Paul: Hero Or Villian

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

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.

Most of his words we letters (epistles) to believers.

[ERayR]

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.

Of course it is difficult to read, he didn't speak modern English. All we really have are letters of doctrinal correction in which he some times over emphasized certain principals. Wouldn't it be nice to have his sacrament meeting talks?

[Ron Beron]

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.

Slight correction...He wrote most of the accepted NT, but even there were many of the epistles were written by others, probably disciples. Only seven are undisputed:

1. Romans
   
2. First Corinthians
   
3. Second Corinthians
   
4. Galatians
   
5. Philippians
   
6. First Thessalonians
   
7. Philemon
   

[Ron Beron]

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.

I think we have a great abundance of evidence showing Paul's difference with that of the Jewish Christians. For example,

• His statements regarding the Law
  
• Equivocation between those circumcised and those who weren't
  
• The being of Jesus
  

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

Slight correction...He wrote most of the accepted NT, but even there were many of the epistles were written by others, probably disciples. Only seven are undisputed:

1. Romans
   
2. First Corinthians
   
3. Second Corinthians
   
4. Galatians
   
5. Philippians
   
6. First Thessalonians
   
7. Philemon
   

Which accounts for most, for the longest and the most loved or quoted by us "Hebrews . My favorite all of book books of Corinthians. Many Christians now say he did not write it. As far as current version, William Tyndall wrote most of it in English (The NT) and the ruling Church at the time killed him for it.

[teddyaware]

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.

In the following quote from the New Testament, a Church leadership comtemporary of Paul. namely the Apostle Peter, shares with us his view of Paul,:

"13 Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness.

14 Wherefore, beloved, seeing that ye look for such things, be diligent that ye may be found of him in peace, without spot, and blameless.

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 rest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

17 Ye therefore, beloved, seeing ye know these things before, beware lest ye also, being led away with the error of the wicked, fall from your own steadfastness.

18 But grow in grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. To him be glory both now and for ever. Amen."

So we may gather that Paul was a beloved leader of the Church, and that he was doctrinal in harmony with the mainstream of the Church. But Peter tells us Paul often taught deep doctrine that was difficult to understand and subject to misconstrual.

So there you have it, right from the leader of the Church of Jesus Christ of Meridian-day Saints. Paul was on point and in full fellowship. Nevertheless, some unleaned and unstable members of that day misinterpreted or deliberately twisted his orthodox, though somewhat arcane, presentation of the gospel; and this misconstrual of the Apostle's teachings led some into errors that resulted in wickedness. I suspect it was the false docrine of "saved by grace without any effort of one's own," that stood foremost among those heresys that were propigated by the twisting Paul's teachings.

Edited April 28, 2013 by teddyaware

[canard78]

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.

I was sat in one of the Sunday school lessons earlier this year when they were discussing the apostasy. It's usually presented as a "bad thing" caused by wicked men.

It occurred to me that the only way in that era to have avoided apostasy would have been to restrict to a small localised sect which would have eventually died out. The nature of 1stC communication meant that as soon as the message went beyond the immediate supervision of the apostles it would start to be locally personalised and adapted. Paul's prolific travels and preaching hastened the arrival of the apostasy because the Christian message spread further and faster than they could personally control. We see this in many of his letters.

Instead, we should see the apostasy as a "good thing." Probably the only way it could have spread in those early days of Christianity was through the ability of leaders to personalise it, adapt and adopt it. Even abuse it. The outcome was that it spread far and wide and became the primary religious teaching among the European Gentiles of the day and merging, morphing and replacing paganism.

I think Paul was indeed an instrument in the apostasy. But I also think the apostasy was probably part of the plan. Rather than simply being a corruption of that which was pure, it was an localisation to make it globally relevant.

I saw a video recently of a Chinese village who were visited by a German missionary some 70-80 years ago. They still held local, adapted Christian services with smatterings of Confucianism/Buddhism thrown in. They sang psalms from their Chinese Old Testament in European 4-part harmony.

The LDS restoration had to be confined to a localised area as much as possible for many decades and could only truly go global and not apostatise after the communication and travel advances of post-WW2. Before that there was probably plenty of 'candles on sacrament tables' going on.

[canard78]

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.

Useful analogy. As I mentioned in my previous post, I see the apostasy as a necessity for Christianity to globalise.

