Paul an Apostle?

[Guest kingdombrat]

1 hour ago, Marathoner said:

I understand where you're coming from but this is not due to the vagaries of translation. This has everything to do with the striving of the flesh to view what it cannot see, and grasp what it cannot understand. Thus Yeshua spoke in parables to the blind but revealed their meaning to the ones He chose. 

The Lord reveals Himself as it pleases Him. Indeed, our God is in heaven and does whatever He pleases. 

While it's true that considerable portions of the scriptures known to the Lord and the apostles are missing today this in no way diminishes the power of the living God; as the author of Hebrews wrote, "Jesus Christ the same yesterday and today and forever." (Hebrews 13:8)

The scriptures may be read with the eyes but remain closed to the heart much in the same way that the Pharisees, who understood the scriptures and sat in the seat of Moses, refused to believe Him whom our Father sent. Not all of the Pharisees were this way, of course... a number of Pharisees did in fact believe Christ, albeit clandestinely while He walked in this flesh. We know this for a number of Pharisees who believed were with the church in Jerusalem after the Lord rose from the dead. 

Finally, it's entirely possible to be mistaken about something and still be loved by the Lord. Peter is an excellent example: our brother was rebuked by the Lord on more than one occasion and even by Paul. This had to do with Peter's upbringing and impressions, not his heart toward Christ whom he was among the first to recognize as the Messiah.

Far too much emphasis is placed upon the letter by many, forgetting that it is the Spirit of the Lord who illuminates us and leads us into truth. Again, this is where Paul's words ring true. In a way, Paul was the apostle ideally suited to minister to us in the present day, the time of the end when darkness covers not only the world but the hearts of men. He was the chosen vessel of Christ after all.  

When it comes to the natural flow of what Christ is recorded saying, and later inspiring what Paul wrote/taught, we know God's perfect intent is for us to view it like it's an non existent issue.   We know Paul clarified the Words of Christ, not opposed them.

[Duck]

I wonder why Jesus didn’t choose Paul before His crucifixion. They were approximately the same age +/-10 yrs

[Guest kingdombrat]

1 hour ago, Josheb said:

Or it could be an example of later readers failing to practice proper exegesis; a failure of subsequent readers to neglect the context of individual separate passages. 

Some blame others rather than accept their own culpability.

 

"I cleaned his clock," said the said my watchmaker son after visiting his elderly grandfather.
"I cleaned his clock" said the winner of a boxing match that lasted 90 seconds. 
"Don't clean the clocks" said the antique dealer unsure of the novice hire's ability to be delicate.

 

Context is everything. 

"We have been justified by faith apart from works," writes one author speaking to converts about their conversion.
"A person is justified by their deeds and not faith alone," writes another to converts about what happens after conversion.

Context is everything. 

Jesus is silent about idols. The word "idol" isn't found anywhere in the gospels.
The council in Jerusalem directed Paul (and Peter and Barnabas and others) to teach the abstinence from things contaminated by idols. 
Paul taught an idol is nothing and it is acceptable to eat food previously offered to an idol and he made both statements within specific and different contexts of specified conditions. 

Does that make the council disobedient to Christ's words? Does it make Paul disobedient to both Jesus and the council? Some say, "Yes!" but no one here has yet made the exegetically rational case for that position. 

 

Which is the more likely explanation: blaming others as transcribers or ourselves as interpreters? Which is easier?

 

 

.

I believe each issue is explained perfectly by knowing the entire picture from the Written Word.   Christ had no need to mention idol because there was nothing that could stand beside Him to be seen as an idol.  Paul's view is a great illustration that a fake deity cannot be attached to something that is "real life."  And the Council knew the Gentiles were from a background of open theology.   They just instructed what was immorality based upon turning something into something they place above all things within their lives.

 

Good point made!

[johnthebaptist]

41 minutes ago, Josheb said:

Yes, the is only one Law Maker and it is not you or me . We're all better off that way . 

 

You may not have any problem with Paul calling himself an apostle but many (not most) do. Anti-Paulists come in many forms; not all are Jesus'-words-onlyists. Adherents of Jesuism exist in every Christian forum in which I've ever participated. Rare, but present. 

Most of us understand the word "apostle" (Gk.: "apostolos") simply means messenger, envoy, delegate, or an individual delegate by another to represent the other. That's all. Most understand there is a corresponding witness to Paul as a messenger of the gospel or a delegate of Jesus found in Luke's and Peter's writings. Most understand Luke and Peter therefore establish the matter with two or more witnesses. Most get this. 

