-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Paul
- Thread starter biased
- Start date
Saint, most definitely. He may have had his quirks, but I think he gets a bad rap--especially among the people who deliberately try to set Paul's teachings in opposition to Jesus' teachings, thereby distorting and obscuring what Paul actually taught.
Pegg
Jehovah our God is One
Jesus opinion of him is all that matters.
Acts 9:10*There was in Damascus a certain disciple named An·a·ni′as, and the Lord said to him in a vision: An·a·ni′as! He said: Here I am, Lord. 11*The Lord said to him: Rise, go to the street called Straight, and at the house of Judas look for a man named Saul, from Tarsus. For, look! he is praying, 12*and in a vision he has seen a man named An·a·ni′as come in and lay his hands upon him that he might recover sight. 13*But An·a·ni′as answered: Lord, I have heard from many about this man, how many injurious things he did to your holy ones in Jerusalem. 14*And here he has authority from the chief priests to put in bonds all those calling upon your name. 15*But the Lord said to him: Be on your way, because this man is a chosen vessel to me to bear my name to the nations as well as to kings and the sons of Israel. 16*For I shall show him plainly how many things he must suffer for my name.
Hand selected by Jesus himself.
When I saw "Pegg" as contributor to this thread, I thought it had to be this Paul you were talking about. Ah, the disappointment...
On-topic: in my outsider's atheistic view looking in on Christianity, Paul does seem to be responsible for some of the more misogynistic tendencies. But it's such a long time ago I was reading about this, memory's far to hazy to be sure.
On-topic: in my outsider's atheistic view looking in on Christianity, Paul does seem to be responsible for some of the more misogynistic tendencies. But it's such a long time ago I was reading about this, memory's far to hazy to be sure.
FranklinMichaelV.3
Well-Known Member
Paul is a complicated man. His trip to Damascus where he fell, could have been spiritual or it could have been a seizure.
As I've read more about him and will continue to do so. I find him to be a man who was just as Zealous in his faith in Christianity as he was when he was persecuting them. He shows signs of arrogance (Philemon can seem as if Paul is flexing his spiritual muscles), but also shows signs of the importance of Love "Faith, Hope, Love, of these three, Love is the greatest"
I think what we have is a man who was haunted by his past crimes and was doing all he could to attempt to remedy them, believing that he could not, would be part of what started his idea of salvation through faith (though I don't think that was what he was really trying to push).
As I've read more about him and will continue to do so. I find him to be a man who was just as Zealous in his faith in Christianity as he was when he was persecuting them. He shows signs of arrogance (Philemon can seem as if Paul is flexing his spiritual muscles), but also shows signs of the importance of Love "Faith, Hope, Love, of these three, Love is the greatest"
I think what we have is a man who was haunted by his past crimes and was doing all he could to attempt to remedy them, believing that he could not, would be part of what started his idea of salvation through faith (though I don't think that was what he was really trying to push).
fallingblood
Agnostic Theist
I would say that he is seriously misunderstood, and that has a lot to do with Augustine's and later Luther's views of Paul.
I accept the New Perspective on Paul. That being said, I think he was a Jew, who thought he was living at the end of times, and thus took Jewish teachings literally regarding the Jewish message touching all the nations.
Also, I think Paul's views on women, homosexuality, sex, etc are greatly misunderstood.
I accept the New Perspective on Paul. That being said, I think he was a Jew, who thought he was living at the end of times, and thus took Jewish teachings literally regarding the Jewish message touching all the nations.
Also, I think Paul's views on women, homosexuality, sex, etc are greatly misunderstood.
FranklinMichaelV.3
Well-Known Member
I've heard that there were possible interloptions in what Paul wrote. For instance it is strange to say that in christ there is no man or woman...and then have women be told to not speak in church when men are present.
biased
Active Member
Can you elaborate on how they are misunderstood and what exactly it is you are referring to? I can't fill in the "etc" part you mentioned.
fallingblood
Agnostic Theist
Starting with women, I would say that he was actually quite liberal (at least in his context). He praised women church leaders and missionaries. He gave women authority than often granted. The problem is that others who wrote in his name had other ideas. Some even inserted ideas within the authentic Pauline works. So while Paul is often misunderstood as a sexist, he actually was open to women.
