Please fill me in. Why the lack of respect for the Work of Paul?

Who doesn't respect his work?

Stay close, Sig, you might see.

You took the words from my mouth.

When people don't like the message the knee jerk reaction is to attack the messenger.

Ignorance on multiple levels combined with a great deal of arrogance. Just wait for it to be on full display.

Please explain.

I can't help but LOL and +1. You'll even see this most eminent of Jewish scholars be accused of paganism.

Because they don't like to hear it like it is. Paul was hand picked by Jesus to go to the Gentiles. Jesus knew Paul inside and out and knew he could get the job done. Paul could be caustic but his words were those that Jesus wanted said. As a result, many people don't like him. They fear the truth and Paul piled the truth on them.

I'll be honest here. I've never been a huge fan of Paul. It took until I was an adult to get it sorted out. I finally realized what was causing it. It's somewhat the same thing with TV Evangelists. I always felt an affinity for Billy Graham. I never could warm up to a host of others. Some ministers rub me the wrong way. Paul did. Others I could go on all day listening to. John Wesley's sermons, for example, have really gripped me.

Paul stands head and shoulders above all the Apostles and Jesus chose him to go and preach the Gospel far and wide. Sure he would be the most hated one today, all in Gods plan and he don't make mistakes....He saw it coming 2000 years ago and surely he not surprised, like many of us. Just sit back and grab a bag of popcorn and enjoy all the heads implode the rest of the days of your life.

There was a particularly vocal guy here... I can’t remember his screen name but he hasn’t been around for a while... he is sort of an Anabaptist as near as I can tell. Anabaptists don’t have a high view of Scripture and viewed Paul’s teaching as out of synch which what Christ said in the Gospels.

I was never able to decipher how we know whether that assertion re: Paul is true if Scripture isn’t to be trusted since that’s where we learn what Christ said.

There’ll be adherents if Higher Critical schools along shortly to tell us what a farce all of Scripture is...

Paul exalts Jesus Christ and his work in the salvation of men's souls, and he puts down man's vain attempts to save himself by his own good works. People want to think there is some good in them to merit God's love and grace. Paul shows in no uncertain terms that our works are dead. Ephesians 2:8-9, Titus 3:5 are prime examples.

Why the incessant need to start religious threads?
You know how they are going to end.

apparently “pastor” missy

“Yee all know that when men run in a race that the race is for all but victory for only one. Therefore run yee for victory!”

Sounds like first century Trump.

I was a bit perplexed at the original question but a few answers here helped. The Shootist- thanks for that succinct explanation.

I am not the biblical scholar others here (thankfully) are and haven't a clue how to identify tenants of various sects etc.... How EFW knows what an anabaptist is just amazes me. Although a bit slow I can at least surmise his reference to "adherents of Higher Critical schools" are those who attend the church of 'self' when it comes to deity and the same folks alluded to by Wabigoon.

In the last religious thread that turned in to the argument I suggested if debate was sought then identify the thread in such a manner. Where a title clearly invites response from Christians- atheist should respect that.

This thread titles does seem one where the atheists might feel invited so I can't say they would be peeing uninvited on Christian Cornflakes for making an entrance on this one. Just hoping both sides can be civil and maybe Christians would not respond evidently so......Paul- like? ( See even I can learn)

As a Baptist, we're pretty much supposed to agree with everything Paul wrote about. While I don't question his message, I do at times believe that we need to bear in mind that we are not living in Biblical times anymore. The world has changed considerably since Paul's day, and we must learn to adapt ourselves to the times we live it.

I'm sure my words will be twisted around by someone, but I don't give a chit........because I believe there are more important things than limiting one's faith based strictly upon the writings of Paul.

Against the gospels and what Jesus said, Paul seems to have invented "Gentile Christianity". At least that's the accusation, particularly by folks who can't relate Jesus' words and the way church is now done. Paul/Saul was designated an apostle "as of one born out of time", by Jesus himself. How? Road to Damascus conversion experience and thirteen years in Arabia, where he was taught the gospel he had to explain to the Jerusalem elders upon his return. (An apostle had to be an eyewitness of the risen LORD.)

