Paul: Hero Or Villian

[Damien the Leper]

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

Touche.

[zerinus]

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

Paul didn't make it more applicable to the Gentiles, Peter and all the Apostles did. There was a conflict in the early Church between the Jewish converts and Gentile converts. The Jewish converts wanted to keep the gospel more in line with the Jewish traditions, such as including circumcision; whereas Paul and others didn't. The matter was taken before all of the Apostles at the council of Jerusalem, and it was unanimously decided by all the Apostles not to burden the Gentile converts with Jewish traditions, including circumcision. Paul was vindicated, and all agreed.

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.

A prophet is a prophet to everybody. There is no such thing as being a prophet to the Gentiles but not to the Jews.

In doing so it altered the gospel of the Jesus Movement so profoundly that it led to the apostasy.

That is absolute rubbish. The gospel he taught was identical to the gospel that all the Apostles taught.

[Whiskeypete]

I think the reason that Paul may be seen as a "villain" today, is that his letters are what constitutes many of the core doctrines of evangelical Christianity as opposed to the beliefs of the early church. Most of the comments by Paul about Works versus Grace had more to do with the works of Judaism as opposed to any physical actions as it is now interpreted.

Without having the original manuscripts in hand we don't know if this is what Paul intended. But his works are vague enough that they can be taken in that context which led to the rise of Protestant Christianity.

If the New Testament canon had consisted solely of the four Gospels, Martin Luther would not have had a doctrinal basis upon which to formulate his faith-only-based philosophies.

[rameumptom]

As an apostle (whether of the quorum of 12 or not), Paul sought to make what he perceived were necessary changes in the Church policies. While Peter unlocked the gospel door to the Gentiles, Paul was the one who opened and walked through it. He ensured the Gentiles did not have to live the Law of Moses, Jewish dietary laws or circumcision. While Jewish-Christians still focused heavily on the works of the Law of Moses, Paul taught that Christ's grace was sufficient.

I do not consider Paul an apostate or devil. I do consider him like a Bruce R. McConkie, speaking with authority and seeking to have his views of the gospel become the standard. While today we do not agree with everything Elder McConkie taught or pushed in his day, we can still feel the shadow he cast almost 30 years ago. Even today, the weekly meetings of the 12 apostles can be very vigorous in their debate on policy, etc. One apostle noted that they play hardball in their meetings.

[Storm Rider]

As an apostle (whether of the quorum of 12 or not), Paul sought to make what he perceived were necessary changes in the Church policies. While Peter unlocked the gospel door to the Gentiles, Paul was the one who opened and walked through it. He ensured the Gentiles did not have to live the Law of Moses, Jewish dietary laws or circumcision. While Jewish-Christians still focused heavily on the works of the Law of Moses, Paul taught that Christ's grace was sufficient.

I do not consider Paul an apostate or devil. I do consider him like a Bruce R. McConkie, speaking with authority and seeking to have his views of the gospel become the standard. While today we do not agree with everything Elder McConkie taught or pushed in his day, we can still feel the shadow he cast almost 30 years ago. Even today, the weekly meetings of the 12 apostles can be very vigorous in their debate on policy, etc. One apostle noted that they play hardball in their meetings.

Ram, I would not say that it was due to Paul's sole efforts; if that were so then the early Church ceased to function as instituted. What is clear is that Paul recognized the authority of the apostles in Jerusalem. If there were changes in the way the Church operated, then I suspect that all of the apostles came to an inspired conclusion to move forward in such a manner.

[Ron Beron]

'zerinus' delivers...

Paul didn't make it more applicable to the Gentiles, Peter and all the Apostles did. There was a conflict in the early Church between the Jewish converts and Gentile converts. The Jewish converts wanted to keep the gospel more in line with the Jewish traditions, such as including circumcision; whereas Paul and others didn't. The matter was taken before all of the Apostles at the council of Jerusalem, and it was unanimously decided by all the Apostles not to burden the Gentile converts with Jewish traditions, including circumcision. Paul was vindicated, and all agreed.