With homosexuality, I would say he didn't really talk about it. Within his works, there are only two possible mentions (and those are even debated) of homosexuality. Some have blown this far out of proportion, to the point in which they make the claim that Paul harps on homosexuality continually (which then some argue that Paul was probably gay himself, and that is why he talked about it so much). However, like I said, there are only two cases, and in each case, he immediately states that those he's talking to were guilty of all of those vices (he never mentions homosexuality on it's own, but within vice lists), and that they can be forgiven. In Romans, he actually uses the vices as a build up, so he can turn the tables on his readers and show why they shouldn't judge.
With sex, while Paul said it would be best to be celibate, if one had the desire, they should be married and do such. He wasn't against sex, as some have claimed, but though, because the end was near, there were better things to do. But if people wanted to have sex, that's fine, as long as it was in a marriage.
Other misunderstandings was on whether or not he was a Jew. Some claim he was the first Christian, yet Paul makes it clear that he remained within Judaism. In fact, his motivation for going to gentiles was based on his Jewish faith, and what Jewish scripture said about all the nations come to Jerusalem, to Zion.
There is also the misunderstanding of Paul and his view of the law. It has often been assumed that Paul rejected Jewish law. However, that was not the case. He simply stated that gentiles were not to be bound by the law, as they were not Jews.
biased
Active Member
Which verses of his are you thinking of where other ideas were slipped into authentic Pauline works. Why do you think the Church didn't excise these questionably Pauline books from the canon?
Can you quote the two possible mentions you have in mind?
fallingblood
Agnostic Theist
The two verses that come to mind are 1 Thessalonians 2:14-16 and 1 Corinthians 14:34-35. The second verse is one that has Paul basically say that in church, women should keep their mouths shut. However, the verse is considered to be an interpolation by nearly all scholars.
As for why the Church didn't excise the questionable Pauline books? Because the Church isn't the one who put together the canon. The canon developed over a very long period of time, and there were many debates and ideas regarding what should be included. Among early Christian circles though, it was considered important enough, and credible enough to be added into the canon.
The first is Romans 1:26-27. The second is 1 Corinthians 6:9-11.
As to whether or not they actually refer to homosexuality is debatable. However, taking the verses in their actual context does show that the vice lists are not really focused on, but are just a standard list, that was utilized in order to make a much larger argument. Basically, the argument is that we all sin, so don't judge others, as that is not your place.
Paul's a saint. True, he's just a man. But, anointed.
Last edited:
illykitty
RF's pet cat
Question time!
Does that mean that you think Jesus preached a Jewish message and Paul turned it into Christianity or that Paul spread his message and without him Christianity wouldn't have made it?Xian Catalyst
Member
Well, we know the Apostles who walked and learned from Jesus, AFTER their endowment of the Holy Spirit of God accepted him.
For anyone, 2000 years later to disaccept him, or discredit him, would mean they have judged the Apostles to be wrong, therefore not trustworthy.
And, since that happened, whoever would say that Paul isn't portrayed correctly, got their information from the same book they just unknowingly condemned.
Puts them in quite the conundrum.
Walkntune
Well-Known Member
Jesus lived a life of love and sacrifice and Paul preached its message. Jesus broke the Sabbath by healing on the sabbath and showed that the sabbath was made for man and not man for the sabbath and that love is greater than the law. It was Jesus walking according to love instead of the Jewish customs that made them put him on the cross. Jesus did not walk according to laws but only did what the father told him. God is love.Question time!
Xian Catalyst
Member
The Sabbath day wasn't a jewish custom. SOME of the silly things they did on/for/because of the Sabbath day were.
The Christ defended the Sabbath more than ANY OTHER commandment.
