Can you reject Paul and still be a Christian?

[Hoops22]

Still pushing that "the kingdom" isn't "the church" drivel?

Your credibility with regard to knowing what the scriptures actually say and then understanding it is slightly less than ZERO, after your last kingdom/church adventure.

BUT!!!!

We still love you!

And you really are entertaining if not believable.

Well, I'll rethink if you or anyone else can offer up one reason why I should. So far, your evidence is quite lacking.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Well, I'll rethink if you or anyone else can offer up one reason why I should. So far, your evidence is quite lacking.

Your arguemnt is a red herring Hoops. You haven't shown that there is even an age of grace/church age.

I think that in order for us to offer a serious rebuttal you need to first offer a convincing argument from scripture. Some thing that holds water. So far I havn't seen much from you other than "I have taken it out of context". Or I don't understand what it is to be a "1st centry Jew". You rarley quote from scripture. If you really want to help us mormons you are going to need to do better than what you have been doing.

[Vance]

Well, I'll rethink if you or anyone else can offer up one reason why I should. So far, your evidence is quite lacking.

You mean that the substantial amount of scripture provided to you that has directly CONTRADICTED your suppositions ISN'T enough to get you to "rethink"?

Perhaps you would be so kind as to provide SPECIFIC scriptural references that plainly and clearly support your supposition, rather than making unsupported general statements.

Do you think you could try that for a change?

[Ron Beron]

I agree. It was during Paul's 3 years (I think it was 3 years) between his conversion and going to Jerusalem that he received his revelation of the church.

I know we disagree in all this somewhere, and that it will pop up soon.

I think from the reading of the pastoral letters there wasn't an intent to set up a church, but rather gather as many as could be gathered before Jesus returned. There weren't any plans for a long term possibility.

[Ron Beron]

To reveal his program for drawing gentiles to himself, which was unheard of before, by the mechanism of the church.

While I agree that Jesus did intend to bring the gospel to the gentiles (The Great Commission, i.e., Matthew 28:16-20: (16) Then the eleven disciples went away into Galilee, into a mountain where Jesus had appointed them. (17) And when they saw him, they worshiped him: but some doubted. (18) And Jesus came and spoke unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. (19) Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: (20) Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen.) the question exists as to the scope and intent of his desire. Were the gentiles to be allowed in the church through the Noahide Codes or did they have to obey the Mosaic Law in its entirety? From a reading of James it would appear to be the latter. Paul sought to dismiss this requirement entirely.

[Joseph Antley]

They claim to be written under inspiration, they date to around the same time as the rest of the New Testament, and they were accepted as scripture by many early Christians.

Exactly the same evidence as most of the New Testament. Now, again -- why do you accept the letters of Paul (or the epistles of Peter or John) and not the Epistle of Barnabas, the Epistle of Clement, or the Shepherd of Hermas?

I thought I would bump this post, so I've asked this question three times already, and Hoops dodged it the first two times and didn't respond to the third. I will graciously assume he missed it.

The same question is open to any other non-LDS Christians on the board.

[Hoops22]

the Epistle of Barnabas

Contains a false prophecy and is anti jewish

, the Epistle of Clement,

Not sure. Why should it?

or the Shepherd of Hermas?

Possibly denies the eternal Godhood of Jesus Christ.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Contains a false prophecy and is anti jewish

Not sure. Why should it?

Possibly denies the eternal Godhood of Jesus Christ.

IOW, on 2 of the three it looks as if you are unaware of what they say.

[Hoops22]

IOW, on 2 of the three it looks as if you are unaware of what they say.

No, not in othere words. Those are your words. I'm fairly familiar with Barnabas and Hermas. I am of the camp that Hermas DOES deny the eternal Godhood of Jesus Christ. I also believe that Barnabas DOES contain a false prophecy, possibly more than one, but specificall the reconstruction of the temple, and that it is overtly anti jewish.

I'll admit that I'm not terribly familiar with Clement. We just haven't crossed paths.