Some do not. 

Some disagree. Some of that some find Paul's words disagreed with Jesus's word in many places so Paul should therefore be avoided. 

I totally disagree. Most conservatives seem to put Paul's words at the same level as Jesus's words. Most liberals seem to ignore Jesus's words and adhere to Paul's words. You might be the first person I've met who, like me, puts Jesus's words abovef Paul's words.

[David1701]

1 hour ago, Starise said:

I believe much of this is simply due to  overthinking in addition to taking verses out of context with either close aligned text in the very same chapter or not allowing for other text to assist in an explanation.  Even so, the answers aren't always readily apparent. This is why we are told in 2 Timothy to study. I am not insinuating people here aren't on a study path. Christians are often on different paths as it relates to their progression of study through the word.

I don't see anyone intentionally maligning the Bible here. There comes a point where the scale tips in favor of the right answers. Ask yourself if you had an 80/20 decision in favor of clear support for Paul what would you do with that other 20%?

In this case I think the evidence is overwhelming. Others might not agree. 

If God has told us all scripture is both spiritually and scholastically understood since we are to study to show ourselves approved. Study with the guidance of the spirit.

This isn't something that's beyond any Christian with maybe the exception of the mentally challenged. God can still lead those persons to Him even so. 

That said, we all have access to the answers. Doubt can lead to questions. Questions can lead to answers. Doubt can be good. I don't see doubt as evil if someone voices it. The cure is knowledge. Spiritual knowledge. Doubt against the truth will never stand to factual sound spiritual reasoning.

 

Whilst there is no doubt that studying the Bible is a good and right thing to do, be careful, when using the KJV, that you understand when language usage has changed, as is the case with "study", in 2 Tim..

2 Tim. 2:15 (KJV) Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

Here's Thayer's Lexicon's definition of the Greek word translated "study", in the KJV.

[*Thayer*]

"4704 spoudazo {spoo-dad'-zo} from 4710;  1) to hasten, make haste 2) to exert one's self, endeavour, give diligence"

 

Modern translations do not use "study", because it is no longer used to mean "give diligence" or "endeavour".

 

2 Tim. 2:15 (EMTV) Be diligent to show yourself approved unto God, a worker unashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

 

 

[Guest kingdombrat]

3 minutes ago, Josheb said:

Apparently, although stated in different words, in their own terms, many (including myself) agree. When all of scripture has been read and all that it brings to bear on any given topic is considered there are no disparities or contradictions between any of the contents of  any of the books of the Bible. 

Jesuism assumes such things. It therefore finds that for which it is looking. Bad hermeneutic.

Hard to debate this viewpoint, because it's [correct].

[johnthebaptist]

10 minutes ago, Josheb said:

Let's test those claims. 

 

EVERYONE: please pay attention. 

How many of you conservative believers hold Paul's words "at the same level" as those of Jesus? 

How many of you liberal believers ignore Jesus words and adhere to Paul's?

 

State your orientation and a plain and simple, "Yes, I do that," or "No, I do not." 

I believe the rules on this website state the entire Bible is the Word of God, putting Paul's words at the same level as those of Jesus Christ.

[Frits]

48 minutes ago, Josheb said:

How many of you conservative believers hold Paul's words "at the same level" as those of Jesus? 

The words of the Lord Jesus and those of Paul correspond exactly, and are just as reliable.

48 minutes ago, Josheb said:

How many of you liberal believers ignore Jesus words and adhere to Paul's?

That is a contradictio in terminis, because both the Lord Jesus Christ and His Apostle Paul teach the same truth of God.

God bless.

Edited January 5, 2021 by Frits

[Frits]

2 hours ago, Josheb said:

Great. What does any of that have to do with the op's inquiry concerning those who question Paul's apostleship, his words were not inspired by God, his words should be expunged from the canon of scripture, and we should believe only Jesus' words should be proclaimed? 

Can you speak to that? 

Well that doesn't have to be that difficult. When I write that the Lord Jesus and Paul are inspired by the same Holy Spirit of God, it goes without saying that any thought or statement that questions the holy apostolate of Paul should be considered reprehensible and devilish.

But when you say, "We cannot rely on all of scripture" and "only Jesus was incarnate of the Holy Spirt", you are ignoring that through spirit-baptism the Holy Spirit is present in and directs the apostles of Jesus. You are thereby questioning their integrity and their God-given authority.

[Duck]

9 hours ago, Josheb said:

he was among those willfully opposed to Jesus and his movement.

He was opposed on the road to Damascus too