Posted on 06/16/2018 4:18:45 PM PDT by pcottraux
Or at least marginalized in order to extrapolate from the gospels an understanding which is foreign to that of the NT church. From the separate celibate class of sacerdotal priests uniquely offering the Lord's supper as a sacrifice for sins whereby they spiritually feed the church, to looking to Peter as the first of a line of infallible popes reigning over the church from Rome, to praying to created being in Heaven, to exalting the Mary of Catholicism as a almost omnipotent (by grace) demigoddess savior, whom the church primarily called upon, to the act of baptism rendering one born again, to becoming good enough thru Purgatory (and atoning for sins therein) to enter Heaven. And more.
There are people here who admit to not liking Paul and have said Paul was insane.
Where do you find this?
It is understood that Luke, the author of Acts, was with Paul for a considerable part of his ministry..
Act 16:10 And after he had seen the vision, immediately we endeavoured to go into Macedonia, assuredly gathering that the Lord had called us for to preach the gospel unto them.
And when it was determined that we should sail into Italy, they delivered Paul and certain other prisoners unto one named Julius, a centurion of Augustus' band. (Act 27:1)
Luke, the beloved physician, and Demas, greet you. (Colossians 4:14)
Only Luke is with me. Take Mark, and bring him with thee: for he is profitable to me for the ministry. (2 Timothy 4:11)
Good point. Iron sharpeneth iron.
One of the most interesting facts about Paul is that he called himself the “chief of sinners”. While this may seem like a humble and modest view of himself, John MacArthur makes an interesting point that this view was given and inserted under the divine inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Which means that Paul was indeed the chief of sinners. The text cannot lie. No one was worst then Paul. Paul, before his conversion, will always be the chief of sinners.
Given that, and understanding the great accomplishments of Paul, one can see what the Holy Spirit can do in us if we submit our lives to Him.
And Rev. 2:7 etc, cf. 1 Sam. 15:22 as well. Better hear the quiet voice, as Elijah, than be so distracted by assembly and/or missionary work that He has to thunder as in Rev 1:10:
"I was in the Spirit on the Lord's day, and heard behind me a great voice, as of a trumpet, . . ."
Had Beloved John gotten distracted? Might he actually have been the messenger to the Ephesians?
It is not a sound hermeneutic that since the Holy Spirit inspired a statement that it must be literal, yet Paul can be called the chief of sinners ("sinners; of whom I am chief:" (1 Timothy 1:15; cf. Acts 8:3; 9:1,5,13; 22:4; 26:9-11; 1Co 15:9; Ga 1:13; Php 3:6) "because I persecuted the church of God," (1 Corinthians 15:9) "how that beyond measure I persecuted the church of God, and wasted it:," (Galatians 1:13) for " I verily thought with myself, that I ought to do many things contrary to the name of Jesus of Nazareth," (Acts 26:9) and thus, "breathing out threatenings and slaughter against the disciples of the Lord," (Acts 9:1) "made havock of the church, entering into every house, and haling men and women committed them to prison." (Acts 8:3) Passionate Saul/Paul was a "verb" of a man, for evil and then good.
And by persecuting the body of Christ, church of God, and even being a party to the murder of the manifest man of God, deacon Stephen, (Acts 7) Paul was persecuting and murdering Christ. Thus thus the Lord's question and statement, "Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me?....I am Jesus whom thou persecutest.". (Acts 9:4-5)
And as manifest in his teaching and his pastoral care, by the Spirit of Christ Paul is ever most mindful of the church as the body of Christ, (Col 1:18) and its members as being bought with so great a price.
Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood. (Acts 20:28)
Destroy not him with thy meat, for whom Christ died. (Romans 14:15)
And through thy knowledge shall the weak brother perish, for whom Christ died? (1 Corinthians 8:11)
Beside those things that are without, that which cometh upon me daily, the care of all the churches. Who is weak, and I am not weak? who is offended, and I burn not? (2 Corinthians 11:28-29) And as the one new man manifesting the grace and wisdom of God. (Ephesians 3:10,21; 5:2; Col. 1:17)
More so than pastoral Peter., "church" and "churches" Paul" are seen together.
However, Paul cannot be called the chef of sinners in guilt, for as he confessed he,
was before a blasphemer, and a persecutor, and injurious: but I obtained mercy, because I did it ignorantly in unbelief . (1 Timothy 1:13)
For Paul in utmost sincerity actually thought he was obeying the living and true God, and in fact in another wholly inspired statement could even confess,
And Paul, earnestly beholding the council, said, Men and brethren, I have lived in all good conscience before God until this day. (Acts 23:1)
Which is certainly not what I can say, and there are sins of ignorance versus disobedience to known Truth, perhaps out of weakness, and worse, willful impenitent rebellion to the conviction of the Holy Spirit, and guilt and punishment is determined in accordance with the level of light and and grace given. .
