What's wrong with pauls writings

[Kmal]

I'm curious as I hear a lot of people saying paul didn't teach right or wanted to destroy people through his teachings, mostly from a jewish or islamic perspective. Tell me specifically what's wrong with his teachings please

 

[Dr. Holly]

Hi [MENTION=2259]Kmal[/MENTION]

I hope you are well! This is a phenomenal question and I'm really glad you asked it, sincerely. This "issue" with Paul's teachings has recently been in the media a lot, which really is no surprise because that is exactly what the Bible said would happen during this day in time. There is an "anti-Paul" movement so to speak but it makes absolutely no sense. So to answer your great question - there is absolutely nothing wrong with Paul's teachings.

Here is where the problem came in: God specifically called Paul to preach the message of God's grace, mercy and love for us through the death & resurrection of Jesus Christ. He was called to preach this message to the Gentiles & not the Jews. It was not because Paul did not "like" Jews or anything even close, but rather that he had gotten revelation from God about the old covenant of The Law being no more, as a new covenant was made through Jesus which is grace covers everyone who will believe. During that time period, people wanted to stick to what they knew - traditions in the customs of Orthodox Jews and did not want to hear any other message. This issue really escalated between Peter & Paul. Peter was called by God to minister to the Jews so he believed it was unholy to eat with, stay with, be around "Gentiles." So when Paul came with this message of grace, that Jew & Gentile are covered under this grace if they received Jesus, it ruffled many feathers. In some of the Scripture that I will mention, you will read about God giving Peter the visions of how He did indeed call Paul to carry this message and it was not in any way unholy. Peter's heart changed quickly. You might enjoy reading Acts chapters 11, 12 and 15. 10 & 11 really speak of these encounters.

In Galatians 2:11-21:
Paul Confronts Peter


[SUP]11 [/SUP]But when Peter came to Antioch, I had to oppose him to his face, for what he did was very wrong. [SUP]12 [/SUP]When he first arrived, he ate with the Gentile Christians, who were not circumcised. But afterward, when some friends of James came, Peter wouldn’t eat with the Gentiles anymore. He was afraid of criticism from these people who insisted on the necessity of circumcision. [SUP]13 [/SUP]As a result, other Jewish Christians followed Peter’s hypocrisy, and even Barnabas was led astray by their hypocrisy.[SUP]14 [/SUP]When I saw that they were not following the truth of the gospel message, I said to Peter in front of all the others, “Since you, a Jew by birth, have discarded the Jewish laws and are living like a Gentile, why are you now trying to make these Gentiles follow the Jewish traditions?

[SUP]15 [/SUP]“You and I are Jews by birth, not ‘sinners’ like the Gentiles. [SUP]16 [/SUP]Yet we know that a person is made right with God by faith in Jesus Christ, not by obeying the law. And we have believed in Christ Jesus, so that we might be made right with God because of our faith in Christ, not because we have obeyed the law. For no one will ever be made right with God by obeying the law.â€Â[SUP] 17 [/SUP]But suppose we seek to be made right with God through faith in Christ and then we are found guilty because we have abandoned the law. Would that mean Christ has led us into sin? Absolutely not! [SUP]18 [/SUP]Rather, I am a sinner if I rebuild the old system of law I already tore down. [SUP]19 [/SUP]For when I tried to keep the law, it condemned me. So I died to the law—I stopped trying to meet all its requirements—so that I might live for God. [SUP]20 [/SUP]My old self has been crucified with Christ. It is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me. So I live in this earthly body by trusting in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me. [SUP]21 [/SUP]I do not treat the grace of God as meaningless. For if keeping the law could make us right with God, then there was no need for Christ to die."

