Yes, and the behavior of many of them during Jesus' ministry backs this up.
However, Jesus made His mission very clear: "I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel." [Mat 15:24] Paul believed otherwise (because Matthew's Gospel wasn't written yet). He was convinced that gospels were intended for the Gentiles.
Paul didn't believe otherwise at all. Who are the lost sheep of Israel? Paul tells us:
Rom 9:6-8 : 6 It is not as though God's word had failed. For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel . 7 Nor because they are his descendants are they all Abraham's children. On the contrary, "It is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned." 8 In other words, it is not the natural children who are God's children, but it is the children of the promise who are regarded as Abraham's offspring.
If one is correct in interpreting Jesus to mean that He only came to save one biological race, then we are wasting our time being Christian. Did Jesus change His mind? Did Paul convince Him that He was wrong? But, if Paul is correct that "Israel" includes those from all races, then we are included. Plus, can you show me where Paul says that the Gospel should not be preached to the Jews? Paul recognized that his own calling was to the Gentiles, but I'm not aware that he had anything against the Jews being taught. He WAS a Jew.
In fact, Paul had his own mission: to preach his 'own gospel' [Rom 2:16, 16:25], and 'our gospel' [2 Corinthians 4:3], declaring that he proclaimed fully the gospel of Christ [Rom 15:19] (wouldn't that make the work of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John superfluous?!), ...
Superfluous? No, by that standard the individual Gospels would make each other mostly superfluous. You know the cross-references. Paul preached fully the Gospel of Christ because it was given to him directly BY Christ.
[continuing] ... admitting that it was always his ambition [Romans 15:20], yet more than half of his life he either knew nothing of Christ or persecuted His followers with impunity!
I know you know the story of how Paul came into his knowledge of Christ. He was converted on the most personal level possible. His old life was gone, a new life had come.
When it comes to Jesus, Paul considers Him the "Son of God," but not the same as God. That is clear from numerous verses ...
Nice try, but no sale. :) Your verses do not show that Paul didn't recognize Jesus as God. Here are some examples:
Col 2:9-10 : 9 For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form, 10 and you have been given fullness in Christ, who is the head over every power and authority.
Phil 2:5-11 : 5 Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus: 6 Who, being in very nature God,did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, 7 but made himself nothing,taking the very nature of a servant,being made in human likeness. 8 And being found in appearance as a man,he humbled himself and became obedient to death — even death on a cross! 9 Therefore God exalted him to the highest place and gave him the name that is above every name, 10 that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow,in heaven and on earth and under the earth, 11 and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord,to the glory of God the Father.
Heb 1:8 : But about the Son he says, "Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever, and righteousness will be the scepter of your kingdom.
I think Paul got it alright. He had a pretty good teacher.
Paul also emphatically maintains that God [sic] raised Jesus*.
God the single essence did raise Jesus, who else would have? As I have shown, Paul did recognize Christ as God. He calls Christ "Lord" a hundred times or more. (The first meaning for "kurios" is "God". I doubt Paul would use the term so often if he always meant a second or third meaning.) Therefore, he knew that as the lifeless body lay in the tomb, the divine Christ was no longer there (Father into your hands, etc.). Don't you even say that during this time, He left to go into Hades? So, Paul knew that God (the Godhead) as a whole raised the body of Jesus.
*This is later completely rejected by the Church as the Nicene Creed (325 AD) states "he suffered, and the third day he rose [not God raised Him!] [sic] again (was there more than one resurrection?!!!)"
He rose because God raised the body. Divine Christ was in on the whole thing. I don't see any controversy in any of this.
Rather, one of the Gospels suggests that even Christ believed He was inferior to the Father: "for the Father is greater than I." [John 14:28].
So is this verse wrong and not God-breathed? Wouldn't we both just say that it needs to be taken in context and needs a simple interpretation? This one, at least, isn't difficult.
If anything, one can see why Doceticts and Gnostics had a field day reading the New Testament.
I'm not sure if you are saying that Paul was flat out wrong, and so we should rely on the Church "instead" of his writings, OR, do you mean that Paul was right, but he wrote so poorly that only through the Church can his cryptic teachings be gleaned? Or, something else.
First, the position of the Church is that +Paul is misinterpreted by the Protestants. I can see that in some cases, as +Paul says things that are strictly orthodox (lower-case "o") and fully in line with the Church teaching.
I trust the collective knowledge of the Church, and I never assume that I am wright and the Church is wrong. I simply present my perceptions in hope of finding convincing answers.
Having said that, I also have "issues" with +Paul, as I do with the "official truth" of other parts of the Bible. That is me.
Paul didn't believe otherwise at all. Who are the lost sheep of Israel? Paul tells us: Rom 9:6-8...
Let's look at this, verse-by-verse.