[Joseph Antley]

No, not in othere words. Those are your words. I'm fairly familiar with Barnabas and Hermas. I am of the camp that Hermas DOES deny the eternal Godhood of Jesus Christ. I also believe that Barnabas DOES contain a false prophecy, possibly more than one, but specificall the reconstruction of the temple, and that it is overtly anti jewish.

I'll admit that I'm not terribly familiar with Clement. We just haven't crossed paths.

Is it possible that had the Epistle of Barnabas and The Shepherd of Hermas endured and remained in the New Testament canon, and that Hebrews hadn't made it (as some ancient Christians thought it shouldn't've), then would you agree perfectly with Barnabas and Hermas and find fault with Hebrews?

In other words, how do you know Paul is right and that Barnabas, Clement, and Hermas are wrong?

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Is it possible that had the Epistle of Barnabas and The Shepherd of Hermas endured and remained in the New Testament canon, and that Hebrews hadn't made it (as some ancient Christians thought it shouldn't've), then would you agree perfectly with Barnabas and Hermas and find fault with Hebrews?

In other words, how do you know Paul is right and that Barnabas, Clement, and Hermas are wrong?

And that is the point.

[Hoops22]

And that is the point.

If that is the point, then that requires a different question. Is God not capable of preserving His word? If He is, why didn't He? If He isn't, that isn't much of a God, now is it?

[Mudcat]

I've heard non-LDS Christians say something along the lines of, Why do we have to believe in Joseph Smith to be saved? Isn't Jesus Christ enough?

This has always confused me a little. So, the question is, can someone reject Paul as an Apostle--and therefore the majority of the New Testament--and still be considered a Christian? Can they still be saved?

Why or why not?

I think the Apostleship of Paul is obviously the most challenging for the Christian. He seems to fail the criteria that was used in the selection of Matthias. Though many make much of his vision of God, as a qualifier of sorts and I am inclined to agree with them.

I think it is possible for a Christian to be very dubious about Paul's actually being an Apostle and still be a Christian. However, to extend this dubious nature of apostleship to the dubious nature of the canonization of his letters is another thing. If we pitch out Paul, how could we in good conscience maintain the anonymous letter to the Hebrews so many of all faiths appeal to?

I am afraid parsimony on such a grandiose scale would likely lead to the disassembly of the Biblical canon.

For one who rejected the letters of Paul, I would be concerned about their spiritual state, but I am certainly glad I am not the one who must judge the matter. That is reserved for God.

However, I do think that even if we did not have the letters of Paul in the Bible, that there is enough of the truth left to draw someone in to a saving and loving relationship with Christ. I think Christianity could be understood in properly basic sense but there are certainly a number of doctrines that would likely be beyond discernment without his writings.

Regards,

Mudcat

[mfbukowski]

However, I do think that even if we did not have the letters of Paul in the Bible, that there is enough of the truth left to draw someone in to a saving and loving relationship with Christ. I think Christianity could be understood in properly basic sense but there are certainly a number of doctrines that would likely be beyond discernment without his writings.

Good to hear from you, and good to hear an alternative EV position.

[Joseph Antley]

If that is the point, then that requires a different question. Is God not capable of preserving His word? If He is, why didn't He? If He isn't, that isn't much of a God, now is it?

You assume that just because he's capable means he will. Just because God didn't perfectly preserve all of the scriptures doesn't mean that he wasn't capable of perfectly preserving them. And even you have to admit that he didn't preserve all the scriptures.

And this is the fourth time that I've asked my question and you haven't answered to it.

[Hoops22]

You assume that just because he's capable means he will. Just because God didn't perfectly preserve all of the scriptures doesn't mean that he wasn't capable of perfectly preserving them. And even you have to admit that he didn't preserve all the scriptures.

And this is the fourth time that I've asked my question and you haven't answered to it.