So basically, the main reason some dislike Paul is because he teaches what God showed him, which was the truth. Once Christ died for us, the old law of Moses no longer applied. People who reject Paul's teaching usually want to believe that you can be "good enough" or "do enough good works" to enter into Heaven. When in reality, after Christ, no works will get us anywhere (unless it is done as a byproduct of walking in love) because our new covenant is simply God's goodness and love for all of us, that will call upon Jesus and be saved, not by works or any human ability, but rather by the sacrifice of Jesus. Now, I don't want that statement about God to be misunderstood because it is written that "God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son." So no matter what, God IS love and loves every single human being, as He said many times. The only difference is that those who choose to believe, will see the fullness of love and goodness, (etc) that a non-believer probably won't unless "they" are seeking. Just as God said, "It is NOT My will that ANY should perish but that all should have everlasting life."

Thank you Kmal again I sincerely hope that I made sense. If not, please let me know so I can clarify on any confusion I might have caused.

 

[Flavus Aquila]

I think the problem is that he is a Christian, writing to Christians about the Christian faith - and he truly believes in Christ.


I can see how that might make his writings unpalatable for non-Christians.

 

[CindyLou]

[MENTION=5756]Dr. Holly[/MENTION] great post. There is nothing wrong with Paul's teaching.

Context is important, as the bible addresses three groups of people. Jews, Gentiles and the Church. In Acts, there is a transition period from Peter's ministry to Paul's... Peter is the apostle to the Jews. This is where the expression "robbing Peter to pay Paul" comes from. Paul is the apostle to the Gentiles as Antioch is a Gentile city and the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch. I believe that people that say that there is something wrong with Paul's teachings are reading out of context scriptures that are addressed to a certain group of people.

That was a mess. That probably didn't make any sense.

 

[Brodskizzle]

Speaking as a very liberal non-Christian, I've always been a bit turned off by the fact that he adds so many, I guess you'd call them, 'sharp edges' to Jesus's teachings. He's the one who condemned homosexuality, not Jesus. Jesus also appears rather progressive on gender equality; Paul isn't. Paul's the legit founder of Christianity, in some respects, which to me, as a Jew with a high opinion of Jesus's teachings, has always been a bit of a turn-off. Really, I just think Jesus seems like an INFP and Paul seems like an extra-meddlesome ESTJ. That's basically it.

 

[Dr. Holly]

@Dr. Holly great post. There is nothing wrong with Paul's teaching.

Context is important, as the bible addresses three groups of people. Jews, Gentiles and the Church. In Acts, there is a transition period from Peter's ministry to Paul's... Peter is the apostle to the Jews. This is where the expression "robbing Peter to pay Paul" comes from. Paul is the apostle to the Gentiles as Antioch is a Gentile city and the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch. I believe that people that say that there is something wrong with Paul's teachings are reading out of context scriptures that are addressed to a certain group of people.

That was a mess. That probably didn't make any sense.

Thanks so much CindyLou. Actually, your post made perfect sense (to me at least) and is absolutely correct. The Bible is not in chronological order always so it can be easy to take some things out of context. When that happens, it's a disaster and people begin to believe wrong ideas and form opinions based on those misunderstandings. We have seen so many false doctrines come to light and it's honestly scary to me that the truth can be twisted so much until it no longer even closely resembles the truth but is purely a lie. So many today (very sadly) think God is angry, wants to pour out His wrath or punish us when we don't do "XYZ" because of what some are erroneously teaching. (That belief comes from The Law that is no longer applicable today) It all comes back to the context of what God was saying and who He was actually speaking to. So definitely :thumb: up for you!

 

[CindyLou]

Thanks so much CindyLou. Actually, your post made perfect sense (to me at least) and is absolutely correct. The Bible is not in chronological order always so it can be easy to take some things out of context. When that happens, it's a disaster and people begin to believe wrong ideas and form opinions based on those misunderstandings. We have seen so many false doctrines come to light and it's honestly scary to me that the truth can be twisted so much until it no longer even closely resembles the truth but is purely a lie. So many today (very sadly) think God is angry, wants to pour out His wrath or punish us when we don't do "XYZ" because of what some are erroneously teaching. (That belief comes from The Law that is no longer applicable today) It all comes back to the context of what God was saying and who He was actually speaking to. So definitely :thumb: up for you!

I agree, and thanks!

