How to understand Paul

[Ben Masada]

When someone comes with a pet doctrine, and they have to use Paul to prove it, then my suspicion is that their doctrine is either wrong, or unimportant.

If it were important, the rest of the NT would prove it, in particular, the Gospels and teachings of Christ.

Well, Iouae, I agree with you but, there is only one thing we need to clear it up. The gospel and teachings of Jesus had nothing to do with the NT. The gospel of Jesus was Judaism and his teachings were according to the Tanach, not the NT. He never even dreamed that the NT would ever rise.

 

[Ben Masada]

Actually Galatians IS an attack on trying to keep the whole law as a way to righteousness, not just circumcision.

Paul warns if you submit to circumcision then you are obliged to keep the whole law.

Wherever Paul got that idea, it has nothing to do with Judaism.

 

[Ben Masada]

1. He couldn't get into the church he persecuted.
2. He was the first into something new.
3. The Lord appeared to him more than once, progressive revelation.
4. His Acts ministry and six letters were limited in scope.
5. His post Acts ministry and seven letters were complete in scope.

I see these as important in understanding Paul.

I have an answer to your first statement above where you say that Paul couldn't get into the church he persecuted. The answer is because it did not exist yet. He founded his church about 20 years after the time when he used to persecute the Sect of the Nazarenes. (Acts 9:1,2 and 11:26) Then, there is no Logic in the saying that one would found a church to persecute the adepts. So, Paul never persecuted a single Christian the whole of his life.

 

[Ben Masada]

Ben, Paul was not trying to convert Gentiles to Judaism, but to Christianity.

Really! Okay Iouae, would you please be so kind as to show me a quote when Paul decided to go to the Gentiles? What I have is that all his life from his first station in Damacus and until his last in Rome, he never left the Jews in peace. (Acts 9:11,2 and 28:17)

As you rightly say, preaching the Gospel started in synagogues, so it makes sense that there was a faction of new Christian converts thinking that all Christian converts should be circumcised.

They were not Christians; they were converts from the Gentiles by the Apostles of Jesus, especially Peter, the one assigned to be the apostle of the Gentiles. (Acts 15:7) They were Nazarene Jews when Paul overturned the Nazarene synagogue of Galatia into a Christian church.

Paul loved his Jewish brethren. Paul is not attacking Jews or preaching substitution theology.

The Lord have mercy on us and keep us far away from the "love" of Paul. Even the Apostles of Jesus Paul cursed them all as false apostles, deceitful workers transforming themselves into the workers of "Christ." (II Cor. 11:4-6, 13.)

All Paul is trying to discourage in Galatians is Christians feeling they need to be circumcised. In Acts 15-16 we see this was the biggest crisis to hit the new Christian church, and it was decided by all, that GENTILE converts to Christianity do not need to be circumcised. Jewish converts were already circumcised when they were 8 days old.

They had already been circumcised by the Apostles, especially Peter. The struggle of Paul was to persuade them back into the condition of Gentiles. Perhaps just for the pleasure to fight the Apostles.

I don't see why you would have anything against what Paul was saying in Galatians, since he was not saying it to Jews, but to Gentiles of Galatia who, even you would agree, have no reason to be circumcised, since they are not offspring of Abraham.

Iouae, read the letter to the Galatians with a little more seriousness and you will understand what I am talking about. And if you want to understand about the Pauline policy of Replacement Theology, read Galatians 4:21-31 and we can talk about it.

 

[dialm]

Only one is legitimately defined as the unpardonable sin. It is the sin of suicide because the chance is lost to ever repent and return to the obedience of God's Law. "Thou shall not kill" includes also and especially the killing of oneself. Since we have lost the chance to regret, it will become forever unpardonable. Let no one look anywhere for a sin that cannot be pardoned because it does not exist. As long as we are alive and have Freewill, the chance is always there to be forgiven.

With a name like that? Does the term hypocrite mean anything to you?

 

[jamie]

Then why was Judas called the "son of perdition" before he hanged himself?

Perdition = damned

Perdition comes from the Latin word meaning ruin or loss.

Judas ruined his opportunity to rule over one of the tribes of Israel. Judas will be raised with the rest of the dead.

 

[Ben Masada]

With a name like that? Does the term hypocrite mean anything to you?

Yes, Dialm, the term "hypocrite" means by definition, the slander that Christians do to Jesus whenever they agree that he broke the Golden Rule by accusing Jesus' colleagues the Pharisees for no other reason but only to satisfy Paul's baseless grudge against the Pharisees.

 

[iouae]

Iouae, read the letter to the Galatians with a little more seriousness and you will understand what I am talking about. And if you want to understand about the Pauline policy of Replacement Theology, read Galatians 4:21-31 and we can talk about it.

Paul loves his "allegories" (Gal 4:24).
Me, not so much.
Later in this thread I hope to show how Paul forces his comparisons to make them fit.

