They don't believe Paul

[Lamb]

Why don't some people consider Paul's writings to be taken as scripture?

 

[Brighten04]

Why don't some people consider Paul's writings to be taken as scripture?

A lot of non Christians don't believe Paul. I don't know why.

 

[visionary]

I think it is more of a case of Paul's words have been so misconstrued that if any discussion comes up with a "Paul only" club member, then the distortion comes in full force. The reasoning is that it doesn't matter what the others say. If you have had numerous conversation with such type, you soon wish not to hear any more about Paul or what he said.

 

[MS140ukn]

I have no idea why either.

Even Peter referred to his epistles as scripture. Yet, they believe Peter and Paul died in Rome, and by some accounts they was together.

Yet Peter says goodbye from Babylon, and Paul says in his last letter that everyone abandoned him except Luke.

Go figure.

 

[Brighten04]

Well, he once persecuted the Church. I guess a lot of people hold that against him, even though Our Lord forgave him.

 

[Lamb]

Well, he once persecuted the Church. I guess a lot of people hold that against him, even though Our Lord forgave him.

He did because he was a Pharisee but then his eyes were opened and He saw God's grace. It's a great thing to receive what God offers and then go and spread the Word.

What kind of teachings from his writings are people against?

 

[Brighten04]

He did because he was a Pharisee but then his eyes were opened and He saw God's grace. It's a great thing to receive what God offers and then go and spread the Word.

What kind of teachings from his writings are people against?

I have heard some people refer to "That murderer Paul". I don't press it unless the quote him.

 

[Jesus Saves]

I believe Paul.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Why don't some people consider Paul's writings to be taken as scripture?

I've only encountered a few people who reject saint Paul's letters; some who think he was a misogynist and hence unworthy of a hearing and some who think he was a heretic to Judaism and hence not worthy of a hearing. The former are probably influenced by this century's and last century's ideas about the relationship between men and women in the world and in religion and the latter appear to be influenced by some kinds of Hebrew-roots philosophy.

 

[charis en excelcis]

Sometimes Rome is referred to as the spiritual Babylon.

 

[Alithis]

I think it is more of a case of Paul's words have been so misconstrued that if any discussion comes up with a "Paul only" club member, then the distortion comes in full force. The reasoning is that it doesn't matter what the others say. If you have had numerous conversation with such type, you soon wish not to hear any more about Paul or what he said.

... a "paul only " club member .. lol haven't been to one of those .... but hmmm i think i know a guy ...


no need to reply i was just looking for autunm things

 

[Pedrito]

The problem may lie in the apparent contradiction between what Jesus taught, and the teachings of Paul as proclaimed by the Evangelical (especially) churches.

1. Was Jesus teaching the Gospel? If so, what was it? The Gospel of the kingdom of God that the Jews knew would be set up on Earth.

2. What is the Gospel that Paul was teaching (according to the Evangelicals)? Accept Jesus Christ as your own personal Saviour, and go to Heaven. Be among those who don't so accept him for whatever reason (rejection, never hearing about him), and go to eternal torment in Hell.

You can see where the problem lies.

I have seen this expressed in other forums, and the decision made to follow Jesus' words and ignore Paul's.

Some of those people weren't even aware that the original meanings of many of the words and expressions used by Jesus and the apostles, had been deliberately mistranslated or improperly explained to bolster certain doctrines.


However, if you look closely at the words of Jesus and Paul (and Peter, etc.), you will find that there are parallel thoughts of a resurrection to an earthly existence (as originally revealed by God to Israel in the Old Testament) as well as a resurrection to a heavenly existence, expressed by those sources.

Peter stated explicitly in Acts 3:21 that all things will be restored. To what? To the way they were before the Fall, an Edenic existence on Earth – based on and confirming Old Testament prophecies concerning that very thing. (See visionary's Post #6 in the "ever lives to make intercession"?? thread,)

Other references speak of heavenly things. Are the two ideas incompatible?

Obviously not, because they are spoken of in parallel. Therefore, they must refer to different groups of people. The Scriptures speak of two Resurrections. Do they not? (Bear in mind that there is some doubt about the validity of Revelation 20:5a.)

So the gospels and Paul's writings can be reconciled quite easily with the appropriate perspective, and without the need to jump through hoops explaining away passages like Matthew 25:31-46 and Revelation 20:12,13.


God's Word is wonderful.

Maybe we should look at it a bit more closely, and without the “aid” of predetermined doctrinal filters.

Maybe?

 

[psalms 91]

The thing is that there will be a 1000 year reign on earth and also a heavenly kind=gdom coming down, there will be those in physical bodies living on earth and those who have been changed and are ruling and reigning with Christ

 

[MoreCoffee]

The problem may lie in the apparent contradiction between what Jesus taught, and the teachings of Paul as proclaimed by the Evangelical (especially) churches.

1. Was Jesus teaching the Gospel? If so, what was it? The Gospel of the kingdom of God that the Jews knew would be set up on Earth.

