Paul an Apostle?

[Dennis1209]

13 hours ago, Desopixi Seilynam said:

It is because of what Peter said of Paul, and the way Peter addresses Paul, that we can take Paul as anybody.
Other than this passage, we have no other direct back-up for Paul other than his own words and that he is included in Acts.

2 Peter 3:14-16

"Be diligent that ye may be found of Him in peace, without spot, and blameless.
And realize that the patience of our Lord is salvation [2 Peter 3:9 that we all reach the knowledge repentance] 
even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given him has written unto you;
as also in all his letters, speaking of these things [how we are to live] 
in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned [about all scripture]
and unstable [they fall back into sin] twist, as they do the other scriptures, unto their own destruction."

Those words specifically back up all the letters of Paul.

Indeed when Paul spoke of scripture I don't think he was speaking of his own words,
I don't think these men exactly knew that we would be hashing over their every written word so much,
it is a gift they have been given. Their words are part of Holy scripture.

And therefore also, because it is 2 Peter 3:14-16 that gives validity to Paul's letters, we should always, always, have it in mind when reading Paul, for we are clearly told that some things Paul said can be hard to understand.

 

For example Romans 9, many want to take the end of Romans 9 and conclude that some are predestined for heaven,
and others predestined for hell. Clearly Romans 9 is hard to understand. However the Spirit through Paul continued the thought:

"In a house there are vessels of honor and dishonor, if a man cleanse himself from dishonor he shall be a vessel unto honor"
2 Timothy 2:20-21  [Psalm 119:9]

And the scripture that these men would have been referring to are books such as Isaiah and Ezekiel.
The scripture is also what we must learn to fully understand Paul. In the Romans 9 case we must learn Ezekiel 18 and 33.
Another good example is Romans 10:7-13, Paul is directly quoting Deuteronomy 30:12-14 and therefore saying that Christ is the word of God come down from heaven, "that we may hear it and do it", it's important that we do not miss such context.

 "for he is not a Jew which is one outwardly... circumcision is that of the heart"
Paul was not making that up, that is not 'new' revelation, it's scripture his audience would have known:

"Circumcise therefore the foreskin of your heart... Love ye therefore the stranger" Deuteronomy 10:16,19.

You see Joshua of Nazareth was and is the Messiah, the messenger of God; saying the same things God already said.

"Love your enemies and them that hate you" Exodus 23:4-5
"Love your enemies and them that hate you" Luke 6:27

These would be some of the strongest proofs to a Jewish and/or scripture believing audience,
because the greatest prophecy concerning the Messiah is that He would speak the words of God: Deuteronomy 18:18-19.

And to an audience that did not have the new testament as we have it today, they no doubt would have been studying things such as this in relation to the Messiah.
 

We can see the message of the Messiah; sincere love for everyone,
coming from all of Gods speakers, beginning with Moses:

Exodus 22:21
Exodus 23:4-5, 9
Leviticus 19:17-18, 33-34
Deuteronomy 10:16,19
Job 31
Psalm 15
Isaiah 1:11-20, 58:5-10
Jeremiah 22:3-5
Zechariah 7:9-12, 8:14-17
Matthew 7:12
Luke 6:27-49
John 15:12
Romans 13:8-10
1 Corinthians 13
Galatians 5:6,14
1 John 2:3-4, 4:8
 

Including Paul. The message is in unison, we who believe are empowered to sincerely love everyone,
therefore sincere believers are marked by sincere love. For God is love.

You forgot one 

Galatians 2:11 (KJV) But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed. 12. For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision.

Peter was a hypocrite at times, and Paul called him out on it. 

 

[Guest kingdombrat]

45 minutes ago, Dennis1209 said:

You forgot one 

Galatians 2:11 (KJV) But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed. 12. For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision.

Peter was a hypocrite at times, and Paul called him out on it. 

 

Peter is for sure very much like a lot of human beings who don't really want to be a martyr for the right cause when they first are given knowledge to by God.   That's the Beauty of God, He only picks maybe a single person to reveal what needs to be taught to the others [his dream to Peter].   That makes "You" the person who has to face the firing squad to begin with.   And that's a lonely spot to be in.

[Sower]

"I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot.
So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spew thee out of my mouth"

To be a lukewarm believer is to be as vomit.

I view Paul as on fire, originally just on the wrong road.
God knew a dedicated on fire soldier when He saw one, and set him on the right road.
No one can say he was lukewarm.
With all I/we need to learn to walk in Christ, I wonder the catalyst/origins to the doubts of Paul's credibility
as an inspired writer of the word. 

Luke and Mark were not apostles, yet wrote the gospels.

 

[Poet of Ephraim]

The stumbling block for Jews is Messiah’s first arrival,
The stumbling block for Gentiles is Paul and the Bible.
His letters cleverly reveal your inner heart's condition
By how you interpret all the ambiguity within them.
If you respect Yahweh's Law then Paul's a confirmation,
If you don't, it's like he starts a brand new conversation. 
And if you quote Paul’s words before the Messiah’s
And even over the Creator’s then who do you hold highest?

A tribute to the Messiah's most misunderstood apostle.Inspired by 2 Peter 3:15-17, 2 Timothy 3:14-17

~Poet of Ephraim 
 

[Starise]

5 hours ago, Poet of Ephraim said:

And if you quote Paul’s words before the Messiah’s
And even over the Creator’s then who do you hold highest?

