Should Paul be removed from the NT?

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Moksha 69, and welcome to CR!

Paul is the NT. The foundation of Christianity may be Jesus but the whole edifice is Paul. Just about every scriptural quote re: doctrine, is from Paul. Without him you'd all just be reformed Jews.

Yep. Radically Reformed *Messianic* Jews, which is pretty much a mutually exclusive religious term. Haven't found many Jews yet willing to acknowledge Jesus as Messiah, and haven't found many Christians yet willing to observe the 613 Levitical Laws (not one jot or tittle done away with) or observe the Holy Days (Paschal, Feast of First Fruits, Yom Kippur, Hannukah, to name a few).

 

[Quahom1]

Kindest Regards, Moksha 69, and welcome to CR!

Yep. Radically Reformed *Messianic* Jews, which is pretty much a mutually exclusive religious term. Haven't found many Jews yet willing to acknowledge Jesus as Messiah, and haven't found many Christians yet willing to observe the 613 Levitical Laws (not one jot or tittle done away with) or observe the Holy Days (Paschal, Feast of First Fruits, Yom Kippur, Hannukah, to name a few).

I did have the surprise of meeting and serving with a "Messianic Jew". It happened when I wished a Coast Guard pilot, on duty with me a "Happy Chanuka".

He smiled, and said, "I believe in Easter too." Well, you could have knocked me over with a feather!

We did Bible study together (and I tried understanding the complexities of the Mizhfat), and I can tell you, it wasn't easy for either of us. But where there are two willing students, the teacher will instruct.

The only way I can come close to describing it would be twins, seperated at birth, but both remembering one basic truth or ideal. One raised in a regimented or ordered way, and the other raised on the beaches of California. Each had advantages and disadvantages over the other, in life lessons. One had a solid grounding in the past, but the other had a solid vision of the future...

Anyway, it was the most intense Bible study periods, I've ever had (not to mention one of the greatest personal relationships developed).

v/r

Q

 

[Excaliburton]

Paul is the NT. The foundation of Christianity may be Jesus but the whole edifice is Paul. Just about every scriptural quote re: doctrine, is from Paul. Without him you'd all just be reformed Jews.

Moksha 69

So I guess you are saying that Jesus was preaching Reformed Judaism?
And were Matthew, Mark, John, Jude, James and Peter also preaching Reformed Judaism?

 

[Quahom1]

So I guess you are saying that Jesus was preaching Reformed Judaism?
And were Matthew, Mark, John, Jude, James and Peter also preaching Reformed Judaism?

Originally...yes. Gentiles didn't come into the picture until they shoved their way in...on several occasions, to the point that Jesus wondered at the "faith" of the gentile, while the Jewish leaders scoffed.

But then, you knew that already...

 

[Excaliburton]

Originally...yes. Gentiles didn't come into the picture until they shoved their way in...on several occasions, to the point that Jesus wondered at the "faith" of the gentile, while the Jewish leaders scoffed.

But then, you knew that already...

OK, as you say "Originally. . .yes", but did they not later say the gospel must be preached among all nations? And doesn't John 3:16 say ALL who believe in Him will have eternal life?

So even without Paul and even before Paul, the original apostles of the Lamb were given the Great Commission to preach to all nations.

 

[Quahom1]

OK, as you say "Originally. . .yes", but did they not later say the gospel must be preached among all nations? And doesn't John 3:16 say ALL who believe in Him will have eternal life?

So even without Paul and even before Paul, the original apostles of the Lamb were given the Great Commission to preach to all nations.

John wasn't around before Paul (in bibilical literature). Get it? Paul was published first. John's words were published 100 years after Paul's letters to the churches.

Yes, the apostles were given comission to preach to all nations, but what does that have to do with Paul? His time came, he accepted his own comission from God, and he carried it out with great zeal and love.

And Paul was first, before any Gospel arrived on scene, Paul's letters were already there.

Should Paul be removed from the NT? Paul started the NT...how ironic.

The only person we can prettymuch garuantee wrote what he wrote and actually personally penned what is printed in the Bible, and there are those who want to get rid of that...get rid of Paul, and the NT falls apart.

Let me put it to you this way. I can do without Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. But Paul, no.

v/r

Q

 

[juantoo3]

So I guess you are saying that Jesus was preaching Reformed Judaism?

Yes.

And were Matthew, Mark, John, Jude, James and Peter also preaching Reformed Judaism?

Short answer, yes. Of course, some of these depend on whether one uses the same criteria used to discount Paul and Luke. Matthew, Mark and Jude could just as easily be dismissed as heretics as Paul.

So even without Paul and even before Paul, the original apostles of the Lamb were given the Great Commission to preach to all nations.

"Before," as in "how?" If the Gospels were written after Paul, how do we know that "Great Commission" wasn't inserted by Paul and his dupes? In other words, Christianity must have never been meant for the Gentile Pagans. It is all a sham, a hoax, a fraud.

