The Apostle, Paul.

[Captain Adverse]

Okay, let me back up and re-start from here:

Ok, that's sort of a more reasonable position that tossing Paul out entirely.

In an above post though, you seem to cast doubt on whether Saul/Paul actually encountered Jesus (in his post-incarnate spiritual form) on the road to Damascus at all, due to a second description of the encounter being somewhat different from the first.

Erm... so what exactly DO you think of Paul? Was he a liar? Was he a sincere and genuine but flawed preacher of the Word? The two seem incompatible...

Hmm, I guess the best face I can put on my position about Paul is this. It is clear that he persecuted Jews who followed the teachings of Christ. Something happened which not only stopped this persecution, but motivated him to become an advocate of Christianity.

It is possible he simply suffered a seizure of some sort, which blinded him temporarily and caused visions from a guilty conscience. It is also possible that he did see the Lord, or maybe giving him a seizure was all the Lord needed to do. The Lord acts in mysterious ways.

Whatever it was, he used it to establish himself as a power within the growing sect and without his efforts among the Gentiles it is likely that Christianity would have remained a small sect of the Jews. I simply see him as a driven man, with all the faults of any other man. This is why I honor him for his efforts in the church while discounting his vilification of homosexuals as merely following Levitican law.

 

[Goshin]

Hmm, I guess the best face I can put on my position about Paul is this. It is clear that he persecuted Jews who followed the teachings of Christ. Something happened which not only stopped this persecution, but motivated him to become an advocate of Christianity.

It is possible he simply suffered a seizure of some sort, which blinded him temporarily and caused visions from a guilty conscience. It is also possible that he did see the Lord, or maybe giving him a seizure was all the Lord needed to do. The Lord acts in mysterious ways.

Whatever it was, he used it to establish himself as a power within the growing sect and without his efforts among the Gentiles it is likely that Christianity would have remained a small sect of the Jews. I simply see him as a driven man, with all the faults of any other man. This is why I honor him for his efforts in the church while discounting his vilification of homosexuals as merely following Levitican law.

Hmm. So you're a bit skeptical that divine intervention was involved, correct?

Yet it would seem that Paul's enormous success in expanding the Gospel to the Gentiles would be seen as something that must have been part of God's plan, and driven by spiritual power and not merely the efforts of Paul and a few others. Absent the spirit of God laboring alongside him, I don't think Paul could have accomplished what he accomplished. Seems like a vindication to me.

But opinions differ.

So tell me... is there anything else in particular, which Paul taught that you think is not in accord with the teachings of Jesus, besides his assertion/affirmation of homosexuality as a sin?

 

[Goshin]

I say that hoping that I won't be viewed as simply "trolling" for having a different perspective.

Paul is obviously central to the formation and maintenance of the early church, but I see the inclusion of him as an apostle as more an honorary title intended to bolster his credibility, not entirely unlike knighthood or doctorates.

I apologize for being unable to remember offhand, but do you consider yourself a Christian?

 

[Unrepresented]

I apologize for being unable to remember offhand, but do you consider yourself a Christian?

No apologies necessary. I am not religious, but do enjoy reading about religion, although with a somewhat different perspective.

 

[Captain Adverse]

Hmm. So you're a bit skeptical that divine intervention was involved, correct?

Yet it would seem that Paul's enormous success in expanding the Gospel to the Gentiles would be seen as something that must have been part of God's plan, and driven by spiritual power and not merely the efforts of Paul and a few others. Absent the spirit of God laboring alongside him, I don't think Paul could have accomplished what he accomplished. Seems like a vindication to me.

But opinions differ.

So tell me... is there anything else in particular, which Paul taught that you think is not in accord with the teachings of Jesus, besides his assertion/affirmation of homosexuality as a sin?

Well, personally I think circumcision should not have been abandoned in the name of political necessity since that is a sign of the covenant. If it was good enough for Jesus it's good enough for me. Also, his claim that his rules in all things instructed are "gospel" and taken as the Word of God, regardless of what they are, I don't agree with. So my objections do not rest solely on his homosexual positions, no.

 

[Goshin]

No apologies necessary. I am not religious, but do enjoy reading about religion, although with a somewhat different perspective.

Yeah, that would certainly be from a different perspective.


Of course you're welcome to participate in the discussion anyway.