And this is one very valid argument. Many of the churches I have been in were very "Paul centric". OTOH Paul wrote a good deal of the NT, especially concerning the gentiles, so to omit Paul is not a good thing. I think there should be equal balance to all scripture.

Some pastors are on "Paul kicks". I mean for years at a time. Reasons for this could be many. I think many people associate very closely to Paul and his struggles. Even though he was a Jew, he seems very "Gentile" to me. He associated so very closely with us. I don't think Paul eventually drew a line between Jew and Gentile after his conversion. God doesn't either in terms of His salvation to us all.

Go all the way back to Adam and the fall. Redemption for ALL men started there. The Jews are His special people who in some cases it was said in 2 Kings that their deeds were more despicable than the deeds of those God had commissioned them to eradicate. Clearly God's attention to them is not dependent on anything redemptive from them. The only real claim they have is Jesus came through them and for whatever reason, this was God's choice.

[Guest kingdombrat]

3 minutes ago, Starise said:

And this is one very valid argument. Many of the churches I have been in were very "Paul centric". OTOH Paul wrote a good deal of the NT, especially concerning the gentiles, so to omit Paul is not a good thing. I think there should be equal balance to all scripture.

Some pastors are on "Paul kicks". I mean for years at a time. Reasons for this could be many. I think many people associate very closely to Paul and his struggles. Even though he was a Jew, he seems very "Gentile" to me. He associated so very closely with us. I don't think Paul eventually drew a line between Jew and Gentile after his conversion. God doesn't either in terms of His salvation to us all.

Go all the way back to Adam and the fall. Redemption for ALL men started there. The Jews are His special people who in some cases it was said in 2 Kings that their deeds were more despicable than the deeds of those God had commissioned them to eradicate. Clearly God's attention to them is not dependent on anything redemptive from them. The only real claim they have is Jesus came through them and for whatever reason, this was God's choice.

I believe OSAS, not the general understanding, but where some feel they basically have a {license to sin} is creating a Doctrine from Paul's words and placing those words higher than the Creators/Christ/the Messiah.

[Starise]

19 minutes ago, kingdombrat said:

I believe OSAS, not the general understanding, but where some feel they basically have a {license to sin} is creating a Doctrine from Paul's words and placing those words higher than the Creators/Christ/the Messiah.

Seems to be  common thing. People take what they like and ignore the rest to make their points. Paul said he was chief among sinners. I'm sure the knowledge that he was directly responsible for the murder of many of his brothers knawed at him to the grave.

Should we continue in sin? The famous reply. GOD FORBID!!

[JohnD]

On 12/27/2020 at 11:39 PM, Starise said:

I'm going to bring something up that never even entered my grey matter until a close friend I visited last night brought it up.

He has been reading literature online from people who are saying or who have said Paul really isn't a legit Biblical contributor.

He asked me what I thought about it. I simply stated that I would need to study it more to try and see what these teachers are saying and if I can make any sense of it.

A few key points to this view are as follows:

• The words of Jesus and Paul disagree in places
• Paul could have been a wise man but his writings didn't belong in scripture as inspired writings.
• Peter disagreed with Paul and much of what He said as did other theologians who believed the writings of Paul should be excluded from the canon of scripture.

Here's a link to one of the adherents to these ideas-https://jesuswordsonly.com/

Hebrews 9:16–17 (NASB95)
16 For where a covenant is, there must of necessity be the death of the one who made it.
17 For a covenant is valid only when men are dead, for it is never in force while the one who made it lives.

Jesus lived and died under the OLD Covenant / Testament. He taught Old Testament Mosaic Law (which has

prophetic tones about the New Covenant, but is primarily Old Testament).

Passages like John  3:16 - 18 Paul expounds upon in Ephesians 2:8-10.

Colossians 1:15-15 expounds upon John 1:1-3 and John 14:6-10

which Jesus did alone by himself Isaiah 44:24.

Jesus came to save the Jews first. Romans 1:16  / Romans 2:9-10.

He came under Law (as the Law prophetically predicted) to fulfill the Law and to

point the way to Grace (Galatians 3:24-28).

There is no contradiction and no difference between the Grace both Jesus and Paul taught.

Paul, Saul of Tarsus a fair haired up and comer in Judaism and expert in the LAW... 

focused on the prophetic element of the scriptures about Grace rather than legalism under the Law. 

ACCORDING TO THE SCRIPTURES (1 Corinthians 15:1-4).

The Old Testament Tanakh was all that were in existence when he wrote this.

[JohnD]

The argument for the difference in Paul and Jesus teachings

is an old one which tries to bring OT legalism into NT grace.

[Starise]

24 minutes ago, Josheb said:

I think God I didn't baptize any of you. 

I'm glad you didn't baptize me too ...................Good thoughts on this Josheb.

27 minutes ago, Josheb said:

The idea that quoting Paul "'before' the Messiah's" and/or "over the Creator's" is flawed in two ways. First, it is a straw man because no one believes Paul is more authoritative than the Son or the Father. Second, since according to Jesus' own words, Paul was chosen by Jesus and Paul's words came from God this premise is a false dichotomy: God's words, Jesus' words, and Paul's words are not mutually exclusive words.

I see the irony in it now as well. It attempts to establish something that should be obvious. I mean anything against Jesus....Jesus wins. Should not discount/discredit what the Lord has condoned in His word. We could potentially eliminate anyone else's words by this argument.