2. What is the Gospel that Paul was teaching (according to the Evangelicals)? Accept Jesus Christ as your own personal Saviour, and go to Heaven. Be among those who don't so accept him for whatever reason (rejection, never hearing about him), and go to eternal torment in Hell.

You can see where the problem lies.

I have seen this expressed in other forums, and the decision made to follow Jesus' words and ignore Paul's.

Some of those people weren't even aware that the original meanings of many of the words and expressions used by Jesus and the apostles, had been deliberately mistranslated or improperly explained to bolster certain doctrines.


However, if you look closely at the words of Jesus and Paul (and Peter, etc.), you will find that there are parallel thoughts of a resurrection to an earthly existence (as originally revealed by God to Israel in the Old Testament) as well as a resurrection to a heavenly existence, expressed by those sources.

Peter stated explicitly in Acts 3:21 that all things will be restored. To what? To the way they were before the Fall, an Edenic existence on Earth – based on and confirming Old Testament prophecies concerning that very thing. (See visionary's Post #6 in the "ever lives to make intercession"?? thread,)

Other references speak of heavenly things. Are the two ideas incompatible?

Obviously not, because they are spoken of in parallel. Therefore, they must refer to different groups of people. The Scriptures speak of two Resurrections. Do they not? (Bear in mind that there is some doubt about the validity of Revelation 20:5a.)

So the gospels and Paul's writings can be reconciled quite easily with the appropriate perspective, and without the need to jump through hoops explaining away passages like Matthew 25:31-46 and Revelation 20:12,13.


God's Word is wonderful.

Maybe we should look at it a bit more closely, and without the “aid” of predetermined doctrinal filters.

Maybe?

Jesus is the final revelation of God from God so whatever saint Paul teaches it cannot be his intention to contradict the Lord or to correct him. What saint Paul writes in his letters has to be read in the light of Christ. The four canonical gospels are normative and saint Paul's letters can never be rightly read in such a way as to override the word of the Lord in the gospels.

 

[brinny]

Why don't some people consider Paul's writings to be taken as scripture?

It has puzzled me big time. it is clear to me that Paul (formerly Saul) was converted by Jesus Christ Himself. Paul then became a missionary to the Gentiles. What a glorious transformation and testimony to the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ.

 

[Hebrews 11]

Paul and his helpers fulfilled God's promise to Abraham, his teaching did not conform to Judism because Judism did not teach Jesus Christ as the Messiah.
Paul being a former enemy of Christianity gives God the glory through his transformation.
We see this pattern of leadership throughout the Bible.

God chooses whom he desires, not what mankind would expect.

 

[Stravinsk]

Why don't some people consider Paul's writings to be taken as scripture?

The answer isn't simple and I doubt a "one size fits all" applies to all individuals for their reasons for either doubting or outright dismissing Saul/Paul of Tarsus.

The short answer for me is simple. Saul/Paul frequently quotes Scripture out of context, or outright misquotes it. Some of his theology is directly at odds with Yeshua's (Jesus's) teaching. Some of his theology mixes truth with nonsense. A good example of the latter is the beautiful passage on love found in 1 Corinthians 13 starting with verse 4. What follows is good teaching up until verse 7...where things get iffy with statements like "believes all things"(KJV)...then even more strange with "prophecies in part", "knowledge passing away"...it is supposed to sound spiritual but to me it is nonsense. No characteristic of love "believes all things". Quite the contrary - Proverbs 14:15 calls people "simple" or "fools" for believing everything they encounter. No prophet I am aware of gives "partial prophecies" that disappear when the "full prophecy" comes - and this doesn't even make sense applied to other things. A slice of pizza doesn't disappear if the whole pizza is restored, it stays part of the whole.

^^ But this is all minor stuff...little tiny examples.

The best long answer I have as someone who does not trust the writings of Saul/Paul is to quote the following list:

Titled: "Questions to ask yourself about Paul of Tarsus" by Jeff Ward.

http://false-apostle-paul-archive.b.../questions-to-ask-your-pastor-about-paul.html

Those of us who question Paul often frequently question Luke and Mark to some extent...and we also question the authorship of the Peterine Epistles. Our gospels are also frequently limited to Matthew and John - two disciples hand picked by Yeshua. It could be argued that Saul/Paul was also hand picked - but that is only by his own testimony/witness which has 3 accounts in Acts that contradict themselves.

Edit: Above title should be "Questions to ask your Pastor about Paul of Tarsus"

 

[Lamb]

"Love bears all things"

Is that instructive or just plain descriptive since people in love can be utterly stupid?

 

[MoreCoffee]

"Love bears all things"

Is that instructive or just plain descriptive since people in love can be utterly stupid?

are you sure it isn't love bares all

 

[Lamb]

are you sure it isn't love bares all

Nope, it's bear. GROWL

Isn't love ferocious??? LOL