Clearly, not all were the "People of God" (meaning of "Israel"). That God is the God of the Jews. He makes that abundantly clear in the OT. Those who believe in Him become Israel, and are considered Jews.
There are also idolatrous Jews (that includes Christian Jews), and naturally they are not the People of God.
Same as above. Being "genetically" a Hebrew doesn't make you a Jew if you are an idolater. Those who believe in the (Jewish) God of Abraham are true Israel.
For obvious reasons. Again, being faithful is the key, buit it always pertained only to the Jews.
Very cleverly worded. The children of promise, which +Paul uses extensively in Romans makes it sound as if anyone who belongs to Christ is, like Him, a descendant of Abraham.
The only thing he left out (and Romans were no experts on Jewish history) is that nowhere does it say in the Scriptures that those who believe in the God of Abraham are, or become, Jews! For 1,300 years, those who converted to the faith of Abraham, became Jews.
+Paul was not believe he was creating a new religion. But he was too aware of the fact that pagan Greeks and Romans would never accept becoming Jews. And the Church had to survive; the Church was being strangled in Israel. That is a historical fact and even Christ warned the Apostles that they will be thrown out of the synagogues because of Him.
So, while Jesus never encouraged the Apostles to preach in gentile lands, and admits being sent only for the lost sheep of Israel, and appoints one Apostle for each tribe, and the Revelation speaks of 12 apostolic judges, it is clear that the number 12 refers to 12 tribes of Israel and not all the people of the world.
Of course, someone will bring up Matthew 28 and the Great Commission. Can I be blunt without being excommunicated? It was written when the Church was out of Israel struggling to survive in pagan lands. What else could +Matthew have written to make it acceptable to the Gentiles? I believe that part was added for reasons that should be obvious. In other words, I doubt Christ ever said that.
I doubt it because all the other Apostles go around baptizing in the name of Christ, and not in the name of the Holy Trinity. In fact, there are hardly any trinitarian expressions in the NT, so Matthew 28 stands out like a sore thumb, out of context and out of place.
If one is correct in interpreting Jesus to mean that He only came to save one biological race, then we are wasting our time being Christian
In the strictest sense, that is a possibility. In Mat 15:24, Jesus is quoted as saying he was sent only to the lost sheep of the House of Israel? Well, in Mat 10:5-6 he makes it abundantly clear that the house of Israel does not include the Gentiles:
In other words, preach to the Jews only. You see, when +Paul wrote his sweet letters to the Romans, Matthew's Gospel wasn't around yet. Romans had no clue what Jesus is quoted as saying. And neither could the Bereans check against Scripture that what Paul taught was as Christ said, because there was nothing written what Christ said yet.
So, +Paul was perfectly safe to tell Romans and Greeks that Christ told him what to preach to the Gentiles. And Bereans had nothing to verify that against Scripture! They could only verify +Paul's OT quotes against the Septuagint.
So, according to this the fullness of the Deity lives in us too. Does that make us Gods? It just so happens that this one is (along with ephesians written soon afterwards) is one of those disputed Pauline books as regards to authorship. Unlike his earlier works, its character is doctrinally ciritcal od Gnostics and their distaste for the body. Hence referencese to bodies.
Collosians 1:15 actually says "He is the image (Gr. eikwn, eikon) of the invisible God" in an attempt to assciate visible body with something godly (since the Gnostics considered the body as evil), for obvious reasons.
But he falls short of calling Him God. We say that a priest an icon of Christ, but no one thinks that he is Christ!
Phil 2:5-11 : 5 Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus: 6 Who, being in very nature God,did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, 7 but made himself nothing,taking the very nature of a servant,being made in human likeness
Oh, no, no, no. The Greek text says "being in the form [morfwn, morphon] of God, not "the very nature of God!" The word for nature/essence is ουσία (ousia). The word morphon comes from morphe which means form/shape.
Someone changed the word "form" into "the very nature" of God and completely changed the meaning of the verse.
God the single essence did raise Jesus, who else would have?
The Church (Creed) says "He rose..." That seems sufficiently divine. +Paul uses the word God in place of Father in just about every reference to God and not to "single essence."
Don't you even say that during this time, He left to go into Hades?
Sure, and that's another curious issue. St. John Chrysostom says Death expected a body and found God. No mention here of any separation of Christ's two natures.
re "for the Father is greater than I." [John 14:28]. FK: "So is this verse wrong and not God-breathed? Wouldn't we both just say that it needs to be taken in context and needs a simple interpretation?"
Well, in context everything points to an unequal "single essence." Christ also is quoted as saying to the disciples not to worry and not to toruble their hearts, for they should be happy He is going to the Father. But, then, in the Gethsemane He is torubled and afraid.
Nice try, FK, but no go. :)
+Paul says it was always his ambition.