 

[Goshin]

Well, personally I think circumcision should not have been abandoned in the name of political necessity since that is a sign of the covenant. If it was good enough for Jesus it's good enough for me. Also, his claim that his rules in all things instructed are "gospel" and taken as the Word of God, regardless of what they are, I don't agree with. So my objections do not rest solely on his homosexual positions, no.

You're aware that Peter (and apparently a majority of the apostles gathered at the time) were apparently in agreement with not imposing circumcision and other Judaisms upon the Gentiles, right?

Granted that was in Acts, presumed written by Luke.... and I don't know how much stock you put in Acts or Luke...

 

[Captain Adverse]

You're aware that Peter (and apparently a majority of the apostles gathered at the time) were apparently in agreement with not imposing circumcision and other Judaisms upon the Gentiles, right?

Granted that was in Acts, presumed written by Luke.... and I don't know how much stock you put in Acts or Luke...

I am aware that Peter eventually supported it and convinced his peers accept it. I was just mentioning one of my personal objections to Paul's policies.

 

[Goshin]

I am aware that Peter eventually supported it and convinced his peers accept it. I was just mentioning one of my personal objections to Paul's policies.

Hm. Well in Acts it says Peter said they were "led by the Holy Ghost" to make this decision. You don't feel that this was the case? You feel it was "written in" to legitimize what was essentially a political decision?


Just trying to figure out where you're coming from on this.

 

[Captain Adverse]

Hm. Well in Acts it says Peter said they were "led by the Holy Ghost" to make this decision. You don't feel that this was the case? You feel it was "written in" to legitimize what was essentially a political decision?


Just trying to figure out where you're coming from on this.

I wasn't there, privy to the discussions. In my opinion it was probably political but that's just my opinion.

 

[Gringo allstar]

I say that hoping that I won't be viewed as simply "trolling" for having a different perspective.

Paul is obviously central to the formation and maintenance of the early church, but I see the inclusion of him as an apostle as more an honorary title intended to bolster his credibility, not entirely unlike knighthood or doctorates.

What helps make Paul credible ln my book is everything he "gave up" to preach the gospel. Think of his lifestyle before the "road to Damascus " and what he endured after that encounter. He surely didn't "profit" from such a story if it was fabricated.

 

[Goshin]

I wasn't there, privy to the discussions. In my opinion it was probably political but that's just my opinion.

Hm. Just a guess, but you aren't the least bit anywhere near the ballpark of being a literalist, are you?


You're Historical-critical and heavy on the allegory and metaphor?


I'm (mostly) historical-grammatical /Covenant myself, though not a literalist per se.

 

[Goshin]

What helps make Paul credible ln my book is everything he "gave up" to preach the gospel. Think of his lifestyle before the "road to Damascus " and what he endured after that encounter. He surely didn't "profit" from such a story if it was fabricated.

Good point. Saul had it all; money, power, position, friends in high places... and he threw it away to be a fugitive preacher who eventually died in prison, for the Gospel. Pretty powerful testimony right there.

 

[Captain Adverse]

[

Hm. Just a guess, but you aren't the least bit anywhere near the ballpark of being a literalist, are you?


You're Historical-critical and heavy on the allegory and metaphor?


I'm (mostly) historical-grammatical /Covenant myself, though not a literalist per se.

I am certainly NOT a literalist.

I guess I would fall into the historical-critical method of interpretation. Yes I would add allegorical interpretation although I am not sure about metaphorical application. (I had to look up the definitions for the other interpretation methods since I never actually thought about how/why I did it, I just did it.)

 

[Goshin]

[

I am certainly NOT a literalist.

I guess I would fall into the historical-critical method of interpretation. Yes I would add allegorical interpretation although I am not sure about metaphorical application. (I had to look up the definitions for the other interpretation methods since I never actually thought about how/why I did it, I just did it.)

Yeah. I fall kind of near the middle-right in the "theological conservative - theological liberal" scale. That is while I take historical, grammatical, contextual and interpretative factors into consideration, and I'm open to the possibility that some passages may be allegorical/metaphorical if there is good reason to believe it is so... but in the absence of a reason to believe otherwise, my default position is closer to literalism than not.


So we're coming at this from very different perspectives, which explains a lot.

 

[Captain Adverse]

So we're coming at this from very different perspectives, which explains a lot.

