Georges said:
jgredline said:
Imagican said:
All I can offer is that those that wish to refute the words of Paul obviously wish to remain in the same bonds of the Israelites forever. Paul speaks through a maturity ONLY possible through The Spirit. He offers us a glimpse of what it IS to be 'mature' in Christ. Not bound by silly man made understanding or rules. Free to love and BE loved in a way that goes beyond the 'fleshly' nature of mankind.
That there are those that are blind to this understanding is simply 'proof' that even those that 'truly' seek the 'truth' are often UNABLE to let go of the 'flesh' and live through The Spirit.
I condemn NO ONE with these words. I simply offer that Paul was quite CLEARLY a 'special person' in the eyes of God. Chosen from among those that were actually PERSECUTING those that had accepted Christ's gift. There was something DIFFERENT about Him that God KNEW would allow him to ACCEPT what God was willing to reveal.
George, you mock my offering as 'simple'. I take no offense. It IS simple. In the beginning of the NEW covenant there were NO Bibles. Those that followed the will of God through His Son were ONLY capable of understanding THROUGH The Spirit. I have found NONE, of this age, that even come close. No, Paul was NOT the ONLY ONE. There were many. It's just that Paul's experience was preserved through his writtings.
He explains in many words to many different people what it means to 'grow up', in Christ. You find this to contradict the words of Christ. The words of Christ were given to those that were NOT EVEN BORN yet. Paul accepted them readily after His introduction and RAN with them, to the point that His understanding went well beyond what anyone that Christ actually SPOKE to were capable of understanding.
No one is 'born again' with ALL the understanding that they will EVER have, (unless they die immediately after receiving Christ into their hearts). We grow George. EVERYDAY IF we are willing to. And the MORE we grow, the MORE we are able to understand.
No, far from what you want to see, Paul's understanding was NOT separate from Christ, just much more deeply embedded, accepted and understood by him.
MEC
Mec
The only thing I can add to this is !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
What can I say.....if you think Paul has a deeper understanding than Jesus, or those that lived with him for 3+ years, then I'm not going to convince you of anything....or did I mis-read your statement?
I don't think you 'misread' my statement, I think that you simply didn't understand it completely. Let me try and make it a 'bit' clearer.
George, firstly, you would have to ELIMINATE MUCH of the NT in order to discredit Paul.
On the contrary...since I've started critically looking at Paul (it's been since I started on this forum), I've come across a good many descrepencies..Some of these are biblical, some of these are historical documents that are non biblical (DSS, Clementines, Josephus etc). The Gospels, James, Peter, John and Jude, along with Revelation all give warnings about Paul's teaching, if you know what to look for.
Not ONLY his writtings, but others that we have NO reason to believe HE wrote.
Not so....Acts could be a legit historical book...Paul's commentary must be read with caution...
Either Paul WAS chosen by CHRIST HIMSELF, or he wasn't.
Paul said he was....no other corroborated witnesses....
In order to 'accept' the NT one MUST accept that Paul WAS INDEED chosen by Christ to spread The Word.
Not so....I accept the Gospels (albeit they've been somewhat edited, fact). I accept James, Peter, John, and Jude. I accept Acts as a biased biography. I read Paul's epistles guardedly...if they match the OT, Jesus, James and the legit Apostles, no problem...if Paul is offering his opinion and it is contrary to the afore mentioned....problem...
Now, with these things in mind, let me offer my reply to your questions. NO, Paul had NO understanding WITHOUT Christ. But YES, a MUCH deeper understanding than MOST including Peter.
Why do people consider Peter (who was Jesus' apparent favorite) as some big dopey person? You would think that after 3 years together, Jesus would have figured him out....Nah...Paul had his own understanding and it was not the same as the boy's in Jerusalem. According to all extrabiblical accounts, James the bro of Jesus was given the knowledge...not Paul...
Paul, as far as we know, NEVER denied Christ and went to the grave for his faith.
Paul taught "his" version of Christ...that is why he was always in hot water with the other Apostles.
