Should Paul be removed from the NT?

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by Blue Jay

This free thinker values liberty too much to jump with BOTH feet into a literalist trap like this!!!!

lol, the "trap" I fear, is in your own mind. I speak mine, you speak yours, that is how communication works. You don't like what I have to say, get over it. I may not like what you have to say either, but I get over it. that is life...the angrier one gets, the more set in one's ways another can get, that too is life.

Humans are so strange...no other "animal" does this. Maybe a lesson we should take to heart, eh?

v/r

Q

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by flowperson

No Q , I did not miss your point. I believe it is you who has misunderstood mine...but such is life.

I do not debate. I present questions and observations concerning the realities that pass my eyes. That is all that I have done in this case.
Enjoy your debates and arguments my friend.

flow....

Yours as well, my friend.

[China Cat Sunflower]

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

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by China Cat Sunflower

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

Precisely... the only thing Paul did was encourage the fledging churches and help keep them from imploding.

[Moksha 69]

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

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Moksha 69, and welcome to CR!

Originally Posted by Moksha 69

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]

Originally Posted by juantoo3

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]

Originally Posted by Moksha 69

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]

Originally Posted by Excaliburton

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 Posted by Quahom1

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]

Originally Posted by Excaliburton

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....

Originally Posted by Quahom1

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?

Originally Posted by Excaliburton

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.

Originally Posted by juantoo3

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]

Originally Posted by 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....



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.