Paul: Hero Or Villian

[Ron Beron]

Recently, on another thread I have touched a cord in my criticisms of Paul as an apostle. I realize this is not how we are taught in the church, but through my studies I have seen how the teachings of Paul, while inspiring and certainly motivational, have transformed the original intent of the 1st Christians and the teaching of Jesus. So my question is simple; did Paul alter the gospel of Jesus? Was he a a false prophet who heralded in world Christianity? Was he misguided? Or was he decidedly one of the leaders of the church who was a true apostle and prophet?

To be sure, my own understanding of him as evolved and lightened so it would be interesting to see where I differ and agree with others on this point.

Edited July 4, 2012 by Ron Beron

[thesometimesaint]

Ron Beron:

Without Paul early Christianity as we know it would have remained a small sect of Judaism. IMNTBHO would have died such.

No Paul didn't change the Gospel. However he did made it applicable to non Jews.

No he wasn't a false prophet.

Decidedly an important leader in the early Church.

[CASteinman]

You have only "seen" how Paul changed things because you have been hornswaggled by uninspired men who themselves do not see how they are fooled.

You abandon the revelations of God for the learning of men.

May not matter to your eternal salvation --- as long as it is ok that you are exceptionally less effective in the Kingdom of God.

You are out of the thread.

Edited July 4, 2012 by Minos

[CASteinman]

No Paul didn't change the Gospel. However he did made it applicable to non Jews.

That was actually Jesus -- through Peter, who had great Faith.

[thesometimesaint]

CASteinman:

During His earthly Jesus confined himself to the Jews. I see Peter as following this example until it was Revealed to him to change by Jesus. I see the impetus for that Revelation coming from Paul. IE. God didn't answer any question Joseph didn't ask. Even if Emma had to pester Joseph about having to cleaning up the spittoons.

Edited July 4, 2012 by thesometimesaint

[Ron Beron]

Ron Beron:

Without Paul early Christianity as we know it would have remained a small sect of Judaism. IMNTBHO would have died such.

No Paul didn't change the Gospel. However he did made it applicable to non Jews.

No he wasn't a false prophet.

Decidedly an important leader in the early Church.

Wouldn't making it more applicable to the gentiles had changed the gospel, even slightly?

I have thinking about him being a prophet, and I have to reluctantly agree that he, beyond my understanding and known probably only to God, that he was a prophet of sort, not to the Jews, but to the gentiles. In doing so it altered the gospel of the Jesus Movement so profoundly that it led to the apostasy.

Yes, absolutely an important leader.

[Ron Beron]

CASteinman:

During His earthly Jesus confined himself to the Jews. I see Peter as following this example until it was Revealed to him to change by Jesus. I see the inputous for that Revelation coming from Paul. IE. God didn't answer any question Joseph didn't ask.

But yet, Peter changed again when he boycotted Paul's dinner with the gentiles in, I believe, Antioch. Something fishy in those nets.

[thesometimesaint]

Ron Beron:

The Gospel is the "Good News" that Jesus though crucified was Resurrected thus conquering death. Everything else is mere appendage to that. I see Peter as a Judaizer until God told him differently.

Edited July 4, 2012 by thesometimesaint

[ERayR]

it is always easy to criticize someone like Paul when we only have and are able to judge from a limited amount of his work. On another thread about Bruce R. McConkie there are criticisms but nobody was reading or quoting his last address to the church. That, in my opinion, embodied what Elder McConkie was. The problem we have is that we have Paul's letters addressing selected problems and issues in selected localities, and those only through the filter of translators. I believe a much different picture of Paul would emerge if we had the rest in first person. As Paul Harvey would say "The Rest of the Story".

[CASteinman]

But yet, Peter changed again when he boycotted Paul's dinner with the gentiles in, I believe, Antioch. Something fishy in those nets.

You have only one side of the story. Any experience with people will tell you that when you have one side of a story you ONLY have one side of the story (assuming that this was even actually written by someone who was there).

I suspect Peter was in the right at this time but we don't have the full story.

Edited July 4, 2012 by CASteinman

[CASteinman]

it is always easy to criticize someone like Paul when we only have and are able to judge from a limited amount of his work. On another thread about Bruce R. McConkie there are criticisms but nobody was reading or quoting his last address to the church. That, in my opinion, embodied what Elder McConkie was. The problem we have is that we have Paul's letters addressing selected problems and issues in selected localities, and those only through the filter of translators. I believe a much different picture of Paul would emerge if we had the rest in first person. As Paul Harvey would say "The Rest of the Story".

