376
Comments (46)
sorted by:
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
3
ThePowerOfPrayer 3 points ago +3 / -0

A lot of Christians also don't follow Jesus, they follow Paul's interpretation of Jesus which has also contributed to the mess we're in and why the various churches are so divided. They're obsessed over doctrines and derived policy that has nothing to do with the bigger picture: loving your enemies, treating others the way you want to be treated and so forth. They place Jesus and Paul at the same level and in some instances it feels like they place Paul ABOVE Jesus the same way The Mormons do with Joseph Smith and the Muslims with Muhammad.

This doesn't make any sense without you explaining what you mean by "Paul's interpretations."

What exactly do you have a problem with in Paul's letters to the various churches?

Is it Ephesians 5:11?

And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove [expose] them.

Is it Ephesians 6:11-18?

11 Put on the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil.

12 For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.

13 Wherefore take unto you the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand.

14 Stand therefore, having your loins girt about with truth, and having on the breastplate of righteousness;

15 And your feet shod with the preparation of the gospel of peace;

16 Above all, taking the shield of faith, wherewith ye shall be able to quench all the fiery darts of the wicked.

17 And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God:

18 Praying always with all prayer and supplication in the Spirit, and watching thereunto with all perseverance and supplication for all saints;

Where exactly does Paul advise people to focus on "doctrine and derived policy" as opposed to the "bigger picture"? Last I checked, Paul wrote doctrines and derived policy are absolutely worthless if love (charity) isn't behind them.

1 Corinthians 13:1-13

1 Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal.

2 And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing.

3 And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing.

4 Charity suffereth long, and is kind; charity envieth not; charity vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up,

5 Doth not behave itself unseemly, seeketh not her own, is not easily provoked, thinketh no evil;

6 Rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in the truth;

7 Beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things.

8 Charity never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away.

9 For we know in part, and we prophesy in part.

10 But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away.

11 When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.

12 For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.

13 And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity.

Hard to take you seriously when it's clear you either haven't studied Paul's epistles, or, if you have, just don't understand them.

0
GoingCamaro 0 points ago +1 / -1

Paul is not Jesus, he's a man. Mathias was named by Jesus, not Paul. I understand Peter was convinced, but again, Peter is also a man. The fact that any number of them can be fallible means that all their ideas are subject to maximum scrutiny. Jesus was perfect and therefore anything He said and did trumps anything Paul and Peter claimed.

Saying you need Paul to understand Jesus is like saying Jesus was too stupid to have gotten all His intended message out... Yeah in 33 years I think He said and did more than enough. I also think there's parts of His life that's unaccounted for. Point is, Paul is a man. If Jesus is perfect, then by default He's always above Paul.

You don't need Paul to understand Jesus. You only need Mathew, Mark, Luke and John. The rest is pretty much optional and each person needs to choose for themselves.

2
ThePowerOfPrayer 2 points ago +2 / -0

None of that answers the question -

What exactly do you have a problem with in Paul's letters to the various churches?

If you're going to claim Paul's writings lead to division and are the reason for the "mess we're in", you should be able to give several examples.

And your claim about not needing Paul to understand Jesus but then only listing Matthew, Mark, Luke and John is completely wrong.

You need the entire Old Testament in order to understand Yahusha HaMashiach, and that's according to His own words.

John 5:39

Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.

Luke also records how Yahusha HaMashiach broke down the Old Testament for the apostles after He rose from the dead.

Luke 24:27

And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.

And Luke breaks it down even further later on in that chapter-

Luke 24:44-49

44 And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me.

45 Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures,

46 And said unto them, Thus it is written, and thus it behooved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day:

47 And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.

48 And ye are witnesses of these things.

49 And, behold, I send the promise of my Father upon you: but tarry ye in the city of Jerusalem, until ye be endued with power from on high.

In order to understand what they were waiting for in Jerusalem, and what happened next, the Book of Acts is required reading as well.

I find Paul's writings expand my knowledge of Old Testament scripture and how it relates to the Gospel, and recommend the Book of Hebrews out of all of his epistles.

-1
Choctaw -1 points ago +1 / -2

It's a lack of understanding and study. Paul was chosen by Christ specifically. Paul didn't go out and "invent" Christianity, it was simply a way to recognize all who belived in Jesus, both Jew and Gentile alike.

-1
GoingCamaro -1 points ago +1 / -2

Yes chosen by Christ three different times in three different ways... Just like Joseph Smith and Mohammed and many others claiming to be named by Him. Jesus named Mathias to succeed Judas.

Now... That said it's not my place to determine if Paul is false. He's still a man prone to mistakes. His ideas are worth considering, but his ideas come AFTER Jesus. If his idea has conflict with what Jesus actually said and did, I... Keep it in perspective. Paul is a sinner like you and I. What he said and preached was an interpretation.

0
Choctaw 0 points ago +1 / -1

We've been through this same topic week and weeks ago, you are still woefully incorrect about Paul. For some reason the apostle Paul has you wrapped around the axle. So Paul is "claiming" to be chosen by Christ now? There is no defined set number for how many apostles there should be. So we should simply toss out a chunk of the New Testament because of the many letters Paul wrote? Tell me now, what does Paul say that contradicts anything Christ said? There is nothing but love, reverence, and respect for Jesus from Paul, any other idea(such as yours) is wrong, and frankly I find it working towards manipulation of others who don't understand. Careful now and don't insert your interpretation.

Careful about condemning what books/letters came after Christ in the Bible. James, Jude, Peter, John, they all wrote about things after pentecost, do we throw those out as well or consider them to be their interpretations? Or are you going to say they were apostles who were directly in contact with Jesus and therefore infallible?

You aren't going to change my mind about Paul whatsoever, and fairly certain there are others who would most likely agree. Stop using google to read and research the Bible.