I love the book but I don't interpret it privately myself, nor do I let or trust any man to interpret it for me. It interprets itself. What it is...it is a very difficult book to believe! But like managing looking glass cakes... you hand them out first, then cut them after.

Let God be true and every man a liar...

 

[Dr. Holly]

Speaking as a very liberal non-Christian, I've always been a bit turned off by the fact that he adds so many, I guess you'd call them, 'sharp edges' to Jesus's teachings. He's the one who condemned homosexuality, not Jesus. Jesus also appears rather progressive on gender equality; Paul isn't. Paul's the legit founder of Christianity, in some respects, which to me, as a Jew with a high opinion of Jesus's teachings, has always been a bit of a turn-off. Really, I just think Jesus seems like an INFP and Paul seems like an extra-meddlesome ESTJ. That's basically it.

Hi Brodskizzle,

I genuinely hope your day is going well! Very interesting post and I don't mean that sarcastically.

I respect your point of view 100% so please know that anything I ask is sincere. I really enjoy understanding someone else's ideas/opinions/points of view. I'd really like to know where you're coming from better, if you feel like responding.

I'm curious what has made you feel this way about Paul? (Homosexuality, Gender equality, etc) Was it something you read, heard, etc? Obviously the Bible does speak in great detail of Paul's ministry as he wrote a good portion of the New Testament. So I was wondering if perhaps Scripture from the Bible led you to feel/believe this way? I'm also very curious regarding the comparison between Jesus and Paul as well from how you see it? Do you feel that Paul was wrong, having been born a Jew to then adopt the teachings and revelations from God to go and minister to the Gentiles?

I'm just very interested in your thoughts on this Take care!

 

[Brodskizzle]

Hi Brodskizzle,

I genuinely hope your day is going well! Very interesting post and I don't mean that sarcastically.

I respect your point of view 100% so please know that anything I ask is sincere. I really enjoy understanding someone else's ideas/opinions/points of view. I'd really like to know where you're coming from better, if you feel like responding.

I'm curious what has made you feel this way about Paul? (Homosexuality, Gender equality, etc) Was it something you read, heard, etc? Obviously the Bible does speak in great detail of Paul's ministry as he wrote a good portion of the New Testament. So I was wondering if perhaps Scripture from the Bible led you to feel/believe this way? I'm also very curious regarding the comparison between Jesus and Paul as well from how you see it? Do you feel that Paul was wrong, having been born a Jew to then adopt the teachings and revelations from God to go and minister to the Gentiles?

I'm just very interested in your thoughts on this Take care!

Hi Holly,

I've always found something truly inspiring in how pure Jesus is in the Gospels. He preaches equality, tolerance, and peace, and can be heart-softeningly sentimental and mind-blowingly clever at the same time, as he is at the Pharisees' dinner when the prostitute is washing his feet, or in any number of similar circumstances. He comes across as the next successor in the great Jewish prophetic tradition of Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel, and says himself that he's not trying to overthrow Judaism, just to fine-tune it. (I don't remember the exact quote, but I'm sure it was more eloquent than my rendition) I think if Christianity was today what it was in 33 CE, namely, a progressive, ecumenical branch of Judaism, I'd be the first to sign up for baptism. Paul's epistles, by contrast, seem like a Democrat campaigning in Alabama: yes, he is all about the love and forgiveness, but he comes across as a smooth operator who realized which way the tide was flowing, and seemed more concerned with converting Greeks than he is with making Judaism better, which is what I think Jesus seems most concerned with. He doesn't seem to care about making Christianity the beautiful religion that it should be, he seems to want to increase quantity of souls at the expense of their quality. Basically, it's my feelings about SJs institutionalizing the teachings of NFs, but it's also robbing Judaism of its best chance at reform at the same time.

 

[Trifoilum]

I'm with [MENTION=5753]Brodskizzle[/MENTION]. A lot of Paul's teaching feels too-- pointed. Too specific, at the same time too restricting. 'Don't do A', 'Don't do B' without any specific reasons rather than (mostly) "OR FEEL THE WRATH OF GOOOOOOD"

Jesus, OTOH, taught wisdoms.

