Should Paul be removed from the NT?

[I, Brian]

Should Paul be removed from the NT? For example, have the Pauling epistles diminished the ministry of Jesus, by turning it from practice to theory?

In fact, should the New Testment in general be re-organised, so that the Gospels and teachings of Jesus stand out more, and the Gospel of Thomas added as a study point, with the Pauline works mixed in with the general epistles and early church writings (for example, I Clement and Ignatius, for example) - so that no single Epistle can be regarded as authoritative, but instead as interesting but non-binding commentary?

OR does Paul deserve a most necessary place in the New Testament, because without Paul, Christianity lacks an inpsired commentator to explain the life of Jesus?

General discussion point...

[Abogado del Diablo]

What are and are not actual writings of Paul?

That seems like the threshold question.

[kiwimac]

I wonder, Brian, whether Paul's writings have been misinterpreted. It seems to me that the early church liked what he had to say, they were the ones closest in time to the Christ event, so maybe we are seriously missing what paul is on about?

Kiwimac

[Abogado del Diablo]

Originally Posted by kiwimac

I wonder, Brian, whether Paul's writings have been misinterpreted. It seems to me that the early church liked what he had to say, they were the ones closest in time to the Christ event, so maybe we are seriously missing what paul is on about?

Kiwimac

I tend to agree that there is a another interpretation. The first challenge is sorting out what Paul wrote from what others wrote though. Early on, Paul was claimed as a valuable source by both Gnostics and Catholics. To reinforce certain doctrinal positions, some of the "Pauline" epistles were written much later and attributed to Paul. It is hard to find workable alternative interpretations to some of the language of these later non-Pauline writings because they may have been designed specifically to not allow for any.

[Mus Zibii]

I like Paul. Just not all the stuff he said (but thank god for that whole anti-circumcision thing). I imagine if he were to find out his letters were being used to define doctrine he'd be horrfied. His letters related to very specific matters and yet have been applied to everything and everyone and on many occasions not just adverse to the teachings of Jesus, but Paul's own words.

As ever--CONTEXT! Context is the cure all.

[WolfgangvonUSA]

Should Paul be removed from the NT?

Absolutely!!

I don't think his letters should be anywhere in the Bible as he corrupted the true gospels with his own revisionism. He is the great Usurper!

[Virtual_Cliff]

I agree with Mus Zibii. When I was younger I was influenced by one of Andre Gide's books, in which he gives the opinion that whereas Jesus was all about love, Paul was all about the Law. When I actually read through Romans from start to end I realised the opposite was true. Paul is at pains to show that mere adherence to the letter the Law is the on lowest level of relationship to God. But then we die to sin and are raised to new life in Jesus Christ, a life characterised by unselfish love.

When some theologians use Paul's letters as Law, they are completely missing his whole point. Indeed he would be horrified. Paul was doing his best as a sort of agony aunt to emerging churches, offering practical day-to-day advice on local problems. Sometimes some things he writes looks rather odd to us today, about women for example, but I like to think that, for the people it was written for, it would have seemed like common sense.

And that's his vital message: Use your intelligence! So I think Paul's letters should remain where they are, but maybe with a health warning - engage brain before use.

[JJM]

Originally Posted by Abogado del Diablo

I tend to agree that there is a another interpretation. The first challenge is sorting out what Paul wrote from what others wrote though. Early on, Paul was claimed as a valuable source by both Gnostics and Catholics. To reinforce certain doctrinal positions, some of the "Pauline" epistles were written much later and attributed to Paul. It is hard to find workable alternative interpretations to some of the language of these later non-Pauline writings because they may have been designed specifically to not allow for any.

I've never heard that Paul’s epistles where written much later. Many of them weren’t written directly by Paul but I've heard that that is because early scribes would take note of the letters he wished them to write because He gave a lot of information and then would rewrite it in their own words with the same basic meaning.

[JJM]

Originally Posted by Mus Zibii

I like Paul. Just not all the stuff he said (but thank god for that whole anti-circumcision thing). I imagine if he were to find out his letters were being used to define doctrine he'd be horrfied. His letters related to very specific matters and yet have been applied to everything and everyone and on many occasions not just adverse to the teachings of Jesus, but Paul's own words.

As ever--CONTEXT! Context is the cure all.