Come to think of it, name one apostle that wrote anything from or directly to a specific gentile assembly. John didn't, Peter didn't, and James (who wasn't even an apostle) didn't. I can think of only one...spurious...gospel, attributed to Thomas, supposedly in India as the tradition goes. Otherwise, I haven't heard of anything from any of the others that walked with Jesus. Must be there was no commission...it must have been an invention of Paul too. I guess all of us Euro-trash of barbaric Pagan descent don't have a chance, we're going to hell because there is no commission.

So that I am clear, I do not believe this at all, even if I were Pagan. But as Christianity is concerned, without Paul, there is no commission, and certainly no one else with balls enough to rise to the challenge.

Funny, how the Good Lord works in mysterious ways...

 

[juantoo3]

And doesn't John 3:16 say ALL who believe in Him will have eternal life?

Where was John when he wrote this, and to whom was he speaking? Was it not Jerusalem, and "reformed" Jews?

 

[InLove]

Hi Everyone--

I think you all know that I see no basis in removing Paul's stuff from the NT, but I do have some questions....

Let me put it to you this way. I can do without Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. But Paul, no.

Q, I don't understand. Can you elaborate a little?

OK, as you say "Originally. . .yes", but did they not later say the gospel must be preached among all nations? And doesn't John 3:16 say ALL who believe in Him will have eternal life?

So even without Paul and even before Paul, the original apostles of the Lamb were given the Great Commission to preach to all nations.

So I see Paul as simply obeying that which was given to the apostles.

Where was John when he wrote this, and to whom was he speaking? Was it not Jerusalem, and "reformed" Jews?

I don't see the problem, even if John was only writing to the Jews (and honestly, I'm inclined to think that he means exactly what he says--"whosoever"). I can see it either way. Am I missing something?

As Always,
InPeace,
InLove

 

[Quahom1]

Hi Everyone--

I think you all know that I see no basis in removing Paul's stuff from the NT, but I do have some questions....



Q, I don't understand. Can you elaborate a little?




So I see Paul as simply obeying that which was given to the apostles.



I don't see the problem, even if John was only writing to the Jews (and honestly, I'm inclined to think that he means exactly what he says--"whosoever"). I can see it either way. Am I missing something?

As Always,
InPeace,
InLove

The Gospels tell a story, while Paul provides the practical application to the faith.

 

[China Cat Sunflower]

John wasn't around before Paul (in bibilical literature). Get it? Paul was published first. John's words were published 100 years after Paul's letters to the churches.

Yes, the apostles were given comission to preach to all nations, but what does that have to do with Paul? His time came, he accepted his own comission from God, and he carried it out with great zeal and love.

And Paul was first, before any Gospel arrived on scene, Paul's letters were already there.

Should Paul be removed from the NT? Paul started the NT...how ironic.

The only person we can prettymuch garuantee wrote what he wrote and actually personally penned what is printed in the Bible, and there are those who want to get rid of that...get rid of Paul, and the NT falls apart.

Let me put it to you this way. I can do without Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. But Paul, no.

v/r

Q

Well, I couldn't agree more Q. Without Paul there is no Christianity, and maybe that's the point of the criticism: attack the lynch pin.

I think that Paul and the Gospels are mutually reinforcing on the issues that really count. Read Paul's treatise on the nature of spiritual love and compare that to the crux of Jesus' philosophy as expressed immediately after the beatitudes. Clearly Paul and Jesus are on the same page. Furthermore, the balance of the NT is a reflection of, and on Paul's ideas on Christian egalitarianism.

The Gospels present a story about Jesus where his words and deeds are wound like string around the nails of OT concepts, characters, and prophecies to create a string art allegorical snapshot of his mission in terms of the larger story of Judaism. They're meant to be used liturgically and aren't necessarily stringently factual. None of the four gospels was actually written by the disciple whose name is affixed as author. Paul, on the otherhand, is verifiably real. He was a real person, and also real in the sense that you can feel his humanity through his writings.

Chris

 

[InLove]

The Gospels tell a story, while Paul provides the practical application to the faith.

Yes, they go together well. Without the record of Jesus' words and actions (even if we don't know everything in detail), there would be little to practically apply, for Paul would be urging us to follow a Christ about whom we know nothing.

InPeace,
InLove

 

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, InLove!

Thank you for your post!

even if John was only writing to the Jews (and honestly, I'm inclined to think that he means exactly what he says--"whosoever"). I can see it either way. Am I missing something?

I am glad you asked!

The best way to understand this that I can think of to convey my thoughts is with an analogy:

Let us suppose your mother wrote you a "wisdom" letter, let us say about the time you went off to college. A very meaningful, heartfelt letter, one that you cherish. The kind of letter you keep for years, and reread from time to time, both for the wisdom and the memories, especially after mom is gone.