People take the epistles Paul wrote as he spread this gospel to be outside of Jesus' words, particularly about church matters. They'd prefer sticking with the Sermon on the Mount "beatitudes" as how Christians are to live and evangelize. Timothy, Paul's protege, was reminded the gospel Paul preached could be summarized thus. "Never forget that Jesus Christ was a man born into King David's family and that he was raised from the dead. This is the Good News I preach." 2 Timothy 2:8 NLV. (Sounds pretty close to what Jesus was all about.)

Paul, more than any other, fleshed out the doctrine of Christianity. So much so that many of the irreligious say that he “invented” Christianity. Discredit Paul, and you can go a long way towards making Jesus anything you want to make him depending on your motivation.

That’s why Paul is hated. He was the first standard bearer of orthodox Christian dogma.

Even with all of his words, Paul had the uncanny ability to reduce things to their most basic unit. It's often said that the gospel can be understood by the simplest child or it can fill your entire life. Churches have thousands of books about Jesus but then Paul comes out with this:
Rom 10:9 That if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you WILL be saved.

You don't need years of study or whole libraries to be saved. It's all that simple, believe and confess. Any child can do that. Last night I was giving a Bible lesson to a group of scouts in our church. One 11 year old boy has some mental problems and is on several drugs. He has a rough time of it (and gives us leaders a rough time in return). He's been worried about heaven. I gave him that verse and his eyes lit up. It's that simple? Yes, it is. All the rest is learning about what you already believe.

Thank you Rock, well stated. I believe in keeping it simple.

These guys push an agenda worse than the lgbtq's, they're turning folks AWAY from Christ, me being one, getting shlt rammed down your throat daily, will cause one to turn 180 degrees away from it!

I would say those that don't like Paul's letters may be at least in part of the way he wrote. He used the words "my gospel" and "boast" and it turns some folks off. They don't understand what Paul means. Paul's gospel is directly from Christ and that is "his gospel". He also used the word "boast" meaning (saying good things about). He also steps on our toes at times.

With all due respect sir no one is ramming anything; when something I don’t care to read about pops up I don’t open the thread.

You’re a free thinking guy. Just float on by and enjoy your day!

I hope you have a good one!

No respect due to a dog like me, the Campfire HAS a secret squirrel handshake religious forum, why do you guys insist on posting this shlt daily in a sportsman's forum? if you believe you are charged with winning souls for Christ, you are doing exactly the opposite with the barrage of religious threads, I can also read the hypocrisy in different thread topics from the so called do-gooders.

You guys are doing Christianity a disservice.

Paul was the least likely guy to end up where he ended up, a tribute to the power of the Lord.

As a Pharisee of pharisees, he was one of the most highly educated men of his time, He was a zealot for his team, a rising star in Judaism. As such, he was a proud and aggressive operative until his encounter with the Lord. After that, he was a different man.

The early Christians were slow to warm up to him, given his high profile history fighting the church.

The Lord used him to preach to the gentiles, to confront Peter and the Judaizers who were trying to conform Christianity into their image of what a Christian should be. That was the spirit of religion trying to take control of the early movement.

Paul wrote most of the New Testament, challenging forces that came against the early church.

There is a lot to learn from Paul, realizing that what he wrote pertained to the culture of the times, but with universal Spiritual truths that span the decades.

DF

Jesus told us to spread the word. No one is obligated to accept it and that will be on their own heads. Not everyone has the gift of evangelism so we're not equally effective, but we're still charged with spreading it in the best way we can.

Thank you Farmer. Thanks' other folks that disparage there threads, we wish all the best for you.

Dardevle spoon.

Kind of, but not really. They accused him of apostasy.

There was a group of Jewish preachers spreading the word that one must have faith AND follow the law of Moses. When Paul preached that the law was fulfilled and there was no longer an external binding on the believer that made him an apostate. Then saying it made you a slave AND was a law of condemnation to death, well, Paul doubled down on that.

I'm sure some of these Jewish preachers saw what was happening in the Christian church, like in Corinth, and accused Paul of endorsing it.

Then Paul condemned the bringing in of pagan practices in the church. The excited delirium and the sexual acts. That pissed off some of the Greek followers also. 1 Corinthians especially is aimed at that.

As dirt farmer posted paul understood the old testament from a to z. Paul was in a unique place to show how the old and the new mesh and fit together.