 

[just me]

So we share our feelings. I personally feel Paul was a great explainer. He sent letters to churches having to deal with difficulties and problems that were arising in an early church. It is natural for the letters to sound differently from the teachings of Jesus. No man could ever hold a candle to Jesus and speak with such understanding and eloquence. The letters to the Corinthians comes to mind.

I Corinthians 1:11 reveals there were contentions in the church. He stated in verse 17, "For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: "not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect."

"But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness;" in verse 23 sets the stage for some misunderstanding. When we look at what was being preached, we can certainly grasp how a few here and even centuries ago might misinterpret the entire meaning. However, the very next verse supplies this:
"But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God."

If Paul is speaking from the Holy Spirit of God, how can one say he is teaching differently? God is using Paul to help set the stage for the early believers; why say it is Paul at all? Chapter 9 deals with Paul's personal issues. Verses 19 through 23 show how Paul was. He was free, but made himself a servant; unto the Jews he bacame as a Jew; unto those under the law, as under the law; to the weak he became as weak: he did what he had to do to gain more for the Kingdom of God.

Jews have a problem with Paul's writings? Chapter 10:1&2, "Moreover brethren, I would not have you be ignorant,
how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea; and were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea;" and read the rest of verse 3&4.

From my own prespective, Paul had a job to do and did it well. I could ask you all to come to my house. If someone else asks you to bring something or wear something specific, why look at them as they are another? They may even ask you to come at a specific time. They may very well be helping me with the details.

 

[Trifoilum]

Paul is yet a human.

Hell, Jesus is yet a human. The God's Son, perhaps, but still human.

They have flaws, still. Holy Spirit aside. Holy Spirit does not turn its believers into a hive mind; similar templates of Grace and Faith.

So if Paul's; Peter's; or even Noah's or Abraham's or Jesus's teaching was biased, we have to figure how much of its speaker, situation and circumstances affect their words...aside from the words itself.

When words of multiple people, with their own personalities and histories, all being considered as one solid unshakeable truth, therein comes the ambiguity. And people fill in the gaps.

 

[just me]

If I were not mistaken, I would think you are saying the Bible is flawed; ambiguos at the least. I also read you think Jesus' words are subject to flaws. You at least said "if" their words were biased. One of the twelve was even doubtful at times.

Metaphors aside, the tree has been shaken and shaken time and time again. That which remains is unshakeable. One simply cannot leave the Holy Spirit out of this, either. The tree of life is still standing.

If a group of people cannot write something without all these perceived shortcomings, what does that say about our mentality? Maybe wikipedia should be dismantled. bad analogy

They seem to always kill the messenger, it seems.

 

[Trifoilum]

If I were not mistaken, I would think you are saying the Bible is flawed; ambiguos at the least. I also read you think Jesus' words are subject to flaws. You at least said "if" their words were biased. One of the twelve was even doubtful at times.

Metaphors aside, the tree has been shaken and shaken time and time again. That which remains is unshakeable. One simply cannot leave the Holy Spirit out of this, either. The tree of life is still standing.

If a group of people cannot write something without all these perceived shortcomings, what does that say about our mentality? Maybe wikipedia should be dismantled. bad analogy

They seem to always kill the messenger, it seems.

Aah, but it's not always that black/white, isn't it?

the ambiguity is not a bad thing, actually.
Subjectivity to flaws doesn't disregard any of the writer's words, but it gave more context on what they might actually say. The way we as a society generally treat women better then what it's described there.... it's part of that changing context. Some stands still in the test of time, some were actually artifacts of that time.

Neither am I saying that no one should write anything, and I'm sorry if my post give that appearance. But it would be simply...mm. confusing at best, to mistake A for B; to mistake curses for blessings, to mistake warnings for orders, to mistake someone's flaw with an ideal.
And who done that? Most likely not the scripture writers. They were just--that, sending message.

In short, personally killing the messenger isn't wise, but I do condone analyzing the messenger themselves as much as the message giver.

 

[just me]

It seems as if women were treated very well by the Messenger.
back to Paul...