That letter will be meaningful to your grandchildren too, and their grandchildren as time goes by. Just the same, the letter was written to *you.*

Now, we can just as easily imagine that letter was composed by your great-great-great grandmother, and you happen to find it one day while going through a box of things left to you. You open it, and begin to read. You can feel the love, and appreciate the wisdom, because these two things, love and wisdom, transcend time. This letter becomes meaningful to you, not just because of the family association and treasured heirloom, it is a sincere heartfelt treatise of love and wisdom.

But it was not written *to* you, even though you gain benefit from it as much as your ancestor did a hundred years or more before you.

That is how John, and the other books of the Bible, are. Since John played a significant part in the Jerusalem church, witnessing to the Jews, it is reasonable to presume that the Gospel he composed was written to them. The "whosoever" he would have had in mind would have been Jewish by birth. That does not prevent us, almost 2 thousand years later, from gathering the love and wisdom he showered on his audience. But it is presumptive of us, now, whom John could never have imagined, to believe we are actually the intended audience.

*That,* is my point.

 

[InLove]

Hi, my fellow insomniac

But it was not written *to* you, even though you gain benefit from it as much as your ancestor did a hundred years or more before you.

That is how John, and the other books of the Bible, are. Since John played a significant part in the Jerusalem church, witnessing to the Jews, it is reasonable to presume that the Gospel he composed was written to them. The "whosoever" he would have had in mind would have been Jewish by birth. That does not prevent us, almost 2 thousand years later, from gathering the love and wisdom he showered on his audience. But it is presumptive of us, now, whom John could never have imagined, to believe we are actually the intended audience.

*That,* is my point.

And it is a good point. I do understand. But I don't think it will undermine your point at all if I venture that perhaps John, in particular, may have been blessed with such extraordinary vision that he might actually have had some "intuitive" grasp of the future and a larger scenario. Of course, I can't prove that idea, but I do know that "grandmas" can be that way sometimes.

InPeace,
InLove

 

[Excaliburton]

I don't really understand the problem with Paul. I don't understand the criticism that Paul undermines the Gospels when Paul's stuff was written first. How can he be undermining something that doesn't yet exist?

Chris

The teachings of Jesus existed and were preached prior to the time they were written down in the books of the gospels.

 

[Excaliburton]

The Gospels tell a story, while Paul provides the practical application to the faith.

The Gospels tell more than just a story; they speak of the teachings and prophecies and parables of Jesus, the teachings and prophecies and parables Paul never bothered to quote even once in any of his epistles.

John 18:37 Pilate therefore said unto him, Art thou a king then? Jesus answered, Thou sayest that I am a king. To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth. Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice.

And among the many teachings of Jesus was the command to repent of sin, but if the Law was dead as Paul insists, there would be no sin.

Jesus also made many prophecies, including a prediction another would come who would subvert His teachings and lead us astray.

John 5:43 I am come in my Father's name, and ye receive me not: if another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive.

Who but Paul best fulfills this prophecy?
The proof is the acceptance of his epistles in our Bibles.


2Jo 1:9 Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son.

Whoever departs from the doctrine of Jesus or teaches something apart from the words of Jesus, hath not God. Paul never preached the doctrine of Jesus but preached his own separate gospel and therefore was not of God, but was a false shepherd.

All we need is Jesus! Hallelujah!!

 

[Caimanson]

Hello Excaliburton, I don't agree or disagree, its your choice.
Its fine if you want to reject Paul, but you have to reject all his doctrines as well.
It has been said in this forum many, many times that if you remove Paul you are left with an enlightened Judaism, nothing more nothing less.
Paul was the man who created a whole new religion, Jesus was just a Jew.

I'm wondering how would you reconcile discarding Paul and remaining a christian at the same time?
(never mind this is the liberal board)

 

[Excaliburton]

Hello Excaliburton, I don't agree or disagree, its your choice.
Its fine if you want to reject Paul, but you have to reject all his doctrines as well.
It has been said in this forum many, many times that if you remove Paul you are left with an enlightened Judaism, nothing more nothing less.
Paul was the man who created a whole new religion, Jesus was just a Jew.

I'm wondering how would you reconcile discarding Paul and remaining a christian at the same time?
(never mind this is the liberal board)

It may interest you to know that in my younger years I considered myself a Christian after only reading the Gospels of Matthew and John. I never read any more of the NT until many years thereafter, and since I was not a church-goer, I was never really acquainted with Paul's teachings, but when I finally did read Paul's epistles I was shocked at how they seemed to go against the grain of the words of Jesus and His apostles.

As to the issue of Judaism, we must remember that Jesus was a critic of Pharisaic Rabbinism in which the Talmud usurped and altered the clear words of the Torah and the Prophets, and it should be noted that modern Judaism claims its origin from the doctrine of the Pharisees and Talmud, so we do NOT see any form of Jesus' form of Judaism in the world today. . .except perhaps in the doctrine of the Karaites who claim they follow only the Torah and Prophets while rejecting the Talmud altogether.

Remember also that Jesus regarded the Pharisees as sinners who neglected the weightier matters of the law while observing the more superficial matters.