Epistles of Paul as the Word of God?

[Dirty Penguin]

In the canonical works you are correct however the extra-canonical works of the other apostles do show they held a deeper understanding of the teachings of Christ that far escaped the reach of Paul and were almost always to the contrary.

Interesting as an expert in the Law missed the purpose and value of it. Not only this he missed the point that Christ upheld in his travels as he frequently clarified and acted according to the Law.

Finally, the conditions of a text being included in the canon were in fact that all thoughts presented come from God, either through direct speach or writings. Personal opinions other than those of Christ hold no merit if they contradict a teaching of Christ. Paul on more than one occasion was scorned for his misinterpretation and communication of the Law to the Gentiles. In fact, the Jewish people who did have an excellent grasp on the Law were in fact so perturbed by his skewed and jaded teachings they went so far as a desire to charge him with blasphemy! As far as his invention of Christianity may go... there are many different schools of Christianity today but are all represented bytheir source in Paul and all of them hold his contempt for the value of the Law. There were other schools of course that do not originate in Paul that hold an alternative view on the Law and purpose of Christ's life. These schools are no longer allowed to be associated with the term Christianity however as they are indeed so far removed from Paul's teachings. Pauline Christianity is the accepted faith of Christians these days and as such he is responsible for the invention of Christianity as you know it!

Thank you.

He and I don't converse anymore...(Had something to do with another thread he, Muffled and I were involved in)......

I do like it when some one does point like this out. Paul was so far off the mark when it came to knowing or understanding Yeshua. You can tell a definate split between the two as far as the core teachings.

Paul says:
1Cor.4
[15] For though you have countless guides in Christ, you do not have many fathers. For I became your father in Christ Jesus through the gospel.
Phlm.1
[10] I appeal to you for my child, Ones'imus, whose father I have become in my imprisonment.

Yeshua says:
Matt.23
[9] And call no man your father on earth, for you have one Father, who is in heaven.

Paul says:
Rom.5
[21] so that, as sin reigned in death, grace also might reign through righteousness to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

Yeshua says:
John.5
[24] Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears my word and believes him who sent me, has eternal life; he does not come into judgment, but has passed from death to life.

Paul says:
Rom.10
[4] For Christ is the end of the law, that every one who has faith may be justified.

Jesus says:
Matt.5
[17] Think not that I have come to abolish the law and the prophets; I have come not to abolish them but to fulfil them.
[18] For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the law until all is accomplished.

Paul says:
1Cor.12
[28] And God has appointed in the church first apostles, second prophets, third, teachers,
Eph.4
[11] And his gifts were that some should be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, some pastors and teachers,
1Tim.2
[7] For this I was appointed a preacher and apostle (I am telling the truth, I am not lying), a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and truth.
2Tim.1
[11] For this gospel I was appointed a preacher and apostle and teacher,

Yeshua says:
Matt.23
[8] But you are not to be called rabbi, for you have one teacher, and you are all brethren.



Paul says:
1Cor.4
[15] For though you have countless leaders in Christ . . ..

Jesus says:
Matt.23
[10] Neither be called leaders, for you have one leader, the Christ.
There's more but I just wanted to lista a few examples.

 

[rocketman]

In the canonical works you are correct however the extra-canonical works of the other apostles do show they held a deeper understanding of the teachings of Christ that far escaped the reach of Paul and were almost always to the contrary.

Canonical huh?

Interesting as an expert in the Law missed the purpose and value of it. Not only this he missed the point that Christ upheld in his travels as he frequently clarified and acted according to the Law.

Missed what?

. Personal opinions other than those of Christ hold no merit if they contradict a teaching of Christ.

Pauls' core theology did not contradict Jesus in my opinion. If the Law was enough Jesus needn't have died.

. In fact, the Jewish people who did have an excellent grasp on the Law were in fact so perturbed by his skewed and jaded teachings they went so far as a desire to charge him with blasphemy!

They did the same to Jesus.

. As far as his invention of Christianity may go... there are many different schools of Christianity today but are all represented bytheir source in Paul and all of them hold his contempt for the value of the Law.

Paul's view of the Law was realistic.

. There were other schools of course that do not originate in Paul that hold an alternative view on the Law and purpose of Christ's life.

Ebionites. And many others. Doesn't change the fact that you cannot keep the law no matter how hard you try.