The LAW was done away with, not the Commandments. The LAW that was fulfilled was the one you had to be circumcised to belong to. The Decalogue is a totally different covenant than the laws for the temple, etc... Levi, Aaron, and all the stuff that was tacked on to them.
Sorry for the distraction, but that was a big misrepresentation that had to be addressed. If I start a fire we need to go private or to another thread.
Walkntune
Well-Known Member
God took away the heart of stone(Law written on stone) and gave a heart of flesh.(Jesus came in the flesh as grace and love).The Sabbath day wasn't a jewish custom. SOME of the silly things they did on/for/because of the Sabbath day were.
The Christ defended the Sabbath more than ANY OTHER commandment.
The LAW was done away with, not the Commandments. The LAW that was fulfilled was the one you had to be circumcised to belong to. The Decalogue is a totally different covenant than the laws for the temple, etc... Levi, Aaron, and all the stuff that was tacked on to them.
Sorry for the distraction, but that was a big misrepresentation that had to be addressed. If I start a fire we need to go private or to another thread.
Truthfully it is not I that lives but Christ who lives in me and there is no need for him to fulfill the laws again. Many threads already on this debate.
Love or law is your chose. Refusal to accept Gods goodness does not change who God is. Might as well accept and enjoy it.
Last edited:
Xian Catalyst
Member
That's your opinion/interpretation of what a heart of flesh and stone are. The Hard heart would be the Sinful nature, is another look. It's removed by Christ and replaced with the heart of flesh/softer. Col 2:11, Romans 8:9
I could probably come up with a half dozen other equally possible interepretations.
Then I can kill you and end this chat with no guilt.
The Decalogue is not part of the law. The law was after, to help the Jews interpret the Decalogue by their SET APART standards. For you to call the Decalogue "the law" is like me calling The Declaration of the United States, a state's law.
Respectfully, you don't even understand the debate.
Note you ignored the reasons I gave and just imposed your opinions over mine. That isn't discussion or debate, it's Fascist Imposition. That you need go there, might suggest the strength of your reasoning behind your beliefs. I'm just sayin', when you can't win an argument...:run:Its interesting that virtually everyone accepts that Paul and Jesus and his disciples and indeed did John the Baptist, thought the end of the world was about to happen and yet its obvious that it didn't and so why should they be listened to anymore than any other philosopher or latter day preachers?
How many end days have come and gone uttered by people that claim God told them?
In an era where Jewish men were expected to get married and have children its rather odd that Jesus managed to find loads of bachelors and would it be so surprising if Jesus was not a homosexual anyway? Maybe they were all homosexual? Great, no problem. Who was it that condemned such people anyway? How long was it that gay people were imprisoned? The OT and the Quran still says they should be put to death etc. Time we used our 21st century brain, not the first or pre historic. times when 97% of the people were uneducated and believed in paganism,
Its clear that there is no such thing as demons needing exorcizing only people that suffered epilepsy and other brain disorders and so the same questions keep coming.
Many people have been inspired by God through the ages even as Paul or Jesus was and so why don't we get to read about them?
Read the story about the hymn amazing grace or what a friend we have in Jesus and be inspired far more and more relevant too.
How many end days have come and gone uttered by people that claim God told them?
In an era where Jewish men were expected to get married and have children its rather odd that Jesus managed to find loads of bachelors and would it be so surprising if Jesus was not a homosexual anyway? Maybe they were all homosexual? Great, no problem. Who was it that condemned such people anyway? How long was it that gay people were imprisoned? The OT and the Quran still says they should be put to death etc. Time we used our 21st century brain, not the first or pre historic. times when 97% of the people were uneducated and believed in paganism,
Its clear that there is no such thing as demons needing exorcizing only people that suffered epilepsy and other brain disorders and so the same questions keep coming.
Many people have been inspired by God through the ages even as Paul or Jesus was and so why don't we get to read about them?
Read the story about the hymn amazing grace or what a friend we have in Jesus and be inspired far more and more relevant too.