I agree with most although I think that they hold a general knowledge that can be applied to many occasions if you know what the original circumstances where. I think that a majority of his teachings are corrupted by most Christians Just like Augustine’s where corrupted by Calvin. (Calvin used out of context pieces of his writing to support his claims ignoring Augustine’s most profound statement "Rome has spoken, the matter is closed.") For example, I think that the part of about works of the law in his letters is corrupted to mean all deeds when at that time that phrase specifically referred to the dietary laws, circumcision, ect. Not love you neighbor, don't steal, don't murder, ect.



Any way after all of my responses I'd have to say that I think they should remain. I think the Church Fathers knew what they where doing when they chose them and as long as they aren't corrupted they are a good source of Christian learning. Plus If I said we should remove them after the Council of Trent I'd feel really bad about going to communion on Sunday. I’m goona trust the Holy Spirit.

[WolfgangvonUSA]

For all of you who cling to the doctrine of Paul, may I suggest you read 'the pauline conspiracy', which is listed among the articles on this web site.


Wolfgang

[Virtual_Cliff]

Wolfgang,

I have just read the summary of the Pauline conspiracy. Though I would not detract from the extent of the research, and think there may be some valid points raised, there is much which is easily answered and much which is pure invective. I would no more enter into a discussion based on this work can I would grapple with a charging rhinosceros. Suffice it to say, I stick to what I said above.

With respect,
VC

[WolfgangvonUSA]

Originally Posted by Virtual_Cliff

Wolfgang,

I have just read the summary of the Pauline conspiracy. Though I would not detract from the extent of the research, and think there may be some valid points raised, there is much which is easily answered and much which is pure invective. I would no more enter into a discussion based on this work can I would grapple with a charging rhinosceros. Suffice it to say, I stick to what I said above.

With respect,
VC

VC, Thanks for replying!
I would encorage you to read the whole book, each and every chapter, but particularly the chapters devoted to Corinthians and Galatians. One must not judge a book by its summary.

As to grappling with Rhinos, this is often an essential task as we dare to consider matters outside our comfort zone.

Hallelu YAH!!

Wolfgang

[Ben57]

Originally Posted by Abogado del Diablo

What are and are not actual writings of Paul?

That seems like the threshold question.

The books attributed to Paul

Romans
Place Written: Corinth
Writing Completed (C.E.): c. 56

1 Corinthians
Place Written: Ephesus
Writing Completed (C.E.): c. 55

2 Corinthians
Macedonia
Writing Completed (C.E.): c. 55

Galatians
Place Written: Corinth or Syrian Antioch
Writing Completed (C.E.): c. 50-52

Ephesians
Place Written: Rome
Writing Completed (C.E.): c. 60-61


Philippians
Place Written: Rome
Writing Completed (C.E.): c. 60-61


Colossians
Place Written: Rome
Writing Completed (C.E.): c. 60-61


1 Thessalonians
Place Written: Corinth
Writing Completed (C.E.): c. 50


2 Thessalonians
Place Written: Corinth
Writing Completed (C.E.): c. 51


1 Timothy
Place Written: Macedonia
Writing Completed (C.E.): c. 61-64



2 Timothy
Place Written: Rome
Writing Completed (C.E.): c. 65


Titus
Place Written: Macedonia (?)
Writing Completed (C.E.): c. 61-64


Philemon
Place Written: Rome
Writing Completed (C.E.): c. 60-61


Hebrews
Place Written: Rome
Writing Completed (C.E.): c. 61


Personally I do not think any of Paul’s words detract from the words of Jesus. He adds to them and explains them and shows practical ways of what being a footstep follower of Jesus actually means.


He changed from being a lawyer and a persecutor of Christians to being a hated Christian. His writings set out the Christian way of life as it was followed in the first century and how anyone calling then self a Christian now should conduct their life.

[Marsh]

I've heard many times from many people that Paul's writing is inconsistent with Jesus' teachings. But here's my question: Are these inconsistencies real, or are they a symptom of our lack of understanding, and a sign that our generation does not understand Jesus?

Personally, I think it's pretty arrogant to think that we can make judgments on Paul, not having walked in his shoes.

[Ben57]

I would like to hear from anyone that thinks that Paul is out of step with the teachings of Jesus. Personally I do not think so. Personaly I have never encounted any thing from the writtings of Paul that suggests he was out of step with Jesus