After the death of Christ we no longer follow the Commandments of Moses,but are shown how Israel failed to follow God. I believe Paul said that it was because of the hardness

of their hearts.

Very often the case. I see it kind of like someone advocating a new diet and fitness regimen. They claim its life changing and will make you a better person, and you'll be super fit and healthy. But, the people who talk about it most are fat,unhealthy and miserable people. Would you be inclined to want to try it? Probably not. What if they reassured it would work fine but they just didn't do a good job following it, causing them to be fat, unhealthy and miserable? Personally it wouldn't inspire much confidence in me that this lifestyle was really life changing and worth trying.

That's the way I see religion. If you can't walk the walk, its probably best not to talk the talk too much until such a time as you CAN walk. Claiming that "I'm not perfect just saved" doesn't inspire others to want to follow your example. In our countries a Bible is available anywhere, religious programs are free on tv and radio or the internet, and churches are plentiful. Spreading the word is really not necessary, but if you truly want to help people to live a better life, demonstrate how its done. I guarantee you no one is being converted by people being azzhats on the internet, but it sure will turn them away in a hurry.

You never had to click on this post, let alone post on it. Just sayin.

I think there is some troll stuff going on, but if one asks a question, actually wanting to know, then an honest question deserves an honest answer.

These topics often get off the rails and, as you note, accomplish little or nothing positive. I guess you gotta consider the source and the motivation.

Sorting it out can be a challenge. I'm often hesitant to post, but sometimes it seems like the thing to do.

DF

Great post. Especially the last sentence. Unfortunately those who should read it and take stock probably wont.

Paul went on to say that the Gentiles (that's us) aren't under the law at all but under grace.

Ro 6:14 For sin shall not be your master, because you are not under law, but under grace.

True, we're under grace, but can't punt the law, as He came to fulfill, not replace or do away with the law.

DF

Better call Saul.....

I’ve punted it. I don’t give a flip about it. He ‘did’ fulfill it, and now the Old Covenant is over with. It’s done.
To say that the ‘moral’ elements of the law continue to be authoritative blunts the truth that the entire Mosaic covenant is no longer in force for believers.

He did fulfill it. That's why Paul said we're not under it. Jesus did away with the dietary laws and put the rest together in a lump sum with the golden rule.

True.

I'm confused. If Paul said the Law no longer applies, doesn't that contradict the words of Jesus? Jesus said he would change "not a jot nor a tittle" of the Law. Serious question.

...”till all is fulfilled.” It ‘was’ fulfilled.

That’s a good question because there are multiple uses of the word “Law”. There is the ceremonial law, the civil law, and the Mosaic Law or 10 commandments.

The former 2 were particular to national Israel and passed away in the New Covenant so you don’t have to be circumcised and we don’t execute fornicators.

Christ fulfilled the Mosaic Law for His people and it is now meant to instruct us on what a life of gratitude for salvation ought to look like. For those outside Christ’s people they continue to bear the penalty of their violation of the same.

This is where the Apostle Paul is particularly helpful. He breaks it down very nicely in Romans chapters 2 & 3.

That’s my imperfect understanding of it anyway...

'I have fought the good fight, I have finished the race, and I have remained faithful.'

~ Paul

Very good post. Thanks.

Good argument.

Simple answer: Jesus says It would not pass until all was fulfilled. Jesus fulfilled it thus abolishing the enmity between Jews and others, the Law with Its commandments.

The last thing He said on the cross was, "It is finished".

Yep. That's the way I see it too. When Jesus said "it is finished", He meant just that. The Old Covenant was no more. It was over and done with. Jesus came to establish something brand new with the New Covenant...an agreement between God and all of the people in all of the world.

To follow a new, more difficult moral law that even dictates how one thinks along with new ceremonial laws.

Don’t be so nebulous. Speak clearly.

What time frame, ancient or present day ?

The New Covenant is fully based on Grace. God's Grace, which is without end and free for the asking.

People often don't understand that many things Jesus spoke of during His 3 years of ministry, were of the Old Covenant and very little of the New Covenant which He had to shed His Blood and die on the cross to usher in.

Also very important is that when the veil in the temple was torn in half upon His death, it meant that everyone could now go boldly before the Throne of God. No longer were priests necessary as an intermediary.