Which is why when I argue Christian issues, if I don't agree I don't tell the other party "You are wrong." They might be right.

 

[Goshin]

Which is why when I argue Christian issues, if I don't agree I don't tell the other party "You are wrong." They might be right.

Well, for all that I am center-right theologically, I try not to be judgmental towards fellow believers over non-core issues. There is room on many issues for honest disagreement between sincere viewpoints.


(Core, of course, being Jesus-as-redeemer, salvation-by-grace-through-faith, the Resurrection, that sort of thing.)

 

[X Factor]

Hmm, I guess the best face I can put on my position about Paul is this. It is clear that he persecuted Jews who followed the teachings of Christ. Something happened which not only stopped this persecution, but motivated him to become an advocate of Christianity.

It is possible he simply suffered a seizure of some sort, which blinded him temporarily and caused visions from a guilty conscience. It is also possible that he did see the Lord, or maybe giving him a seizure was all the Lord needed to do. The Lord acts in mysterious ways.

Whatever it was, he used it to establish himself as a power within the growing sect and without his efforts among the Gentiles it is likely that Christianity would have remained a small sect of the Jews. I simply see him as a driven man, with all the faults of any other man. This is why I honor him for his efforts in the church while discounting his vilification of homosexuals as merely following Levitican law.

In other words, you disagree with something in the Bible so you'll find someway to reject it, even if it's coming up with some random story. Convenient.

 

[Goshin]

In other words, you disagree with something in the Bible so you'll find someway to reject it, even if it's coming up with some random story. Convenient.

Ouch. Harshly put, but you have a point. There's not really much reason to believe Paul's conversion or ministry was false or questionable, and the assumptions presented so far are just that: assumptions with very little basis or evidence. Saul had money, power, position, friends in high places... and he gave all that up to be a member of a small and persecuted sect and eventually die in a prison cell begging his friends to bring him a cloak to keep the chill away. Had to be a mighty good reason for that. It sure wasn't power or prestige... Christianity had nothing but persecution and poverty in the 1st Century.

Speculation on falsified accounts or mundane seizures or political maneuverings is really just.... speculation. It would be easy to assume that someone's problem with Paul's teaching on homosexuality was the causal agent for finding speculative reasons to doubt Paul as a scriptural authority, rather than the other way around.

I'm not saying that's the case, but given how thin the case is against Paul it does make you wonder. :shrug:



I operate on the assumption that God had his hand on the early Church and things like Paul's selection as minister to the Gentiles was by God's will, and not just some random or political outcome.

 

[X Factor]

Ouch. Harshly put, but you have a point. There's not really much reason to believe Paul's conversion or ministry was false or questionable, and the assumptions presented so far are just that: assumptions with very little basis or evidence. Saul had money, power, position, friends in high places... and he gave all that up to be a member of a small and persecuted sect and eventually die in a prison cell begging his friends to bring him a cloak to keep the chill away. Had to be a mighty good reason for that. It sure wasn't power or prestige... Christianity had nothing but persecution and poverty in the 1st Century.

Speculation on falsified accounts or mundane seizures or political maneuverings is really just.... speculation. It would be easy to assume that someone's problem with Paul's teaching on homosexuality was the causal agent for finding speculative reasons to doubt Paul as a scriptural authority, rather than the other way around.

I'm not saying that's the case, but given how thin the case is against Paul is does make you wonder. :shrug:

I operate on the assumption that God had his hand on the early Church and things like Paul's selection as minister to the Gentiles was by God's will, and not just some random or political outcome.

Ok, that might be just a tad more eloquently stated.

This is more of an aside and not a reference to CA or anyone specific, but have you ever noticed that when it's argued that certain things in the Bible ought not be believed, it's always regarding the harsher parts about sin, judgment and hell, never the parts about salvation and forgiveness? I think once you start from the position that certain parts of the Bible are not to be believed then you'd have to also acknowledge that it could also just as easily be the easier stuff that's inaccurate.

 

[Goshin]

Ok, that might be just a tad more eloquently stated.

This is more of an aside and not a reference to CA or anyone specific, but have you ever noticed that when it's argued that certain things in the Bible ought not be believed, it's always regarding the harsher parts about sin, judgment and hell, never the parts about salvation and forgiveness? I think once you start from the position that certain parts of the Bible are not to be believed then you'd have to also acknowledge that it could also just as easily be the easier stuff that's inaccurate.