You should see some of KFC's global menus. They look nothing at all like their US counterpart. But it's that local adaptation that has made then one of THE success stories in globalisation.

[Glenn101]

Useful analogy. As I mentioned in my previous post, I see the apostasy as a necessity for Christianity to globalise.

You should see some of KFC's global menus. They look nothing at all like their US counterpart. But it's that local adaptation that has made then one of THE success stories in globalisation.

It does Christianity no good to globalize if it is not globalizing the truth. The actual globilization happend because Constantine wished to harness the zeal and fervor of the Christian converts for his own political purposes and made it the official religion of the Roman Empire.

Paul did not start the apostasy. Many of his letters were attempts to stem the tide of apostasy that was already growing in the various branches of the church that he had establised in various cities around the Roman Empire.

Without his letters we would not have any Biblical reference to baptism for the dead or for the three degrees of glory.

Once the apostles began to be killed off oe immobilized, the apostates were able to gain control and the apostasy was in full swing. But it was not a "good thing".

Glenn

[Yep]

I think we have a great abundance of evidence showing Paul's difference with that of the Jewish Christians.

His statements regarding the Law

Paul's statements regarding the Law are some of the most misinterpreted of his words. Paul was extremely fond of the Law, being from the Pharisaical school of thought. The assumption that leads to Paul's holding a differing position on this is from a perspective that forgets this.

Edited April 28, 2013 by Yep

[tyler90az]

The apost

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.

That coupled with mercy is why the apostasy was allowed to happen.

[Nevo]

Paul's statements regarding the Law are some of the most misinterpreted of his words. Paul was extremely fond of the Law, being from the Pharisaical school of thought.

Paul may have kept the Law himself, but he certainly did not commend it to Gentile converts—quite the opposite.

[Nathair/|\]

I was sat in one of the Sunday school lessons earlier this year when they were discussing the apostasy. It's usually presented as a "bad thing" caused by wicked men.

It occurred to me that the only way in that era to have avoided apostasy would have been to restrict to a small localised sect which would have eventually died out. The nature of 1stC communication meant that as soon as the message went beyond the immediate supervision of the apostles it would start to be locally personalised and adapted. Paul's prolific travels and preaching hastened the arrival of the apostasy because the Christian message spread further and faster than they could personally control. We see this in many of his letters.

Instead, we should see the apostasy as a "good thing." Probably the only way it could have spread in those early days of Christianity was through the ability of leaders to personalise it, adapt and adopt it. Even abuse it. The outcome was that it spread far and wide and became the primary religious teaching among the European Gentiles of the day and merging, morphing and replacing paganism.

I think Paul was indeed an instrument in the apostasy. But I also think the apostasy was probably part of the plan. Rather than simply being a corruption of that which was pure, it was an localisation to make it globally relevant.

I saw a video recently of a Chinese village who were visited by a German missionary some 70-80 years ago. They still held local, adapted Christian services with smatterings of Confucianism/Buddhism thrown in. They sang psalms from their Chinese Old Testament in European 4-part harmony.

The LDS restoration had to be confined to a localised area as much as possible for many decades and could only truly go global and not apostatise after the communication and travel advances of post-WW2. Before that there was probably plenty of 'candles on sacrament tables' going on.

Canard, did you read DCP's most recent Deseret News column?

[Yep]

Paul may have kept the Law himself, but he certainly did not commend it to Gentile converts—quite the opposite.

Romans states the opposite.

Rom. 3:29-31

29 Is he the God of the Jews only? is he not also of the Gentiles? Yes, of the Gentiles also:

30 Seeing it is one God, which shall justify the circumcision by faith, and uncircumcision through faith.

31 Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law.

Paul never suggested the a lack of the law to the Gentile converts. Paul merely argued against specific items (e.g. circumcision) within the law being applied to the Gentiles.

Edited April 28, 2013 by Yep

[canard78]

Canard, did you read DCP's most recent Deseret News column?

Thanks, I hadn't but it's fantastically written. Nice to have someone so articulate nail down the ideas that had otherwise been bubbling around in my head.

[Glenn101]

Romans states the opposite.

Paul never suggested the a lack of the law to the Gentile converts. Paul merely argued against specific items (e.g. circumcision) within the law being applied to the Gentiles.

Which law are you talking about? The Mosaic law? Circumcision was part of the Abrhamic Covenant. It preceded the Mosaic Law. Were the Gentile Converts to observe the passover, etc. The dietary restrictions? Or was Paul talking about another law, a spiritual law?