I believe Paul's writings are from God because a) they fit perfectly within the rest of scripture, something your examples do not offer, Peter writes that Paul should be believed (and Peter brings a certain weighty authority with him) c) he performed miracles c) Ananias testifies that Paul is from God d) Paul, apparently, received approval to preach from the apostles e) Acts 13 tells us that Paul (and Barnabas) were set aside by the Holy Spirit

And, I have no reason to believe that God WOULD NOT, nor HAD NOT, preserved His word. For you to believe that, makes that god contrary to what has been portrayed in the rest of scripture. Additionally, that would make God a puppeteer, not a god.

[Ron Beron]

I believe Paul's writings are from God because ,

a) they fit perfectly within the rest of scripture

Actually, they don't. There are more than just a few occasions that Paul's testimony contradicts the synoptic gospels as well as the account in Acts and elsewhere.

Peter writes that Paul should be believed (and Peter brings a certain weighty authority with him)

There are few if any place within the epistles that Peter's true voice is heard. Much is made up after the fact through legend and assertion. What specific scriptures were you thinking of?

c) he performed miracles

Where? Are we reading Paul's word or someone else's?

Paul, apparently, received approval to preach from the apostles

Again, where and when? He didn't visit Jerusalem until long after his ministry began.

Acts 13 tells us that Paul (and Barnabas) were set aside by the Holy Spirit

This is somewhat contradicted by the account in Paul's own hand in Galatians where he attests that he hadn't visited Jerusalem and the synoptic apostles until much later.

[Glenn101]

The biggest problem with Paul's writings are ones of context. Some are written to (attempt to) correct errors that had crept into the churches that he had established in his missionary journeys and others were answering questions that had come up. One such "heresy" was about the ressurrection, i.e. there were some apparently teaching that there would be no ressurrection I I Corinthians 15. Then he introduces so innocently this bit about baptism for the dead....

But one of the mosy troublesome items I find from Paul is this tidbit from Romans Chapter nine:

"15 For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.

16 So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.

17 For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth.

18 Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.

19 Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will?

20 Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?

21 Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?

22 What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:"

This comes pretty close to denying free will and implying predestination. (In fact I think this is a proof text for those who believe in predestination.)

The Joseph Smith translation notes that it was not God that hardened Pharoah's heart, but Pharoah himself, but I cannot find a clarification of this passage.

Glenn

[Joseph Antley]

I believe Paul's writings are from God because a) they fit perfectly within the rest of scripture, something your examples do not offer,

Were Paul currently not in the New Testament and I asked you to look at it from an outside perspective, do you really think that you would say this? There are numerous examples of Paul's teachings that aren't contained anywhere else in the New Testament. A good example, I think, would be salvation by faith alone, which seems to contradict the teachings of Jesus, James, and John.

Peter writes that Paul should be believed (and Peter brings a certain weighty authority with him)

We'll save the fact that Peter didn't actually write 2 Peter for another day.

c) he performed miracles

So did Barnabas and Clement.

c) Ananias testifies that Paul is from God

Barnabas and Clement were from God as well.

d) Paul, apparently, received approval to preach from the apostles

Long after he began preaching.

e) Acts 13 tells us that Paul (and Barnabas) were set aside by the Holy Spirit

Barnabas....

And, I have no reason to believe that God WOULD NOT, nor HAD NOT, preserved His word. For you to believe that, makes that god contrary to what has been portrayed in the rest of scripture. Additionally, that would make God a puppeteer, not a god.

Yet Paul's third letter to the Corinthians and his letter to the Laodiceans isn't in the New Testament. And neither is the book of Gad, the book of Nathan, etc., all mentioned in the Bible. In fact, these letters and books written by apostles and prophets are lost completely.

Yet while all of those scriptural works are lost, the Epistle of Barnabas, the Epistle of Clement, and The Shepherd of Hermas are all here today.

So I'm not sure what you're belief in God "preserving his Word" has much to do with this.

[Joseph Antley]

bump.

[Vance]

We'll save the fact that Peter didn't actually write 2 Peter for another day.