That isn't true. They agreed that gentile converts had to abide by the Noahide covenants (see Lev. 17-18)(

An early form of Noachide Law may appear in the Book of Jubilees which is generally dated to the 2nd century BC: Jubilees 7:20-28: "And in the twenty-eighth jubilee [1324-1372 A.M.] Noah began to enjoin upon his sons' sons the ordinances and commandments, and all the judgments that he knew, and he exhorted his sons to observe righteousness, and to cover the shame of their flesh, and to bless their Creator, and honour father and mother, and love their neighbour, and guard their souls from fornication and uncleanness and all iniquity. For owing to these three things came the flood upon the earth ... For whoso sheddeth man's blood, and whoso eateth the blood of any flesh, shall all be destroyed from the earth." The earliest clear reference is found in Tosefta Avodah Zarah 8.4, dated circa 300. Wiki http://en.wikipedia....em#cite_note-22 ),

but could forgo circumcision. Even this presented problems for Paul because he was told explicitly that the people of Corinth couldn't eat food not prepared in the kosher style and the eating of food given to deities.

Paul Barnett Jesus & the Rise of Early Christianity: A History of New Testament p292 "He chided Paul later for his failure to require the Gentiles to observe the decree (Acts 21:25). Paul delivered the letter from the Jerusalem meeting expressing James's decree, but only to churches in Syria, Cilicia and Galatia ....Paul did not impose the food requirements for the kosher-killed meat and against the idol-sacrificed meat upon the Corinthians" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Jerusalem#cite_note-8

and

Anchor Bible William Fridell Orr, James Arthur Walther - 1976 "Paul's openness regarding dietary restrictions raises again the question of the connection with the decrees of the council at Jerusalem (Acts 15:29; Introduction, pp. 63-65). There is no hint here of an apostolic decree involving food."

Essentially Paul was telling the Corinthians to eat anything you wanted. I Cor10:25 Eat anything that is sold in the marketplace without questions of conscience,

A prophet is a prophet to everybody. There is no such thing as being a prophet to the Gentiles but not to the Jews.

Does that include Billy Graham or Mohammed?

That is absolute rubbish. The gospel he taught was identical to the gospel that all the Apostles taught.

And to think this is the product of Priesthood Correlation....

Edited July 6, 2012 by Ron Beron

[Ron Beron]

I think the reason that Paul may be seen as a "villain" today, is that his letters are what constitutes many of the core doctrines of evangelical Christianity as opposed to the beliefs of the early church. Most of the comments by Paul about Works versus Grace had more to do with the works of Judaism as opposed to any physical actions as it is now interpreted.

Without having the original manuscripts in hand we don't know if this is what Paul intended. But his works are vague enough that they can be taken in that context which led to the rise of Protestant Christianity.

If the New Testament canon had consisted solely of the four Gospels, Martin Luther would not have had a doctrinal basis upon which to formulate his faith-only-based philosophies.

Good observation. Going further if we had more of the documents not inclusive of Paul's teachings (gnostic, coptic, etc.)then we would have had an entirely different outcome.

[Ron Beron]

As an apostle (whether of the quorum of 12 or not), Paul sought to make what he perceived were necessary changes in the Church policies. While Peter unlocked the gospel door to the Gentiles, Paul was the one who opened and walked through it. He ensured the Gentiles did not have to live the Law of Moses, Jewish dietary laws or circumcision. While Jewish-Christians still focused heavily on the works of the Law of Moses, Paul taught that Christ's grace was sufficient.

I do not consider Paul an apostate or devil. I do consider him like a Bruce R. McConkie, speaking with authority and seeking to have his views of the gospel become the standard. While today we do not agree with everything Elder McConkie taught or pushed in his day, we can still feel the shadow he cast almost 30 years ago. Even today, the weekly meetings of the 12 apostles can be very vigorous in their debate on policy, etc. One apostle noted that they play hardball in their meetings.