There are fifty or more references to "the law" in the Epsitle to the Romans alone. It is not always clear what law Paul is referring to, especially when he delcares "But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter." (Romans 7:).

And, Romans 6:14 For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace.

15 What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid.

And finally, in Galatians chapter 3 we read:

23 But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed.

24 Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.

25 But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.

Glenn

[Stone holm]

It is not always clear what law Paul is referring to, especially when he delcares "But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter." (Romans 7:).

Glenn

I agree with this part.

[Yep]

Which law are you talking about? The Mosaic law? Circumcision was part of the Abrhamic Covenant. It preceded the Mosaic Law. Were the Gentile Converts to observe the passover, etc. The dietary restrictions? Or was Paul talking about another law, a spiritual law?

There are fifty or more references to "the law" in the Epsitle to the Romans alone. It is not always clear what law Paul is referring to, especially when he delcares "But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter." (Romans 7:).

A reference to manner. Paul, imo, is stating similar to "if a man looketh on a woman to lust after hath committed adultery with her already in his heart." Paul is stating a reinterpretation of the law. Just as the Galatians reference below.

And, Romans 6:14 For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace.

15 What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid.

Speaking of sin and the ability to repent. Paul is speaking to the freedom given through the atonement which satisfies the demands of justice, through repentance. Yet, we should not sin just because we have the ability to repent. And again reference my response below.

And finally, in Galatians chapter 3 we read:

23 But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed.

24 Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.

25 But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.

When you finish your education are the things the schoolmaster taught kicked to the side? Are the principles learned forgotten? Does 2+2=4 somehow become irrelevant? Paul is stating that we are no longer under the law but living the law, fulfilled. With faith in Christ, we do not transgress the law because we understand, we don't simply know. Where our faith is weak, where our understanding is lacking, we remain under the law. We remain under the law in the absence of faith because we must obey the law in spite of doubt or a lack of understanding. Not understanding the law we cannot completely understand its application. I do not understand how someone could read Galatians and somehow think that the law was no longer in force. The reference to the schoolmaster should make this one fairly clear.

Edited April 29, 2013 by Yep

[thesometimesaint]

I think Christ was a type of Pharisee. Thus Christ frequent condemnations of them. They knew the law, but were overzealous in applying it to everyone, but themselves. Christ brought repentance and forgiveness.

[Stone holm]

I think Christ was a type of Pharisee. Thus Christ frequent condemnations of them. They knew the law, but were overzealous in applying it to everyone, but themselves. Christ brought repentance and forgiveness.

Christ was stripping "the Law" of the various rules that the lawyers had added in their quest for specifics. As a result He was viewed by the establishment elites as a dangerous radical.

[thesometimesaint]

That he was, and in some quarters still is.

[Stone holm]

That he was, and in some quarters still is.

However, in some quarters people have asserted that He was in essence an Arch Conservative because they fear not having a law filled with minutiae and resist change of any sort in the name of their religion.

[thesometimesaint]

True, but I have to agree with our Article of Faith # 9. We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God.

[Stone holm]

True, but I have to agree with our Article of Faith # 9. We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God.

I believe the majority of Mormons, however, sort of expect that to be primarily in the form of incrementalism except maybe just before the big event of the Second Coming. There is a tendency to want to put off really touchy stuff that might throw us out of the "mainstream" as things that will be deferred to the Millenium. Example being say the United Order. I call this the millenium syndrome. There has been widespread support of the various cosmetic changes which make us sound more like Evangelicals.

[thesometimesaint]

I believe the majority of Mormons, however, sort of expect that to be primarily in the form of incrementalism except maybe just before the big event of the Second Coming. There is a tendency to want to put off really touchy stuff that might throw us out of the "mainstream" as things that will be deferred to the Millenium. Example being say the United Order. I call this the millenium syndrome. There has been widespread support of the various cosmetic changes which make us sound more like Evangelicals.

I can't speak for the majority of Mormons.. I'm probably as mainstream LDS as they come in my theology. However I tend to be very generous with what I believe God will reveal to us. IE; We are all beneficiaries of the knowledge explosion of the last 200 years or so. God really has opened up the heavens and poured out a bounteous blessing of knowledge. I really do believe we are just at the beginnings of that blessing.