. Pauline Christianity is the accepted faith of Christians these days and as such he is responsible for the invention of Christianity as you know it!

I find that assertion absurd, with all due respect. Jesus was bound by the law until his death. Jesus came to give his life as a ransom for many. Peter figured out the consequences without Pauls help. I'm convinced, and coming from a legalistic Law-obsessed Ebionite-like group previously, I have long ago satisifed my intellect and heart as to whether or not Paul got it right. I believe he did.

Back to the OP: on the weighter matters, yes, Pauls words are holy because they echo Jesus, imho.

 

[Muffled]

Thank you.

He and I don't converse anymore...(Had something to do with another thread he, Muffled and I were involved in)......

I do like it when some one does point like this out. Paul was so far off the mark when it came to knowing or understanding Yeshua. You can tell a definate split between the two as far as the core teachings.

Paul says:
1Cor.4
[15] For though you have countless guides in Christ, you do not have many fathers. For I became your father in Christ Jesus through the gospel.
Phlm.1
[10] I appeal to you for my child, Ones'imus, whose father I have become in my imprisonment.

Yeshua says:
Matt.23
[9] And call no man your father on earth, for you have one Father, who is in heaven.

As usual you take an incorrect view of the scriptures and try to back it up but scriptures don't work because your view isn't correct.

Take the first comparison for example. I suppose you are trying to say that Paul is calling himself a father on earth. This is not the case. He is calling himself the One Father in Heaven as he has a right to do because he has the Paraclete.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

As usual you take an incorrect view of the scriptures and try to back it up but scriptures don't work because your view isn't correct.

Take the first comparison for example. I suppose you are trying to say that Paul is calling himself a father on earth. This is not the case. He is calling himself the One Father in Heaven as he has a right to do because he has the Paraclete.

I disagree. It is your assumption that he was chosen to be an apostle. And it is your assumption the spirit dwelt within him. He was straight to the point when he made his statement.

 

[dance-above]

Paul was a minister of Christ which gives his letters Authority:
Acts 9:17 And Ananias departed, and entered into the house: and laying his hands on him said, Brother Saul, the Lord, (even) Jesus, Who appeared unto the in the way which thou camest, Hath sent me, that though mayest recieve thy sight, and be filled with the Holy spirit.
Acts 9:20 And straightway in the synagogues he Proclaimed Jesus, That he is the son of God.
Acts 15 And certain men came down from judea and taught the brethren, Except ye be circumcised after the custom of Moses,ye cannot be Saved.
Acts 15:2 And when paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and questioning with them,(The brethren)appointed that paul and Barnabas, and certain other of them, should go up to Jerusalem unto the apostles and elders about this Question.

Acts 15:22 Then it seemed good to the Apostles and elders, with the whole church,to send men out of their company, and send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas:

They were excepted by the apostles and elders.

Acts 15:25 It seemed good unto us, having come to one accord, to choose men and send them unto you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul
Acts15:26 men that have hazarded their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Romans 10:8 But what saith it? The word is nigh thee, in thy mouth, and in thy heart that is,the word of faith, which we preach:
Romans 10:9 because if thou shalt confess with thy mouth Jesus as Lord , and shalt believe in thy heart that God raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.

Pauls letters had authority because he was called, chosen and excepted By God and Christ and also the church. He spent the rest of his life after the incedent on the road to damascus Proclaiming the Gospel.

 

[Mr. Peanut]

Well put, dance-above.

 

[Popeyesays]

It was obvious from Paul's works, (not all proven to be authentically his) that he never heard of a real Jesus that lived on this earth. His message was spiritual only. He never referred once to any teachings of the supposed Jesus, or to any of the well known stories of the gospels, yet he lived closer to the time of the supposed Jesus than the real gospel writers did.

Well the Gospel of John is attributed to John, one of the Apostles. The Epistles of Peter are attributed to Simon Peter who was not just an apostle but also appointed to some kind of authority by Jesus's testimony. There is no doubt that there were at least ORAL Gospels which are attributed to authors who were contemporaries of Jesus and Paul. SO speaking as one or another as "first" is ridiculous, they are all contemporaneous.

Regards,
Scott

 

[Popeyesays]

Dance Above,

I'm copnfused. Paul's epistles are authoritative because he was a "minister of God". So anything written by any minister of God since is just as authoritative?