Yep. Agreed. Grace is the hallmark of the Jesus experience. God’s Grace is ‘God knew everything about you and chose to love you anyway.’ God’s Grace is ‘there are no secrets from your Heavenly Father and He refuses not to call you one of His children.’ God’s Grace is ‘you don’t deserve it, you can’t deserve it, the word deserve isn’t even considered.’ Grace is grace. It’s getting something good that you don’t deserve. And the moment you start trying to ‘earn’ it, in ‘any’ way, you have done away with grace. God’s Grace is a gift. And I think that extending grace to other people is the greatest opportunity that we’ll ever have, relationally, while we’re on this earth. When applied correctly, grace is ‘the’ solution to just about everything.

And most all problems in this Ole world are caused by the misapplication of the Free Will that He bestowed upon us.
Jmo

Jesus left it to Paul to put it in plain language for the masses. 2 short verses, here in clear English, that anyone can understand...anyone who WANTS to understand, that is. Many don't.

Eph 2:8 For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God,
9 not a result of works, so that no one may boast.

Idk if it’s more difficult...but it’s WAY better. It’s a WAY better way of relating to God and serving Him...and it’s a WAY better way of relating to others and serving others.

Yes sir.

wabigoon just likes to stir up schidt then sit back and watch the reaction.

Why do you believe it to be a "more difficult moral law", Tyrone?

Are we throwing the believers in the lion den yet?

Apostle Paul, in Romans 1, describes the left in America today.

The Christian church should really be called the Paulian church, the christian religion structure is based off of Paul. If you believe Paul's words are Christ's literal word then you should also believe Joseph Smith's book of Mormon and church is also Christ's literal word. Both fell down, saw the light and Christ talked to them.

Now of course Christ could have just said these words when he was here or instead of not writing a bible he could have written an infinity amount of words himself, but he didn't and that's a lesson there. I don't believe Christ forgot to tell us what he wanted us to know so decided to tell Paul to write it all down. Christ left everything we needed to know behind when he said... it is finished.

Christ through his own words and life example is inclusionary, The church based off of Paul's written words is exclusionary, I find contradictions between Christ and Paul and I'm not going to believe Paul over Christ.

My wife at 4yo was in a coma for weeks, she started to move out of her body and a beautiful white light came and held her in, she woke up soon after. She doesn't claim to speak for Christ but knows something most of us don't.

I'm sure Paul was genuine in his belief, Billy Graham was, Joseph Smith was, many others, I include myself. I doubt Paul had any idea his words 300 years later would be considered Christ's literal word. He was moved by the Holy Spirit, many of us are, he had insights, we do also if we submit to the HS, he was a man and got things wrong, as we all do. His words are not scripture, that's the bottom line.

Kent

Paul's gospel wasn't dictated to him by a rock in a hat.

https://www.deseret.com/2015/3/27/2...-indicator-that-he-was-telling-the-truth

Since you're throwing out the book of Acts as lies, you need to throw out Luke, too, It was investigated and written by the same man. `

Why is it when someone wants to attack another scripturally they use Paul's words?

Kent

The tell all for me was when Paul said, show me your works and I'll show you my faith and my faith will win every time.

Here is a question for the scholars of Paul. Following the Saviors appearance to Paul, Paul went east for three years. Where exactly did he go? Whom did he see? And when he returned, he had a full knowledge of the gospel, who taught him?

Galatians 1:16-18


16 To reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the a heathen; immediately I conferred not with b flesh and blood: 17 Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me; but I went into Arabia, and returned again unto Damascus. 18 Then after three years I went up to a Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days

The old law was "Thou shalt not murder". The new law is "anyone who is angry with a brother or sister will be subject to judgment." The old law was to write a bill of divorce and send the (now ex) wife away. The new law is "whoever divorces his wife, except for immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery". The old law was to offer burnt sacrifices and blood offerings. The new law is to take and eat His flesh and drink His blood. I admit that last one may not be physically harder, but it was a huge stumbling block for many. The old law required performance of rituals because they were the law. The new law requires performance of rituals and sacraments because that is how one grows in friendship with the Lord and is granted grace as a result. These are just a few examples, but very representative of the overall principles.

In my lifetime, Billy Graham was as perfect a christian I could see. I attended his revivals as a young man, what he said and wrote resonated with me, I believe he was lead by the Holy Spirit. But his words aren't scripture.