Yeah, when people start throwing out bits and chunks of the Bible without any solid reason, I have to wonder how they justify believing what's left. We've had people on here who self-identify as Christians but say they do not believe Jesus was the savior or in the Resurrection or any of the supernatural parts. This makes me scratch my head... how is somebody a Christian who doesn't believe in the Christ?? Might as well be Buddhist or something.


Now there are things we don't apply anymore with good reason... like the commandments and promises to the Levite priesthood in the OT (there is no Levite Priesthood anymore), or the dietary and ceremonial laws of the OT to Gentile Christians... but there's a sound and Scriptural basis for that, namely Acts 10 and 15. As you may have noticed, people on DP are CONSTANTLY bringing up shellfish and mixed cloth and stuff, and I keep having to say "Read Acts 10 and 15" over and over like a demented parrot.

 

[tosca1]

First I want to correct myself by stating that I misspoke when I listed "Luke" as one of the 12 Apostles. I meant to state that the Gospels according to Matthew, Mark, and John provide the direct Word of God. That Luke, who has been ascribed as the author of the two books of Luke and Acts, was Luke the Evangelist. He was a disciple of Paul, and wrote what he had been told of Jesus by those who knew him, and what he observed while traveling with Paul. He never actually met Jesus.

They're all Evangelists! Evangelists means, people who proclaims good news!
Matthew, Mark, John and Luke all proclaim the good news (Gospel).

The word Apostle means, "one who is sent out," or "messenger." The word disciple means " a student who follows a certain teacher."
The 12 disciples of Christ were also called the 12 Apostles - those terms describe the same set of men at different point in their ministry.
However, even while Jesus Christ was on earth, the terms apostle and disciple were used interchangeably.


There were four Gospels that were united in one collection - originally known as the Gospel (in the singular, not the Gospels in the plural). There was only one Gospel, narrated in four records distinguished as "according to Matthew," "according to John," "according to Mark," and
"according to LUKE!"

That Luke's been included as one of the four Gospels to be united into one, indicate that his words had been deemed God-inspired - equally the same as the other three!



Luke's is also one of the three Synoptic Gospels - the first three books of the New Testament.


The first three Gospels are called “synoptic” because they “see together with a common view” (the word synoptic literally means “together sight”). Matthew, Mark, and Luke cover many of the same events in Jesus’ life—most of them from Jesus’ ministry in Galilee—in much the same order. Nearly 90 percent of Mark’s content is found in Matthew, and about 50 percent of Mark appears in Luke. All of the parables of Christ are found in the Synoptics (the Gospel of John contains no parables).

There are differences, too. Matthew and Luke are both considerably longer than Mark. Matthew was written for a Jewish audience, Mark for a Roman audience, and Luke for a broader Gentile audience. Matthew quotes extensively from the Old Testament, and his oft use (32 times) of the phrase “the kingdom of heaven” is unique—it’s not found anywhere else in the Bible. Luke places a definite emphasis on Jesus’ acts of compassion toward Gentiles and Samaritans. Much of Luke 10—20 is unique to that Gospel.

The difficulty in explaining the similarities and differences among the Synoptic Gospels is referred to as the Synoptic Problem in the world of biblical scholarship. In the final analysis, the Synoptic “Problem” is not much of a problem at all—God inspired three Gospel writers to record the events surrounding the same Person during the same part of His life in the same locations, yet with slightly different emphases aimed at different readers.


Read more: What are the Synoptic Gospels?

---------------------------------------


Here are the twelve original apostles:

The 12 Apostles - Study the Disciples of Jesus Christ


Mark was not among the twelve original apostles. What's your reason for accepting him as an apostle?

 

[tosca1]

Recall, Paul's claim to have encountered Jesus is first described in Acts 9:3-9;


Then Jesus uses Ananias of Damascus to heal Paul and "instruct him." (Act 9:11-19).


HOWEVER, in Acts 26:9-18 Paul himself tells a somewhat different story:

12 Whereupon as I went to Damascus with authority and commission from the chief priests,

13 At midday, O king, I saw in the way a light from heaven, above the brightness of the sun, shining round about me and them which journeyed with me.