Regards,
Scott

 

[Reverend Rick]

I'm not Catholic, but was not Paul the first Pope of Rome?

 

[Popeyesays]

I'm not Catholic, but was not Paul the first Pope of Rome?

No, the status of "Pope" was established through Peter, not Paul.

Regards,
Scott

 

[Muffled]

I disagree. It is your assumption that he was chosen to be an apostle. And it is your assumption the spirit dwelt within him. He was straight to the point when he made his statement.

I am not making assumptions. It is Paul's confession of faith that he has the Paraclete. As another person who has the Paraclete I can identify the voice of God in Paul's writings.

Paul is not setting himself up as an alternate authority from God by saying that he is a father; he is saying that The Paraclete has worked through Him to give birth to their spiritual life. After all it was Paul who said that we should not think more highly of ourselves than is appropriate.

 

[alamxudos]

Paul is with out doubt self appointed. Although well learned in the Way. His views were held up by Rome because they were the most liken to Romes polytheistic views. Via the Trinity. This is one of the main reasons that Barnnabas and the other actual desciples of Christ left Paul. His gospel was not that of the Prophets.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Paul is with out doubt self appointed. Although well learned in the Way. His views were held up by Rome because they were the most liken to Romes polytheistic views. Via the Trinity. This is one of the main reasons that Barnnabas and the other actual desciples of Christ left Paul. His gospel was not that of the Prophets.

I tend to agree with you here. One only has to look to his vision "story" to get clarification.

 

[Muffled]

Paul is with out doubt self appointed. Although well learned in the Way. His views were held up by Rome because they were the most liken to Romes polytheistic views. Via the Trinity. This is one of the main reasons that Barnnabas and the other actual desciples of Christ left Paul. His gospel was not that of the Prophets.

I can't imagine what text you are reading to say that Baranbus left Paul because of his views. The text says that Barnabus separated from Paul because of a falling out about the trustworthiness of Mark. Paul went about the business of evangelism with Luke, Simon and Timothy. Paul was not the main chronicler of Paul's conversion, Luke was although it is more than likely that he was writing the testimony that Paul provided.

 

[ChristineES]

I know this makes me a bad Baptist, but I am not 100% convinced that everything that Paul wrote was inspired by God. Most of it is. He didn't say anything bad or immoral, but a few things may have just been his own personal beliefs.

 

[Muffled]

I know this makes me a bad Baptist, but I am not 100% convinced that everything that Paul wrote was inspired by God. Most of it is. He didn't say anything bad or immoral, but a few things may have just been his own personal beliefs.

When Paul tells you that something is his belief then we should believe him. Otherwise one must view the concepts as coming from the Paraclete.

 

[alamxudos]

Muffled, you may be right about the specifics but Paul was certainly not appointed by any one divine. I stopped reading his work a good while ago because of all of the contradictions. He never knew Jesus. Paul may have been an initiate of the order of the Essene but his gospel was not that of such or the prophets, Jesus being one of them. And we all know well not all but any true theologist knows the story of his vision doesnt add up by his own testimony and contradictions.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Muffled, you may be right about the specifics but Paul was certainly not appointed by any one divine. I stopped reading his work a good while ago because of all of the contradictions. He never knew Jesus. Paul may have been an initiate of the order of the Essene but his gospel was not that of such or the prophets, Jesus being one of them. And we all know well not all but any true theologist knows the story of his vision doesnt add up by his own testimony and contradictions.

:clap.........well said.......

 

[Katzpur]

This may make me look thick, but i don't understand how the letters Paul wrote to places like Ephesus and Rome can be the word of God.
I mean, they were letters - not prophecies or story telling - but letters of correspondence and explaining of Church matters.

How do these letters become God's breathed word? Could someone explain it for me please?

From the LDS perspective, explanation of Church matters would be considered scriptural. We believe that Jesus Christ formally established His Church during His ministry and that He entrusted it to the Apostles, of which Paul was one. As an Apostle, he was entitled to direct the affairs of the Church. Therefore, his letters, while maybe not "God breathed" in the sense that prophesy is, were important in terms of clarifying how Jesus wanted His Church to function.

 

[alamxudos]

Paul was no Apostle of Christ. He is self appointed. He was not entrusted by anyone other than himself. So although morally on point in a lot of what he said his word is not the infallible word of God.