The problem with this is that they (the gentiles) were told to specifically obey dietary restrictions. This was never lifted except by the hubris of Paul. The buck stops at the desk of the president of the church and James was president of the church in the early part of the 1st century.

[ERayR]

The problem with this is that they (the gentiles) were told to specifically obey dietary restrictions. This was never lifted except by the hubris of Paul. The buck stops at the desk of the president of the church and James was president of the church in the early part of the 1st century.

Were the records complete I think that you find it was the quorum and not just Paul on his own who lifted this ban. Paul could be a formidable opponent in council but he was not a rebel.

[Ron Beron]

Were the records complete I think that you find it was the quorum and not just Paul on his own who lifted this ban. Paul could be a formidable opponent in council but he was not a rebel.

That's part of the problem. The records are skewed. On one hand we have the record of Luke which presents an opposite view of Paul's as presented in Galatians. It's too bad we don't have records of the actual council or the viewpoints of the standing authorities of the time. While I have some serious problems with the sharp style and attitude of Paul I cannot see how the church could have survived without his "rebelliousness".

[ERayR]

That's part of the problem. The records are skewed. On one hand we have the record of Luke which presents an opposite view of Paul's as presented in Galatians. It's too bad we don't have records of the actual council or the viewpoints of the standing authorities of the time. While I have some serious problems with the sharp style and attitude of Paul I cannot see how the church could have survived without his "rebelliousness".

Luke was not an apostle and was writing for an entirely different audience. Paul as was his custom wrote with plainness and often sharply in correcting doctrine and practices which had crept in. I suppose that the brethren were quite plain in their correction of the German bishops who had let error into their practices during WW2.

[Damien the Leper]

I rather think Paul a hero. I love the Holy Sarcasm when he was dealing with the Super Apostles...

[Ron Beron]

I rather think Paul a hero. I love the Holy Sarcasm when he was dealing with the Super Apostles...

That's an interesting take. First I heard of the word "Holy Sarcasm". I guess I am old fashioned and not inclined to iconoclasm as I once was, but his disrespect bugs me. It must be because I have survived two teenagers. :::sigh:::

Edited July 6, 2012 by Ron Beron

[Damien the Leper]

That's an interesting take. First I heard of the word "Holy Sarcasm". I guess I am old fashioned and not inclined to iconoclasm as I once was, but his disrespect bugs me. It must be because I have survived two teenagers. :::sigh:::

I was introduced to the Holy Sarcasm by an institute teacher. I loved the take on it and have been fond of it ever since.

[volgadon]

I was introduced to the Holy Sarcasm by an institute teacher. I loved the take on it and have been fond of it ever since.

It is frequently encountered in the prophets.

[Damien the Leper]

It is frequently encountered in the prophets.

Which prophets?

[volgadon]

Which prophets?

Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, to name the big three. Elijah is also conspicuous.

[zerinus]

'zerinus' delivers...

That isn't true. They agreed that gentile converts had to abide by the Noahide covenants (see Lev. 17-18)(

but could forgo circumcision. Even this presented problems for Paul because he was told explicitly that the people of Corinth couldn't eat food not prepared in the kosher style and the eating of food given to deities.

and

Essentially Paul was telling the Corinthians to eat anything you wanted. I Cor10:25 Eat anything that is sold in the marketplace without questions of conscience,

Does that include Billy Graham or Mohammed?

And to think this is the product of Priesthood Correlation....

If Billy Graham and Mohammed were prophets, they would be prophets to everybody; otherwise they would be prophets to nobody.

I can see that you have gone far astray for heeding a bunch of uninspired writers, rather than seeking the inspiration of the word of the Lord; and I don't think that a lot can be gained by continuing with this discussion. My advice to you would be to put aside all the stuff you have been reading, and just study the word of the Lord by itself, and try to understand it by the light of the Spirit rather than being influenced by extraneous matters, and the Lord will help you to understand them correctly.

[Damien the Leper]

Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, to name the big three. Elijah is also conspicuous.