This is news to me. I was aware of the controversy over the authorship of "Hebrew" but not 2 Peter. Where can I find out more? (I'm not looking for an in depth analysis, but rather a summary of the arguments).

And this begs another question (for the likes of Hoops). If 2 Pet wasn't written by Peter is the Bible still inerrant?

[Joseph Antley]

This is news to me. I was aware of the controversy over the authorship of "Hebrew" but not 2 Peter. Where can I find out more? (I'm not looking for an in depth analysis, but rather a summary of the arguments).

And this begs another question (for the likes of Hoops). If 2 Pet wasn't written by Peter is the Bible still inerrant?

For a brief summary, here's a good Wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorship_of_the_Petrine_epistles.

[Vance]

For a brief summary, here's a good Wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorship_of_the_Petrine_epistles.

Thanks!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Hoops22]

Actually, they don't. There are more than just a few occasions that Paul's testimony contradicts the synoptic gospels as well as the account in Acts and elsewhere.

Not contradicts, Jesus through Paul is changing the program, that is, the establishment of the church.

There are few if any place within the epistles that Peter's true voice is heard. Much is made up after the fact through legend and assertion. What specific scriptures were you thinking of?

How could you possibly know this?

Where? Are we reading Paul's word or someone else's?

Acts 20:7-

Again, where and when? He didn't visit Jerusalem until long after his ministry began.

Peter explicitly tells us that Paul is from God.

This is somewhat contradicted by the account in Paul's own hand in Galatians where he attests that he hadn't visited Jerusalem and the synoptic apostles until much later.

I'm not sure how this relates. Paul tells us that he received his revelation (of course) directly from God. Why would this be necessary?

I'm a little confused by your last two questions, perhaps my previous answers are clear to me - and no one else.

[Hoops22]

Were Paul currently not in the New Testament and I asked you to look at it from an outside perspective, do you really think that you would say this? There are numerous examples of Paul's teachings that aren't contained anywhere else in the New Testament. A good example, I think, would be salvation by faith alone, which seems to contradict the teachings of Jesus, James, and John.

Anyone can come up with hypotheticals. But, yes, I would. The bible testifies of itself. And the reason Paul's teaching about being saved by faith alone are not in the synoptics nor in the letters FROM a jew TO jews is because Paul has a particular mission to the gentiles. Apparently, because of Israel's unique relationship, the only way to save gentiles (or, perhaps, the best way) is via the church and grace alone.

We'll save the fact that Peter didn't actually write 2 Peter for another day.

That's your allegation. A minority one at that.

So did Barnabas and Clement.

Paul meets all the criteria, not just one (or two)

Barnabas and Clement were from God as well.

Not in the same sense. Even you will agree with that.

Long after he began preaching.

Paul immediately after converstion began to preach in the synagogues. If he were not approved his preaching would have been stopped immediately. However, there were rumblings among the jewish community, to be sure. It seems reasonable to me that Paul was growing in knowledge - specifically of the church - and as he grew the jews were ready to have him move on, so to speak. God was drawing him away from the influence of kingdom theology to that he could pursue his primary mission of preaching grace/church.

Yet Paul's third letter to the Corinthians and his letter to the Laodiceans isn't in the New Testament. And neither is the book of Gad, the book of Nathan, etc., all mentioned in the Bible. In fact, these letters and books written by apostles and prophets are lost completely.

You have to establish why they should be. Mere mention in holy scripture does not mean they ARE holy scripture.

Yet while all of those scriptural works are lost, the Epistle of Barnabas, the Epistle of Clement, and The Shepherd of Hermas are all here today.

So I'm not sure what you're belief in God "preserving his Word" has much to do with this.

On what basis do you believe they are "scriptural" works? That is something you must establish and provide evidence for before you can tell us the bible is incomplete in some way.

I'm continuously amazed at how lds think that disparaging the bible helps their case. On the one hand, they proclaim that the bible is, at least, a word from god, then, on the other hand, they must cast suspicion on it to allow for "further revelation." Interesting.