Kent

And the Apostle James taught "that faith without works is dead". Paul's best sermon on faith is found in Hebrews 11.

Does anybody know WHY that is?

Dr. D. James Kennedy.

His sermons have shown themselves to be prophetic as it now relates to the present situation in the USA . His ministry has been labeled as a hate group by the aclu because of its stand on traditional marriage. Kennedy Ministries has filed a landmark lawsuit against the aclu.

You're talking 2 different things. Paul is talking about faith vs works for salvation. He's saying that only faith can save you. James is talking about what real faith is. He's writing to Christians, those who already have the saving faith. He's telling them how to use that faith to do God's work.

I have learned a lot from this, thank you all.

Many are called, few are chosen. No one is forcing you to do anything, to listen or believe. You sound like you have some knowledge of scripture and have rejected it. If that is accurate, there is nothing that anyone can say that is more powerful or as convincing. Maybe you are not among the chosen.

You're talking 2 different things. Paul is talking about faith vs works for salvation. He's saying that only faith can save you. James is talking about what real faith is. He's writing to Christians, those who already have the saving faith. He's telling them how to use that faith to do God's work. [/quote]

There are really good answer here. Thanks.

The time span of the four Gospels was technically still under the Old Covenant, although in the New Testament. That's why Jesus told those healed, go show yourself to the priest.

Only after the Holy Spirit descended did the Church Age begin.

During the Lord's time here on the Earth, it says they knew him after the flesh. After they were endowed with the Holy Sprit, they had Spiritual discernment, understood what they had experienced and were subsequently empowered to write the Gospels.

DF

Christ said do not judge, he had a reason for saying this, he wasn't talking about if someone stole something or murdered or adultered... worldly things... he was talking about another's salvation, that is God's prerogative for each individual.

I don't get how 'christians' can't see how disgusting it is, how derisive and unappealing, claiming the right of God's judgement.

I may call someone every name in the book but will never assume to speak of their salvation.

The reason I even started posting and not lurking on this site was because Blaine in a fit of anger said steelhead's murdered sister was in hell... it honestly is a terrible representation of Christ.

I am a true believer of Christ and the Holy Spirit and wish to be an alternate voice for Christ outside of the bigotry and spitefulness of religion to those who are appalled at some of the followers.

Kent

Wabigoon,

I think one of the biggest distractions from "Paul" are the forgerys know as the Pastoral Epistles, i.e. 1st and 2nd Timothy and Titus, that are used to justify so much of the misogyny and bigotry we see here on the fire.

These books are the sources for the verses used to attack your own Pastor Missy.

Sniper we have become good friends here, I respect your stance on matters.

When did the "Holy Spirit descend?" I mean the date.

Friday the 13th shortly after noontime and upon emerging from the River Jordan.

7 weeks after the start of Passover - at the Jewish Pentecost celebration. That year it was a few weeks after Jesus' resurrection. The disciples were gathered for the feast when the Spirit came on them. The Christian Pentecost is now celebrated 40 days after Easter to celebrate that. The dates aren't exact but close enough.
Since nobody knows what year that happened, figuring the exact date is impossible.

Ok, there were a crap ton of churches before then. Just fact checkin.

No there weren't, Jesus had only been gone a few weeks and the disciples hadn't even started their work yet. In the next few days after that, though, the new converts increased by thousands. It was a lively time in the new Christian church.

There are NO chosen ones, one damn thing for sure, I'm done with the daily religious zealots here, i'll take my chances before the big man and get sent straight to hell, you guys have made that choice more than easy!

Paul had a lot to say about a women's role in the church (basically no prominent role) and role in the household (subservient to the man).

A modern woman would rip his throat out - just saying!

Except none of what you reference was written by the same person who wrote Romans.

The Paul of Romans had a very different view of women.

Thank you Wabigoon, I appreciate that.

And there is a difference in respecting Paul's works and believing his writings are Christ's literal word/scripture, I imagine Paul himself would be most surprised 300 years later they would be considered so. Paul had decent insight, represented Christ as best he could, inspired many and wasn't perfect. That's it.

Kent

Outstanding academic work on the topic at hand:



This guy is rock solid if you’re ever looking for such reading.

His “Christianity & Liberalism” was pivotal in the history of American Christianity.

