belantos]

Origen did it, why not you, belantos?

Poor Origen. He didn't have to. That option was only for the time period immediately before the Kingdom was supposed to come. Hence the urgency. But once Jerusalem was destroyed the Kingdom could no longer come. Origen's eschatology was incorrect.

 

[Amazing Grace]

GAL 5:1 It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of slavery.

GAL 5:2 Mark my words! I, Paul, tell you that if you let yourselves be circumcised, Christ will be of no value to you at all. 3 Again I declare to every man who lets himself be circumcised that he is obligated to obey the whole law. 4 You who are trying to be justified by law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace. 5 But by faith we eagerly await through the Spirit the righteousness for which we hope. 6 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision has any value. The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love.

GAL 5:7 You were running a good race. Who cut in on you and kept you from obeying the truth? 8 That kind of persuasion does not come from the one who calls you. 9 "A little yeast works through the whole batch of dough." 10 I am confident in the Lord that you will take no other view. The one who is throwing you into confusion will pay the penalty, whoever he may be. 11 Brothers, if I am still preaching circumcision, why am I still being persecuted? In that case the offense of the cross has been abolished. 12 As for those agitators, I wish they would go the whole way and emasculate themselves!

GAL 5:13 You, my brothers, were called to be free. But do not use your freedom to indulge the sinful nature; rather, serve one another in love.

Context shows what the Apsotle Paul actually was saying and Rightly SO! Anyone who is trying to take Christians away from Salvation in Christ is worthy of being reprimanded.

Jesus said this:-

MT 18:2 He called a little child and had him stand among them. 3 And he said: "I tell you the truth, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. 4 Therefore, whoever humbles himself like this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven.

MT 18:5 "And whoever welcomes a little child like this in my name welcomes me. 6 But if anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a large millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea.

Jesus was being protective of young believers and so was the Apostle Paul.

A mother would go to great lengths to protect her children and being a bit nasty is part of that protectiveness. You expect Jesus and the Apostle Paul to stand by and allow their spiritual children be deceived and led astray? {rhetorical question}

Honestly Belatos it isn't Paul who is being malicious.

 

[belantos]

Context shows what the Apsotle Paul actually was saying and Rightly SO! Anyone who is trying to take Christians away from Salvation in Christ is worthy of being reprimanded.

Jesus said this:-



Jesus was being protective of young believers and so was the Apostle Paul.

A mother would go to great lengths to protect her children and being a bit nasty is part of that protectiveness. You expect Jesus and the Apostle Paul to stand by and allow their spiritual children be deceived and led astray? {rhetorical question}

Honestly Belatos it isn't Paul who is being malicious.

I am simply trying to show you first century Christianity, but you keep being freaked out that I am trying to drag you away from 4th century Hellenistic Christianity.

 

[jiggyfly]

Gal. 5: 12 I wish those who unsettle you would castrate themselves! (NRSV)

Sounds pretty nasty in our ears, doesn't it?

But is Paul really malicious against his Jewish brethren who sought to circumcise these Gentile converts? That would have been very weird and very unloving.

Why don't we consider Yeshua's teaching about becoming an eunuch?

Matthew 19:
10 His disciples said to him, “If such is the case of a man with his wife, it is better not to marry.” 11 But he said to them, “Not everyone can accept this teaching, but only those to whom it is given. 12 For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others, and there are eunuchs who have *made themselves eunuchs* for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Let anyone accept this who can.”

Paul simply says he wished these Jewish brethren, rather than bothering Gentile converts with circumcision, would wholly devote themselves to the service of the Kingdom of God.

There is not the slightest maliciousness in his words. Why is it that so many people read such an antisemitic meaning into it?

Belantos, you should read the first part of the letter, it might change your thinking.



I am shocked that you are turning away so soon from God, who called you to himself through the loving mercy of Christ. [fn] You are following a different way that pretends to be the Good News but is not the Good News at all. You are being fooled by those who deliberately twist the truth concerning Christ. Let God's curse fall on anyone, including us or even an angel from heaven, who preaches a different kind of Good News than the one we preached to you. I say again what we have said before: If anyone preaches any other Good News than the one you welcomed, let that person be cursed. Gal. 1:6-9


Context is something to be considered always.

 

[belantos]

Belantos, you should read the first part of the letter, it might change your thinking.