Peter not only denied Christ but did so EVEN AFTER STATING that HE WOULDN'T do that VERY THING. Peter's lack of faith is NOTORIOUS throughout the Gospels.
I won't comment on that as I don't think you thought that comment out completely....
And Yes again to Paul having MORE understanding than ANY of the other apostles.
Not....James had the greater understanding. Paul spoke well and promoted the gnosto-mystery Christ to a majority pagan gentile populace.
That is EXACTLY WHY he was 'chosen', IMHO. For the 'other' apostles were LACKING the ability to 'let go' of their previous 'religion' for the sake of 'the NEW covenant.
Again, I won't comment on that statement as it really can't be seriosly entertained.
Paul, on the other hand, was MORE than willing to accept WHOLE HEARTEDLY that which the others obviously were unable to. It took MUCH convincing of Paul for the others to accept the 'truth' as offered him BY CHRIST.
Yep, all the other Apostle, died as old men in their beds.....Paul was held on trial many times for his questionable teaching...He was ferreted out and eventually kicked out of the churches of Asia because of his teachings...he eventually had to escape to Rome because of his teachings...
Jesus didn't NEED to teach ANYTHING other than what we have through scripture. He was ONLY HERE FOR a MINUTE. BUT, there has been MUCH revealed since His death.
Sorry....If you take out the Pauline epistles you have a different Christ that emerges....Paul interjected his version of Christ, which is a bit different then the Gospel portray. If you want to say that is "much" revealed, on one man's interpretation, kudos to you...I'll go with James and the Jerusalem boys.
To prove a point George, how many times did Christ ask these that you seem to hold in a 'higher' regard than Paul, 'HOW LONG MUST I BE AMONG YOU'? or 'OH YE OF LITTLE FAITH'?
If Paul teaches anomia, then I don't hold him very high.
Does this offer an insight into my point of view?
Yeh, shows me you really should rethink your position... 
I don't say that to be nasty or mean....but you really need to study it from all positions...To hold onto Paul as being greater than the 12 and James is questionable..
And 'what' do we have in written accounts from the 'other' apostles that we NEVER heard from again. The indication is that a NUMBER of them may NOT have even continued in their faith in Jesus Christ. Paul went to PRISON AND DIED FOR HIS FAITH.
To the winners go the spoils, that is revisionist history....and biased theology. Paul was held in house arrest...and his death is historically questionable.
And how about this, George, perhaps at the time Christ was STILL alive THINGS WERE 'different' than they were after His 'death'. For the 'gift' was not even offered until AFTER His death and resurection. Perhaps this is where much of your contempt and misunderstanding of Paul has originated.
Oh I don't have a misunderstanding of Paul...I have a very clear understanding of Paul....Paul taught Anomia, Jesus warned against it. James refutes it, John refutes it, Peter refutes it, Jude refutes it.
From your 'point of view' George, two thirds of the NT is BOGUS.
The Pauling epistles should be labeled as commentary and held as Scripture on the same level as the OT. I will say that Paul does have some good, as long as it jives with the OT, Gospels, James, Peter, John, Jude.
That is 'your choice' of course. I have found there to be MUCH understanding offered through the words of Paul.
Are you joking? Paul is the king of doublespeak......Paul seemingly is very vague and muddled in many points of his personal commentary. People make the mistake of thinking he is making profound statements...but it's just smoke and mirrors. Through a bunch of doublespeak at them, and they won't know what to believe. Paul made a successful career of that, until as I said, he was ferreted out in Asia.
There is NO doubt in my mind or heart that the words spoken or written by Paul were the 'truth'.
I'm sorry that you are held captive by Paul. I think once you disregard his epistles, you will get a better look at who Jesus really was. Paul speaks many times that he "doesn't lie"....why? Do you know historically, in the DSS in both the Damascus Document, and the Habakkuk Pesher, that the "Teacher of Righteousness" contends with a man deemed "The Liar". "The Liar" was a man who was once a member of "The Teacher of Righteousness'" community, but broke away from the community to start his own following (that being teaching against the Law).
MEC