Do you believe in inerrancy?

I suspect that a good number of people reject Paul’s writings because he cuts to the deep quickly. The first three chapters of Romans leave no doubt that we are all sinners. Religious, non religious, gay, straight, man, woman, Jew, non Jew, everyone is a sinner.

In general we don’t like to think of ourselves as sinners. We like to view ourselves as OK. Like Crocodile Dundee said, “God and me, we be mates” (it’s the other guy that’s the sinner).

Well said

That's the main thing about Paul's writings that I have had problems with. Women were looked upon in Biblical times as more like property than as equals, and I don't think we can apply it to modern times. Does that mean that men should take a back seat, and let women lead...........not at all, as I still believe men were designed to be the leaders. But, to tell the women to shut up and sit there, and don't say a thing while we men make every decision, is a no-no.

When I think back at the people who had a strong Christian influence on my life, there were more women than men. I also believe there are probably more women who will enter into Heaven than men. White it's often said that women are too emotional to do this, or do that, we men often let our testosterone dictate what we do, so neither is perfect.

No judgement in what I wrote. I wrote maybe because I don't know who is among the chosen. I do know that if we exercise our free will to reject Christ, we will not be going to a good place.

The Apostle Peter disagrees with you friend:

2nd Peter 3 Verse 15-17....

Consider also that our Lord’s patience brings salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom God gave him. 16 He writes this way in all his letters, speaking in them about such matters. Some parts of his letters are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction. 17Therefore, beloved, since you already know these things, be on your guard so that you will not be carried away by the error of the lawless and fall from your secure standing.…

I'm just sayin.....actually....he was just sayin. Just throwing it out there. I hope this doesn't trigger any more people.

Paul in Timothy 1:15 ....."all they which are in Asia be turned away from me".... Jesus in Revelations 2:2..." Thou canst not bear them which are evil: and thou hast tried them which say they are apostles, and are not, and hast found them liars"....

Revelations wasn't talking about Paul. Why do you think that?

Have you ever even looked into why the people in Asia turned away from Paul? Because they were heretics.

In Christ or man? yes and no... why does man think he has to add to Christ's teachings? It's the vanity of man that thinks he can improve Christ and it's this vanity that turns many away.

Christ is positive, Paul is negative, Christ is inclusive, Paul is exclusive, Christ is giving, Paul is punishment.

I do not have less understanding of Christ through the Holy Spirit because I do not follow Paul.

Kent

Read Romans 13: 1-6. Do Nero, Caligula, Hitler, Pol Pot, Idi Amin, Stalin, Obama come to mind? The Jesus I know would not have endorsed this.

I think that a really reading of the Gospels will give a different view of Christ. He kicked butt and took names when dealing with the Jews and all others. Paul’s message is no different than the message of Christ. The Old Testament is non different than the message of the New Testament. Jesus told the Jewish religious leaders that the whole of the Old Testament was about him. Not a different way of salvation. Not an “Esops Fables” and not a chronology of people who had been righteous enough to please God. Genesis to Revelation is about Christ.

I apologize I wasn’t clear in my question.

I was asking if you believe in the inerrancy of Scripture, but your answer sounds like that’s a “no”?

At any rate, when I see what I believe to be a contradiction in Scripture I tend to fall back first on a lack of understanding on my part, a cultural sensitivity that sets me apart from the wisdom of God in His word as received therein, and a testimony to my need for continued study.

Christ has many exclusionary teachings that you and I would agree with... like His condemnation of the Pharisees. Likewise Paul has many inclusionary teachings that I assume we’d agree with like His insistence that “there is now neither Greek nor Hebrew; man nor woman, but all are one in Christ” or that a life in submission to Christ results in a life of holiness as encapsulated in the fruit of the Spirit.

At any rate good conversation as always Kent thanks I hope you everyone has a great Friday!

So you think that's talking about Paul? The church was flooded with false teachers. Satan was fighting hard to bring down the church before it got established. False teachers and Judaizers were everywhere sewing discord. Note that 'apostles' and 'liars' are plural. There is no way you can number Paul among them other than your hatred for the man that Jesus handpicked to take his word to them.

All governments commit injustices. The passage doesn't say that God approves of all regimes, but that God allows all regimes. But all governments punish some of the wrong doers too.