I am shocked that you are turning away so soon from God, who called you to himself through the loving mercy of Christ. [fn] You are following a different way that pretends to be the Good News but is not the Good News at all. You are being fooled by those who deliberately twist the truth concerning Christ. Let God's curse fall on anyone, including us or even an angel from heaven, who preaches a different kind of Good News than the one we preached to you. I say again what we have said before: If anyone preaches any other Good News than the one you welcomed, let that person be cursed. Gal. 1:6-9

Context is something to be considered always.

Paul said that in the first century, don't forget it. Unfortunately, the apostasy of the second century saw another gospel message arising that lasted for two millennia. I am not ashamed to fall away from that one and fall back to the original.

 

[jiggyfly]

Paul said that in the first century, don't forget it. Unfortunately, the apostasy of the second century saw another gospel message arising that lasted for two millennia. I am not ashamed to fall away from that one and fall back to the original.

OK so how does that change anything on this discussion?

 

[Amazing Grace]

Paul said that in the first century, don't forget it. Unfortunately, the apostasy of the second century saw another gospel message arising that lasted for two millennia. I am not ashamed to fall away from that one and fall back to the original.

What is this First Gospel, Second Gospel? There is only ONE Gospel by which mankind can be Saved?

Are you saying we are all deceived by some other Gospel here?

I always thought we were Saved through Christ's death on the Cross (using a very simplistic line here). Christ was the Lamb of God that takes away the sins of the World. Jesus did it all and we receive what He did for us. Of course we need a repentant heart to be able to receive the salvation and eternal life Jesus bought for us by His Blood.

If there is another gospel being taught out there it obviously would not match up with what is recorded for us in the scriptures.

I didn't think Paul was writing a different Gospel to Peter? Well I'm actually certain they did agree on what they taught and wrote because their writings support each other.

Here the Apostle Peter writes to us confirming that he agrees with the Apostle Paul and recognises that the Apostle Paul was given wisdom from God.

2PE 3:14 So then, dear friends, since you are looking forward to this, make every effort to be found spotless, blameless and at peace with him. 15 Bear in mind that our Lord's patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. 16 He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.

 

[belantos]

What is this First Gospel, Second Gospel? There is only ONE Gospel by which mankind can be Saved?

Are you saying we are all deceived by some other Gospel here?

I always thought we were Saved through Christ's death on the Cross (using a very simplistic line here). Christ was the Lamb of God that takes away the sins of the World. Jesus did it all and we receive what He did for us. Of course we need a repentant heart to be able to receive the salvation and eternal life Jesus bought for us by His Blood.

If there is another gospel being taught out there it obviously would not match up with what is recorded for us in the scriptures.

I didn't think Paul was writing a different Gospel to Peter? Well I'm actually certain they did agree on what they taught and wrote because their writings support each other.

Here the Apostle Peter writes to us confirming that he agrees with the Apostle Paul and recognises that the Apostle Paul was given wisdom from God.

2PE 3:14 So then, dear friends, since you are looking forward to this, make every effort to be found spotless, blameless and at peace with him. 15 Bear in mind that our Lord's patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. 16 He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.

There is only a single gospel, and that is the gospel of the Kingdom: "Repent, for the Kingdom of God is at hand".

Here is a little post about it:
http://www.zworld.com.au/2010/12/19/what-is-the-gospel-has-the-old-way-been-replaced/

 

[JohnDB]

Maybe Paul wrote that because of his personality.

People often forget that these were real men with real personalities...

Lets face it...Paul was a guy who could go into any city and get them so riled up over a religious debate that the city would end up in chaos complete with a riot.

and it wasn't like he only did it one time.

Paul was what you would call "fiesty" and even sarcastic.

Paul did love hard...and was a passionate, driven man...but he wasn't perfect by any means...and he had a lot of courage.

and that is why he said what he said.

 

[FHII]

Gal. 5: 12 I wish those who unsettle you would castrate themselves! (NRSV)

Sounds pretty nasty in our ears, doesn't it?

But is Paul really malicious against his Jewish brethren who sought to circumcise these Gentile converts? That would have been very weird and very unloving.

Why don't we consider Yeshua's teaching about becoming an eunuch?

Matthew 19:
10 His disciples said to him, “If such is the case of a man with his wife, it is better not to marry.” 11 But he said to them, “Not everyone can accept this teaching, but only those to whom it is given. 12 For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others, and there are eunuchs who have *made themselves eunuchs* for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Let anyone accept this who can.”

Paul simply says he wished these Jewish brethren, rather than bothering Gentile converts with circumcision, would wholly devote themselves to the service of the Kingdom of God.