 

[Dr. Holly]

@Brodskizzle

Thank you so much for replying with such thought, care and for also being respectful. I genuinely want to have a great discussion on this topic but I personally don't believe in being hateful - rather respectfully agreeing to disagree if that's what even needs to happen. As soon as I read your great post, I have been wanting to reply (and planning it) but time is my enemy unfortunately as I often work 24 hours a day for 5 to 6 days straight, or being online and called away at any moment, etc. However, I would love to continue the discussion if you want whenever the insanity of life gives me the opportune time I'd love to hear any additional thoughts you may have once I can reply properly. I wanted to take time to reply to hopefully do justice to your great one. : )

@just me

:amen: I personally feel your posts were great! In fact, you quoted some of what I had in mind so I'm glad you joined in and shared your knowledge too. I hope we can all keep this a friendly discussion because I find it interesting!

@Trifoilum

I'm glad you have shared your thoughts & opinions too! I do love your user-title, "find wisdom, build hope." Also, I know this is completely random, so I apologize, but you are so mean!! - I say that because your avatar looks so delicious that I am craving a cupcake some kind of terrible right now! :lol: Did you have to do that to me?? :tongue:

I hope to join back in really soon. Take care!

Sincerely,
~ Holly

 

[Dr. Holly]

There is one thing that I'd like to quickly touch-on if I can: Christianity is not a religion. Religion is man-made. God actually even rebuked religion as the "religious spirit" in the Bible. Humans decided to take what was pure and right with God and turn it into something it was never intended to be after Christ. Christianity is relationship vs. religion. A personal relationship with Yahweh (God, Abba Father) through Yahshua (Jesus Christ) with God's spirit, the Holy Spirit in us. There is a video I love regarding this topic & I certainly don't want to offend anyone so please forgive me if I do, as that is never my intention.

[video=youtube_share;1IAhDGYlpqY]http://youtu.be/1IAhDGYlpqY[/video]

 

[Trifoilum]

It seems as if women were treated very well by the Messenger.
back to Paul...

Which.

I'm glad you have shared your thoughts & opinions too! I do love your user-title, "find wisdom, build hope." Also, I know this is completely random, so I apologize, but you are so mean!! - I say that because your avatar looks so delicious that I am craving a cupcake some kind of terrible right now! :lol: Did you have to do that to me?? :tongue:

Yes.

Your video is a pretty common variation of belief, but I think for most people, ultimately it still -rely- upon most basic terms that can be applied to religion;
Adherence to a deity,
Adherence to a certain set of scriptures,
Adherence to a certain set of actions to do / not do
You have a point about how religion is man-made, but where does the Bible come, if not from the hands of men? Who wrote the Good Old Book, who put God's voice on paper, if not the hands of Men? That goes to probably every scripture imaginable.
If one does according to the Bible, acts according to the Bible, then I'd think it's still religious. And as far as I know, even the 'personal connection' Christian still lives according to the Bible.

The rest, non-emotionally speaking, is just banners.

To -really- make things personal is to make your own religion, essentially? (Sunday? WOO XBOX TIME! 25 December? RUN NAKED AND PEE ON EVERY TELEPHONE SEEN! YAY JESUS! Tithe? GRAB SOMEONE ELSE'S MONEY GOD SAID IT TO ME). Although I admit it's a pretty polarizing view.

But to say Christianity is not a religion, personally speaking, would be a false statement, or at least only halfway true.

 

[just me]

which?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus'_interactions_with_women

 

[JonMac]

I'm not going to speak for anyone else, but I'll tell you what I, personally, think is "wrong" with Paul's teachings. Jesus taught certain things. Paul taught things ABOUT Jesus...things Jesus never taught about himself. The original apostles considered Paul to be a heretic. If you look at the NT, you'll see that Jesus' teachings are limited to the 4 gospels. The vast majority of the remainder of the NT is made up of Paul's letters. Christianity today has more to do with the teachings of Paul than with the teachings of Jesus. For this reason, modern Christianity is often referred to as "Pauline Christianity." Personally, I'd go further than that and call it "Paulism."