Do you think you would be better off under Stalin if you went about robbing, raping and murdering or if you conducted yourself with honor?
I can guarantee that if you went about robbing & murdering under Nero, Nero himself may not get you, but the local governor would see you crucified.

Frankly, I don't think this passage is dealing with grossly unjust regimes. It doesn't apply to Pol Pot or Hitler. But Pol Pot and Hitler weren't much involved in prosecuting murders. Neither was 0bama. It's the local rulers who deal with things like that.

Plus, I don't think it's within the scope of our intelligence to understand Nero or Caligula. Obviously God allowed them to do what they did. We just don't know why. But the passage you cited should make us think seriously before we revolt against any government, no matter how bad it is. For instance, you don't want to end up like Spartacus. As bad as the Romans may have been at the time, Spartacus' rebellion was a huge mistake that cost him and nearly all his followers their lives.

I think you read this one too absolutely and often with the wrong level of governance in mind.

I have distilled my faith down to Christ and the Holy Spirit which has freed me from worldly distractions, spiritually. My reference to inclusion and exclusion is about salvation and Christ's plan/wish for every person. Christ's life example was to not allow the world and it's faults to effect your spirit, excluding earthly issues isn't what I'm talking about.

It may seem to simple to some but Christ was the best at KISS.

Kent

Excellent

Jesus preached his words to the Jews. The Gentiles were entirely different and while the salvation message was the same, they needed different handling. Jesus hand picked Paul for the job. Unless you're a Jew, Jesus sent Paul to YOU.

For you.

If a man showed up today with a different plan of salvation non congruous with that of Jesus and John the Baptist, With an account of encountering Jesus out in the woods somewhere, and a story of being taken to and receiving visions in 3rd heaven I would be leery. Now if Jesus appeared with him and ratified the message and told me "I know I taught for over 3 years but I forgot to tell you folks the main reason I came" , well that would be different.

Probably not

Acts 9:15 But the Lord said to Ananias, "Go! This man is my chosen instrument to carry my name before the Gentiles and their kings and before the people of Israel.

Yes, YOU.

That Paul was a cool dude!

gunner, you can't let yourself get thrown off track, looking at men. We're all flawed, some more than others. And that includes Christians.

You gotta keep your eye on the Lord, the only non-flawed person to ever walk on this Earth.

Follow the Light, don't get blinded by the glare. A laser is focused light, will cut steel. Scattered light is glare, can blind. Scripture zapped around, here and there without Focus can become just that, glare. Stay focused, don't get blind sided by all this.

DF

Which others of Paul's writings only applied to his times?

First Apostle Paul didn't have a different salvation from Jesus. But how 'bout if the claimer did miracles in the name of Jesus? Would that change anything for you?

A parable from RJY66.

One day a certain man setteth out to changeth the oil in his new Ford F-150. A sweet and comely ride it was, adorned with bells and whistles, gleaming paint, and possessing a great beast in the midst of it which could fly as a raptor and roar like the laughter of the almighty.

That same day as the man setteth about his work, his neighbor, who loved him, came about saying howbeit my brother, what project dost thou incline thy hand to this day? I giveth the beast fresh oil this day sayeth the man. Aye, it is meet sayeth the neighbor. Directly, he seeth five measures of syrup, each adorned with the image of an Ethiopian queen called Jemima. He asketh what of the syrup, art thou feeding pancakes to a multitude? Nay saith the man, I feed it to the beast in the midst of the ride. Greatly troubled the friend sayeth, who has bewitched thee? Knowest thou not that the great beast only liveth on the finest 0W-20 synthetic oil from the presses of Mobil? How knowest thou saith the man? The neighbor sayeth unto him where abideth the word of the covenant between thee and Ford....bring it thou forth. The man then entereth into the vestibule and bringeth forth the scroll of the covenant and giveth it to his neighbor. The neighbor taketh the scroll and turned to the place where it saith "use thou only 0w-20 fully synthetic oil blessed by the priests of ILSAC and the scribes of API" and showeth his friend, saying Verily thus saith it.