Not only that, be we have Paul through the filter of Marcion.

[cdowis]

Peter says it best:

2 Peter 3:

[15] And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;

[16] As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

[zerinus]

Recently, on another thread I have touched a cord in my criticisms of Paul as an apostle. I realize this is not how we are taught in the church, but through my studies I have seen how the teachings of Paul, while inspiring and certainly motivational, have transformed the original intent of the 1st Christians and the teaching of Jesus. So my question is simple; did Paul alter the gospel of Jesus? Was he a a false prophet who heralded in world Christianity? Was he misguided? Or was he decidedly one of the leaders of the church who was a true apostle and prophet?

To be sure, my own understanding of him as evolved and lightened so it would be interesting to see where I differ and agree with others on this point.

You still haven't told us why you believe that about Paul. When you have done that, I will be able to give you a reply.

[ERayR]

Peter says it best:

2 Peter 3:

[15] And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;

[16] As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

Funny, no matter how things change some things remain the same.

[Calm]

Wouldn't making it more applicable to the gentiles had changed the gospel, even slightly?

I have thinking about him being a prophet, and I have to reluctantly agree that he, beyond my understanding and known probably only to God, that he was a prophet of sort, not to the Jews, but to the gentiles. In doing so it altered the gospel of the Jesus Movement so profoundly that it led to the apostasy.

Yes, absolutely an important leader.

So you see it as likely one way or the other Christianity was doomed to the apostasy, in the case that happened it had to be altered to survive in the big, bad world and the alteration was so extreme that it lost the pure Gospel along the way. If it had remained pure, had not reached out, it likely would have ended as a small sect preparing for the end and not much else....and when it didn't happen....getting smaller still.

Are there other options that you see that might have lead to a continuation of the pure gospel, even to a point there was no apostasy?

edit: I meant the above as a question, to see if I understood you correctly.

Edited July 4, 2012 by calmoriah

[DarkScythe]

both a hero and a villain.

[Ron Beron]

it is always easy to criticize someone like Paul when we only have and are able to judge from a limited amount of his work. On another thread about Bruce R. McConkie there are criticisms but nobody was reading or quoting his last address to the church. That, in my opinion, embodied what Elder McConkie was. The problem we have is that we have Paul's letters addressing selected problems and issues in selected localities, and those only through the filter of translators. I believe a much different picture of Paul would emerge if we had the rest in first person. As Paul Harvey would say "The Rest of the Story".

I agree, but to be fair we have much more on Paul than we do any other apostle. What we have on the rest is severely limited to what is probably best, forgeries. In some cases we have downright contradictions. Acts in some places contradicts the actual writings of Paul so what and who to believe?

[Ron Beron]

So you see it as likely one way or the other Christianity was doomed to the apostasy, in the case that happened it had to be altered to survive in the big, bad world and the alteration was so extreme that it lost the pure Gospel along the way. If it had remained pure, had not reached out, it likely would have ended as a small sect preparing for the end and not much else....and when it didn't happen....getting smaller still.

Are there other options that you see that might have lead to a continuation of the pure gospel, even to a point there was no apostasy?

Ya'know...I don't. I think even the Jerusalem Saints thought that it was doomed. Even Jesus felt it was doomed. Again, I quote Nibley...

Jesus announced in no uncertain terms that his message would be rejected by all men, as the message of the prophets had been before,⁶ and that he would soon leave the world to die in its sins and seek after him in vain.⁷ The light was soon to depart, leaving a great darkness "in which no man can work," while "the prince of this world" would remain, as usual, in possession of the field.⁸ (2) In their turn the disciples were to succeed no better than their Lord: "If they have called the master of the house Beelzebub, how much more shall they call them of his household?"⁹ Like him they were to be "hated of all men," going forth as sheep among wolves, "sent last as it were appointed unto death,"¹⁰ with the promise that as soon as they completed their mission the end would come.¹¹