14 And when we were all fallen to the earth, I heard a voice speaking unto me, and saying in the Hebrew tongue, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks. 15 And I said, Who art thou, Lord? And he said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest.

16 But rise, and stand upon thy feet: for I have appeared unto thee for this purpose, to make thee a minister and a witness both of these things which thou hast seen, and of those things in the which I will appear unto thee; 17 Delivering thee from the people, and from the Gentiles, unto whom now I send thee, 18 To open their eyes, and to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins, and inheritance among them which are sanctified by faith that is in me.

Notice the underlined portions in each description? That in the first description Paul is merely told the light is Jesus, that he would be told later what his instructions would be, and is then struck blind for three days. Jesus then uses Ananias to instruct Paul on his duties.

Not so in the second description that Paul gives to King Agrippa per Acts 26.

Why would the incident have two different descriptions? Surely a direct encounter with the Lord would be seared into the mind of Paul such that only one description, the CORRECT one, would appear in Acts?

This is one reason I doubt.

You're basing your conclusion on the reason that what Paul had told the king wasn't exactly the same as that in Acts 9?

Let's take a look at Paul What was Paul before his conversion?

Saul or Paul [342] was of strictly Jewish parentage, but was born, a few years after Christ, [343] in the renowned Grecian commercial and literary city of Tarsus, in the province of Cilicia, and inherited the rights of a Roman citizen. He received a learned Jewish education at Jerusalem in the school of the Pharisean Rabbi, Gamaliel, a grandson of Hillel, not remaining an entire stranger to Greek literature, as his style, his dialectic method, his allusions to heathen religion and philosophy, and his occasional quotations from heathen poets show. Thus, a "Hebrew of the Hebrews," [344] yet at the same time a native Hellenist, and a Roman citizen, be combined in himself, so to speak, the three great nationalities of the ancient world, and was endowed with all the natural qualifications for a universal apostleship. He could argue with the Pharisees as a son of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin, and as a disciple of the renowned Gamaliel, surnamed "the Glory of the Law." He could address the Greeks in their own beautiful tongue and with the convincing force of their logic. Clothed with the dignity and majesty of the Roman people, he could travel safely over the whole empire with the proud watchword: Civis Romanus sum.

The intellectual and moral endowment of Saul was of the highest order. The sharpest thinking was blended with the tenderest feeling, the deepest mind with the strongest will. He had Semitic fervor, Greek versatility, and Roman energy. Whatever he was, he was with his whole soul. He was totus in illis, a man of one idea and of one purpose, first as a Jew, then as a Christian. His nature was martial and heroic. Fear was unknown to him -- except the fear of God, which made him fearless of man. When yet a youth, he had risen to high eminence; and had he remained a Jew, he might have become a greater Rabbi than even Hillel or Gamaliel, as he surpassed them both in original genius and fertility of thought.


Paul Before his Conversion.


He lost everything! From an eminent prosecutor, he ended up a martyr!

What's in it for Paul?

Why would he willingly endure getting beaten up repeatedly, being imprisoned, and ending up dying - for what?

 

[tosca1]

It took the support of Peter to overcome the circumcision requirement; as Peter allowed that Jesus wanted his message spread to all, not just the Jews.

Why was Paul in dispute about the circumcision? Why wasn't Peter the one in dispute about it, after all Peter did acknowledge that Jesus did indeed want His message spread to the gentiles too? Why did it take Paul to openly come out against it? Why not Peter?

Why did Peter support Paul?

That's the question you should ask.

 

[tosca1]

Paul put himself forward as an Apostle, claiming that his encounter with the Light and Voice of Christ while traveling the road to Damascus entitled him to that privilege.

The same transformation that happened to the apostles AFTER THEY WITNESSED THE RESURRECTION, is the very same transformation that happened to Paul AFTER HIS WITNESS OF THE RESURRECTED CHRIST.

From confused, uncertain and fearful apostles who went into hiding when Jesus was crucified, the apostles emerged fearless and relentless in their spread of the gospel, that they even willingly faced martyrdom - because they had seen the evidence with their own eyes! They had seen the risen Jesus!

From a relentless persecutor and enemies of Christians who pursued them with such hatred, Paul did a sudden transformation to become a zealous evangelist that he willingly threw away his lofty position and willingly embraced persecution himself, and fearlessly faced death - because he'd encountered the risen Christ on that road to Damascus!