Thus while the Lord prayed, "Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do," (Luke 23:34) He also foretold, "Woe unto thee, Chorazin! woe unto thee, Bethsaida! for if the mighty works, which were done in you, had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes." (Matthew 11:21) "For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required: and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more." (Luke 12:48)
The worse sin is that of apostasy, after one is enlightened.
Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is; but exhorting one another: and so much the more, as ye see the day approaching. For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries. He that despised Moses’ law died without mercy under two or three witnesses: Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace? For we know him that hath said, Vengeance belongeth unto me, I will recompense, saith the Lord. And again, The Lord shall judge his people. It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God. (Hebrews 10:25-31)
David grievously sinned, and must have subdued his conscious during the period of his sins against Uriah the Hittite, yet when convicted thru Nathan then he repented immediately and was forgiven (if not without consequences). And could claim that in the overall sense (which is what we seem to see in such statements that says certain men were perfect or blameless or do not sin: 2 Chronicles 15:17; Luke 1:6; 1 John 5:18) "I have kept the ways of the Lord, and have not wickedly departed from my God." (2 Samuel 22:22)
Given that, and understanding the great accomplishments of Paul, one can see what the Holy Spirit can do in us if we submit our lives to Him.
Yes, and that
But in a great house there are not only vessels of gold and of silver, but also of wood and of earth; and some to honour, and some to dishonour. If a man therefore purge himself from these, he shall be a vessel unto honour, sanctified, and meet for the master’s use, and prepared unto every good work. (2 Timothy 2:20-21)
I have a ways to go in this.
There’s even a theory that Paul was a kind of undercover agent from the rabbinic establishment at the time to alter Christian theology just enough so it could never again be mistaken for a Jewish sect, thus keeping Jews away from intermarriage with the Christian sect.
Just curious why you felt the need to say that? Do you think anyone here would disagree?
Well, yes. And Paul is much more important than Peter.
You’re welcome! Glad you enjoyed it!
I would say that's likely when Luke met the apostles and joined Christianity for the first time.
I should probably have thought twice before putting it that way, but almost all my blogs contain at least one mistake like that. Oh well, I try to be led by the Spirit but am only human. I can fix it on the website, but alas, FR doesn't have an edit feature.
I try to remind myself of that daily.
It's a question of whether or not you think that's a good thing or bad thing. Quite honestly, I think the evidence speaks for itself. Which apostle traveled the furthest and reached the most people? By your fruits shall ye know them.
It was Paul's decision to primarily focus on preaching to the Gentiles that matters most, as that led to the explosion of Christianity in the coming centuries. And looking at his writings, it's clear that his biggest contribution was explaining to the Gentile Christians that converting to Judaism first and obeying the Mosaic Laws...circumcision, yearly sacrifice, etc...were not necessary for salvation. It comes through faith in Christ, not works, and the Law had been fulfilled by Jesus, so we're no longer bound by it. Personally, I think that perfectly fits the context of Jesus' ministry on Earth: His lambasting of the Pharisees for the fake piousness, His insistence that He was the way, truth, and life, etc. So I think Paul has made the most profound contribution to Christianity outside of Christ Himself. And that is a wonderful thing.
“I should probably have thought twice before putting it that way, but almost all my blogs contain at least one mistake like that.”
Doesn’t diminish that it is an excellent study. Perhaps errors like that help keep you humble. For me it takes more than one per essay because I’m hard-headed like that.
Thanks for sharing it here.
Ok phew.
Perhaps errors like that help keep you humble.
That's putting it mildly! There's no one less forgiving for my mistakes than myself!
I am not arguing against Paul’s influence but he has always obtained great theological debate about his works because first he was not like Peter, Matthew, Mark and John an apostle of Yeshua before the ressurection, nor ever among any of them until after his experience “on the road to Damascus”, and then not until about fourteen years after that, and yet his body of works dwarfs the others in volume.
It dwarfs the other in volume and in reach of theological matter so much that it is not entirely impossible to imagine a Christianity not so very different from today for the most part, if we never had the gospels of Mark, Matthew and John. Of course it enters theological debate that the one apostle who knew him not when he was on earth, provides the bulk of theological belief about what is a Christian.
Of course there are religious studies by academic biblical scholars that have suggested the differences between Paul and the Church in Jerusalem, led by Yeshua’s brother James, were greater and somewhat different than as reported by Paul and Luke. But we can learn too little precision of them as it seems the bulk of the Church in Jersusalem fled Jersusalem in the rebelllions against Rome - that nearly destroyed the city, and what works of their own that they had have been lost with them.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.