After reading it, the man saith to his neighbor be ye not vexed. I have in myself innate knowledge that the beast liveth also on syrup. Know ye not that the great Ford dieth 100 years ago and the writers of the covenant are acting of their own accord in his name to trouble they the bretheren? His neighbor sayeth unto him Verily thou doest greatly err. Thy hubris and arrogance hath caused thee to privily divide the words of the covenant and depart from sound teaching and descend thou into folly, ignoring thou the wisdom of both the covenant and our fathers who feedeth not their beasts syrup. The man answer and saith, know thou not the words of the covenant also saith in a certain place that the wheels of the ride if shod with 35 measures of air will give best performance and saith nothing of the feeding of the beast? Yes answereth the neighbor it is meet. Thou do well to neglect neither. For the covenant with the great Ford be not a buffet from which thou mayest pluck a fig or a pomegranate but its whole council must receive meditation and all its works heed so that thou mayest prosper.

Why judgest thou me saith the man? Art thou perfect in all thy ways? What I have determined I have determined and the beast dineth on syrup and not oil because I sayeth it. Go thou thy way before thou triggereth me. The neighbor, saddened, cast his eyes to the earth and saith thou believest neither me nor the words of the covenant, therefore I can be of no service unto thee. I goeth therefore forth to my house to watch the gladiators who vie against one another in the midst of the glowing box. If thou perchance needeth a ride on the morrow sendeth forth me an epistle. It will troubleth me not because thou shall not get far and we remaineth friends.

And he went on his way as he said, pondering in his heart the meaning of the things he had seen, troubled because he knew the great beast in the midst of the ride locketh up before eventide, no longer flying like a raptor or roaring like the laugh of the almighty. How long would his friend walketh to and fro on the face of the earth because of his folly? Would it be forever or only for a time? What manner of sorcery preventeth his simple message from getting through? He knoweth not the answer.

RJY66: You rival Shakespeare. That was good. Did you author that yourself?

Check out Jesuswordsonly

If God didn't want Paul's teachings in the Bible, they wouldn't be there. God is plenty powerful enough to have keep falsehoods out of it. The Holy Spirit led those who assembled the Bible to include them. I won't naysay the Spirit.

Or perhaps they served the purposes of the men assembling the cannon...

Luke never knew Christ, he was Paul's companion, but he's an apostle too I guess. Luke doesn't prove Paul as God's word or Luke himself as God's word.

Christ obviously had no need to write words, he wanted people to see a sermon rather than read one.

There is no need to read Paul or Luke or the book of Mormon or some theologian or hear some suit at the pulpit to know Christ and feel the Holy Spirit, that's the bottom line.

Kent

krp,

Do you think we should go along with Apostle Peter when he says, "Grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ?"

Through the Holy Spirit.

Problem with people is they can't follow Christ's love thy neighbor. They create religions where they can judge/attack others through written words and actions while claiming the right of righteousness. If you go out to battle others using the shield and sword of chapter and verse you use Paul's word.

Kent

That's an easy accusation to make, but I've never seen anyone detail exactly what the specifics are.

Not so much.

There are seven books in the New Testament that have some question as to the author. They are not forgeries, they are canonical, and they have been considered canonical since the first or second century after the birth of Christ. But, given that some spoke against them at the time, those books are treated somewhat differently by orthodox Christians. They are referred to as "Antilegomena." or "spoken against."
1. Any portion of those books are good-to-go to use as backup supporting doctrine found elsewhere in the Bible.
2. Consciences can not be bound to support any doctrine found solely in those books (IOW, no other part of the Bible supports similar doctrine).

The heterodox or heretical, of course, use whatever source they like to justify whatever doctrine they like. And the non-Christians seem to make it up as they go.

To sum up:
1&2Tim, and Titus are good-to-go, are perfectly homologoumena, and Pastor Missy is still cross-wise with orthodoxy.

http://cyclopedia.lcms.org/display.asp?t1=A&word=ANTILEGOMENA

Vast majority of canon was settled on by the second century of Our Lord and the last few by the fourth century. The whys and wherefores are well-documented and available to those interested. In short, what became the canon were the works shared amongst the early church fathers and met standards of contemporaneity and doctrine in line with the earliest works.

Good stuff and right on jfuser

“New Atheism” considers all religion as a deleterious power grab by those who occupy the upper echelons of whatever religious order.

As a rationalistic worldview it dismissed out of hand any potential truth of supernatural worldviews.

They hold these truths to be self evident like you and I do the existence of God.