There is not the slightest maliciousness in his words. Why is it that so many people read such an antisemitic meaning into it?

I follow the King James Version and this verse in that is a bit more gentle on the surface:

"I would they be even cut off which trouble you."

My opinion is that yea,,, Paul was nasty. It was needed and still is to defend the gospel. Samuel hacked up a king with a sword and cut him into bloody bits and then proclaimed, obiediance is better than sacrifice." Jehu was so morbid that he disgusted the latter prophets, Why should Paul be any different except he was dealing in an age of spiritual violence and not physical violence?

If Paul didn't take a strong stance we would not have the book of Corinthians.... Neither of them. Jesus was pretty nasty too.... He made a whip, which takes some time, and beat the hell out of a lot of people. Peter could be nasty too... He cursed Annanias and Sapharis just because they lied about how much they gave in an offering. They weren't bound by that offering, it's just that they lied about it.

The point is that Men of God know and can do nasty things. Not only that, but they will do them! It is best not to provoke them to anger.

 

[Disciple]

read the kjv of those verses, maybe better understanding will spring forth.

 

[aspen]

I remember early in my faith, fearing that Jesus was cruel and that everyone I met at church was refusing to acknowledge the truth - just smiled and nodded when the wedding at Cana was read and Jesus addressed His mother as 'Women!".It was only later that I started worrying about Paul, but my opinion was based on hearsay, not from reading the scriptures. When I started reading the Bible, I started to understand on a new level. Later, I started reading the Bible through the lens of Love and Paul appears totally compassionate, Jesus as merciful and kind.

 

[Duckybill]

I remember early in my faith, fearing that Jesus was cruel and that everyone I met at church was refusing to acknowledge the truth - just smiled and nodded when the wedding at Cana was read and Jesus addressed His mother as 'Women!".It was only later that I started worrying about Paul, but my opinion was based on hearsay, not from reading the scriptures. When I started reading the Bible, I started to understand on a new level. Later, I started reading the Bible through the lens of Love and Paul appears totally compassionate, Jesus as merciful and kind.

I must ask, which version of the Bible were you reading that omitted the Genesis Flood where Jesus drowned everyone on Earth but 8 making them an example? I don't know of any but you obviously do.

 

[aspen]

I must ask, which version of the Bible were you reading that omitted the Genesis Flood where Jesus drowned everyone on Earth but 8 making them an example? I don't know of any but you obviously do.

I must ask, is it moral to worship a Jesus that drowned everyone on Earth, but 8 making them an example? I do not think so, but you obviously do.

 

[Duckybill]

I must ask, is it moral to worship a Jesus that drowned everyone on Earth, but 8 making them an example? I do not think so, but you obviously do.

Since the Bible clearly says that Jesus did drown everyone on Earth but 8, the ball is in your court. You have to choose Jesus or not.



Unless you deny that Jesus is the God of Genesis, Aspen.

 

[aspen]

Since the Bible clearly says that Jesus did drown everyone on Earth but 8, the ball is in your court. You have to choose Jesus or not.



Unless you deny that Jesus is the God of Genesis, Aspen.

Oh, I have an answer for myself; it is certainly not moral to worship any god that would actually kill his creation; while saving 8 people who are sinful, just like the people he killed. The story is an ancient account of a disaster that was passed down through the generations. It is in the Bible for a good reason, to describe God's sovereignty.

I am wondering what your answer is.

 

[Duckybill]

Oh, I have an answer for myself; it is certainly not moral to worship any god that would actually kill his creation; while saving 8 people who are sinful, just like the people he killed. The story is an ancient account of a disaster that was passed down through the generations. It is in the Bible for a good reason, to describe God's sovereignty.

I am wondering what your answer is.

My answer is that Jesus is correct:

Matthew 24:37-39 (ESV)
[sup]37 [/sup]For as were the days of Noah, so will be the coming of the Son of Man. [sup]38 [/sup]For as in those days before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day when Noah entered the ark, [sup]39 [/sup]and they were unaware until the flood came and swept them all away, so will be the coming of the Son of Man.

 

[aspen]

My answer is that Jesus is correct:

Matthew 24:37-39 (ESV)
[sup]37 [/sup]For as were the days of Noah, so will be the coming of the Son of Man. [sup]38 [/sup]For as in those days before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day when Noah entered the ark, [sup]39 [/sup]and they were unaware until the flood came and swept them all away, so will be the coming of the Son of Man.

That is not the question.