Seriously Volgadon! You and Maklelan are making me envious and regret, to a degree, studying NT. I'm always learning something more exciting and fascinating about the Hebrew Bible.

[Ron Beron]

'zerinus' continues

If Billy Graham and Mohammed were prophets, they would be prophets to everybody; otherwise they would be prophets to nobody.

That is ignoring one of the hallmarks of being a prophet; rejection. "And he said, Verily I say unto you, No prophet is accepted in his own country."

I can see that you have gone far astray for heeding a bunch of uninspired writers, rather than seeking the inspiration of the word of the Lord; and I don't think that a lot can be gained by continuing with this discussion. My advice to you would be to put aside all the stuff you have been reading, and just study the word of the Lord by itself, and try to understand it by the light of the Spirit rather than being influenced by extraneous matters, and the Lord will help you to understand them correctly.

Translate this to mean that you cannot argue the case and therefore have surrendered the field. You tried profanity. Didn't work. You tried arguing sola scriptura. Didn't work. Most of all you have negated the one thing that God has given us that means the most; free agency. There is a world outside the box worth investigating. Beyond the scriptures there are inspired learned men and women who have religiously and spiritually negotiated the scriptures and have greatly expanded our understanding of them. I am glad you were not around when Joseph lived because you would have counseled him to ignore the study of Hebrew and other secondary materials to concentrate only on the scriptures. The world only gets smaller when you constrain the mind and soul God has given us.

"“… Mormonism is truth, in other words the doctrine of the Latter-day Saints, is truth. … The first and fundamental principle of our holy religion is, that we believe that we have a right to embrace all, and every item of truth, without limitation or without being circumscribed or prohibited by the creeds or superstitious notions of men, or by the dominations of one another, when that truth is clearly demonstrated to our minds, and we have the highest degree of evidence of the same.” Joseph Smith

Have a great day.

Edited July 6, 2012 by Ron Beron

[volgadon]

Seriously Volgadon! You and Maklelan are making me envious and regret, to a degree, studying NT. I'm always learning something more exciting and fascinating about the Hebrew Bible.

I like all of it, though. Love NT studies and the ways the NT adopted and adapted biblical and extra-biblical themes.

[Stone holm]

Interesting thread. I delayed my baptism because I had serious doubts about not the Book of Mormon, but because the Church accepted the writings of Paul as scripture. I eventually held those doubts in abeyance and went ahead. Paul's writings are indeed convoluted and have unfortunately led many Christian sects down blind alleys. Historically, however, he became critically important to the spread of Christianity because some of his writings were convoluted enough to be adapted to pagan philosophies when St Augustine Romanized Christianity and burned and destroyed everything that contradicted it including all of the writings of the most travelled Apostle Thomas. So I no longer feel that Paul was to blame, its just that because of the later purges we have so little left of the other writers that Paul winds up having his writings become dominant. It would be like what would the Mormon world look like if we had burned everything written from Brigham Young through Lorenzo Snow?

[ERayR]

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.

Before we go accusing Paul of changing early Christianity wit would be well to look where our current interpretations of what Paul taught and wrote come from. The most troublesome, for me, of the interpretations of Paul's writings are those that are not read in context with other of his writings. Most of what we have from Paul are letters he wrote to address problems certain congregations were having. We have very little of his missionary sermons or "general conference" sermons. IMNSHO if we had that body of work the interpretation of what we have would take a much different course.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

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.

He wrote most of the NT and was called by Christ in person after he "Christ" was resurrected like our first Apostle, Joseph and Joseph knew him according to reports, describing how he looked, sounded and so forth. Paul was a visionary.

[Yep]

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.

Paul was a very enlightened apostle. Paul's views show a great deal of understanding and insight. I believe however that Paul was overly wordy and spoke in a manner that is often difficult to read. I love Romans and Ephesians especially, but I think that Paul's manner of speech results in texts that can be easily misinterpreted. Paul agrees with all the rest of the Gospel imo. I agree with those who have stated that Paul asked the question, or was the impetus for the question by others.