(3) But what of the church? Those who accepted the teaching were to suffer exactly the same fate as the Lord and the apostles; they were advised to "take . . . the prophets . . . for an example of suffering affliction and of patience," and to "think it not strange concerning the fiery trial which is to try" them, but rejoice rather to suffer as Christ did "in the flesh . . . that we may be also glorified together."¹² After them too the prince of this world was waiting to take over; they too were to be lambs among wolves, rejected as were the Master and the disciples: "The world knoweth us not because it knew him not."¹³ Knowing that "whosoever will save his life must lose it," they openly disavowed any expectation of success, individual or collective, in this world.¹⁴ (4) As for the doctrine, it was to receive the same rough treatment, soon falling into the hands of worldly men who would pervert the gospel of Christ from a thing the world found highly obnoxious to something it was willing to embrace, for such has always been the fate of God's revelations to men.¹⁵

I think with the destruction of the temple in 70 AD it was all over and the only survival was to be found in the "hands of worldly men who would pervert the gospel of Christ..."

[Calm]

I agree that the apostasy was foretold so it seems as if it was a certainty no matter what approach had been taken. It had not occurred to me that Paul was a key figure though.

I am looking forward eagerly to finding out from the Lord why he felt it best (since I do think he created the best world possible to achieve his Work) to allow that and all the other apostasies (rather than constantly sending prophets to all parts of the world to bring them back from the edge of apostasy over and over again as he did with Israel for a time), leading to the majority of people leading lives throughout history in ignorance of the full gospel, often even in ignorance of him. Makes me wonder what is it that we should be learning here on earth...at least most of us.

Edited July 4, 2012 by calmoriah

[cksalmon]

Recently, on another thread I have touched a cord in my criticisms of Paul as an apostle. I realize this is not how we are taught in the church, but through my studies I have seen how the teachings of Paul, while inspiring and certainly motivational, have transformed the original intent of the 1st Christians and the teaching of Jesus. So my question is simple; did Paul alter the gospel of Jesus? Was he a a false prophet who heralded in world Christianity? Was he misguided? Or was he decidedly one of the leaders of the church who was a true apostle and prophet?

To be sure, my own understanding of him as evolved and lightened so it would be interesting to see where I differ and agree with others on this point.

The professor for whom I TA'd in seminary was asked, during his PhD orals, Who was the first theologian in the Christian tradition one might identify as a "Calvinist?"

His response: "Do you mean: after Paul?"

[Ron Beron]

I agree that the apostasy was foretold so it seems as if it was a certainty no matter what approach had been taken. It had not occurred to me that Paul was a key figure though.

Here in California we have seasonal fires. While they are often destructive and and at best inconvenient they are necessary for the eco system to continue. Some plants require heat to blossom and, therefore the fires. In much the same way maybe the early church needed the fires to grow awaiting the time when true church could blossom forth.

[Storm Rider]

The more an individual shares of his personal beliefs, opinions, and thoughts the easier it is for others to find fault. I think we do a disservice to Paul only because we have more of his writings than anyone else from the early church. I believe it is wrong to conclude Paul was a central figure in or the beginning of the apostasy only because some of his writings are challenging and different. He certainly was a firebrand and was willing to sacrifice all for his belief in Jesus Christ.

An aside: it always amazes me how Christian groups attack the LDS Church for its teachings about gaining a witness of the Holy Spirit. These "feelings" are derided, demeaned, and discounted in favor of Reason or anything else they can come up with. What is certain is that the Holy Spirit does not reveal, acknowledge, or make truth or his presence felt when it comes to LDS and those experiences should not be relied upon. Yet, Paul who is so greatly revered by Catholics and Protestants alike existence as an apostle is due to one of those spiritual experiences.

[Damien the Leper]

The professor for whom I TA'd in seminary was asked, during his PhD orals, Who was the first theologian in the Christian tradition one might identify as a "Calvinist?"

His response: "Do you mean: after Paul?"

While I can agree that there is Reformed perspectives to the Pauline corpus, I would disagree with the 'evidence' that Paul was a Calvinist. Dragging T.U.L.I.P. out of the corpus is redundant and promoted ad nauseum by contemporary Reformists.

[Damien the Leper]

Not only that, be we have Paul through the filter of Marcion.

Enough with Marcion...seriously. The man is about as relevant as an empty school bus fire.

[Calm]

The man is about as relevant as an empty school bus fire.

That would depend on whether it's before or after the bus has taken you home....