In Gal 4 Paul has chosen two women/mountains/children to illustrate the OC and NC.
Hagar (the slave woman)/mt Sinai/Ishmael represents the OC. Already I feel it does not fit.
Sarah/New Jerusalem/Isaac represents the NC.

Notice Paul has to invent a mountain called New Jerusalem.

The theme seems to be freedom. Sarah is a free woman, "Jerusalem which is above is free" (Gal 4:26), and Isaac is free. Thus, the logical deduction is that those under the NC are free. Those free are also the promised/prophesied/blessed children.

Christ came to set us free (presumably from death).
Under the OC, there was no promise of eternal life, only temporal blessings.
Presumably Christians are also free from the wages of sin, which is death.

Frankly, Paul has a very convoluted way of thinking and comparing things, and, like I said, forcing comparisons.

Presumably Ishmael had no real future. He was discarded (vs 30) after persecuting the promised son (vs 29). The OC persecuted the NC. The OC/Ishmael was cast out when the NC/Isaac was in place.

The allegory is diminishing the OC and praising the NC as being the better one, which was promised all along.

This all made sense to Paul. None of us living today would ever have chosen to compare the OC and the NC using this analogy.

I might have used an analogy such as "Encyclopaedias were fine until the internet came along. Now the internet (NC) has set us free from the limitations imposed by an encyclopaedia (OC)".

 

[Totton Linnet]

Now, I understand the question of the OP. "How to understand Paul." A Jew is circumcised on the 8th day of birth. At that age, no one has the attribute of Fireewill to submit or not to circumcision; unless he is Joining the Lord's Covenant through conversion to Judaism. (Isaiah 56:1-8) As I see now, no one can understand Paul.

Besides, where did he get the idea that circumcision obligates one to keep the whole Law? We are rather expected to honor the whole Law; to accept or to adopt it. No one is expected to keep the whole Law. Even Jesus did not as he broke the Golden Rule which covers the whole second part of the Decalogue. (Mat. 23:13-33) In fact, we read from Ecclesiastes 7:20 that, "There has never been a man upon earth to have done only good and never sinned." That's why we have the chance to set things right with the Lord so that our sins as scarlet red become as white as snow" as
long as we repent and return to the obedience of God's Law. (Isaiah 1:18,19)

If you break any law you must bring your sacrifice...do you?

The law is predicated on the blood sacrifice

 

[heir]

Oh brother. Always with the crazy remarks. WHY do you claim Peter didn't understand Paul, when that is NOT what he said?

That's not what I said. Learn to read.

 

[heir]

Paul blasphemed Jesus thinking he was a false prophet and not believing Jesus was the Christ, the Anointed One.

Paul blasphemed against the Holy Ghost when he went up against men full of the Holy Ghost.

This is fun.

 

[heir]

Huh?

Get saved and it won't be so hard to get. 1 Corinthians 2:14 KJV

 

[heir]

I'm with you on that. Peter said that some things Paul said were hard to understand, but he didn't say that he didn't understand them.

Which is exactly what I said when referring to the verse. You need to read what was actually said before responding.

 

[heir]

THE UNPARDONABLE SIN

Saul committed it and now he's saved! :think:

 

[jamie]

Paul blasphemed against the Holy Ghost when he went up against men full of the Holy Ghost.

You've confused Saul with Paul. Paul became a new man.

 

[heir]

Saul had not experienced the power of God yet. He was ignorant. He said, "I was formerly a blasphemer and a persecutor and a violent aggressor. Yet I was shown mercy because I acted ignorantly in unbelief." (I Timothy 1:13, NASB)

There was NO ESCAPE CLAUSE in what the Lord said in Matthew 12:31-32 KJV!

Matthew 12:31 Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men.

Matthew 12:32 And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come.



That should tell you right there that God was going to do something with Paul (then Saul) first and that's exactly what we see!

1 Timothy 1:16 Howbeit for this cause I obtained mercy, that in me first Jesus Christ might shew forth all longsuffering, for a pattern to them which should hereafter believe on him to life everlasting.

Get saved and rightly divide the word of truth!

 

[Nihilo]

You've confused Saul with Paul. Paul became a new man.

Paul was his last name. Like Ron Paul, or his son there.

 

[jamie]

Saul committed it and now he's saved! :think:

Paul didn't meet the NT criteria for blasphemy.

 

[glorydaz]

When someone comes with a pet doctrine, and they have to use Paul to prove it, then my suspicion is that their doctrine is either wrong, or unimportant.

If it were important, the rest of the NT would prove it, in particular, the Gospels and teachings of Christ.

:shocked:

 

[brewmama]

That's not what I said. Learn to read.

Are you dyslexic or something?

You said: "I believe that to be one of things that was hard for Peter to understand"

Don't blame me if you can't get your point across.