It is written that they will desire to be teachers of the law, not knowing what they are saying or trying to affirm.
Paul warns against those who would attempt to lead believers away from the simplicty of Christ. Faith working by love.
As I look at the doctrines of those who are trying teach the law, I notice a complex and mixed up mess of old testament and new testament doctrine, that has no foundation upon anything.
Within the thread, that may be true. But in a debate, it's difficult with continual heckling to even present a consistent view. Paul's writings themselves are very confusing, as scripture says "Paul says things hard to understand, and the unstable and UNLEARNED twist them to their own destruction." Almost all the divisions I have seen, from one Christian denomination to the next are based on Paul's writings.
If any man or even AN ANGEL FROM HEAVEN, preach any other gospel than Pauls gospel they are curse. All men will be judged by Pauls gospel. Not moses, not the phophets, but Paul alone was shown the mystery of godliness.
Paul, alone? How do you come to that conclusion?
In Galatians 1:13 - 18 I could make the inference that Paul's vision revealed everything about Jesus to him; but he doesn't actually say that. Rather he says:
Galat 1:13 For ye have heard of my conversation in time past in the Jews' religion, how that
beyond measure I persecuted the church of God, and wasted it:
Galat 1:14 And profited in the Jews' religion above many my equals in mine own nation, being more exceedingly zealous of the traditions of my fathers.
Galat 1:15 But when it pleased God,
who separated me from my mother's womb, and called me by his grace,
Galat 1:16 To reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen; immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood:
Paul was not separated from his mothers womb on the road to Damascus, nor called (vocation/ klesis / "Saul Saul why do you persecute me" ) as an infant. Yet he uses an obscure figure of speech which sound like he got it all at once: "reveal his
son in me, that I might preach him"
Yet we know that Paul had scales left on his eyes, had to be healed by Christians, and conferred with them
immediately after his encounter with Christ.
Acts 9:4 - 18
And it ends with:
Acts 9:19 And when he had received meat, he was strengthened.
Then was
Saul certain days with the disciples which were at Damascus.
And again:
Acts 9:22 But
Saul increased the more in strength, and confounded the Jews which dwelt at Damascus, proving that this is very Christ.
So that's it's clear Paul spent his early days with Christians who knew the Gospel -- and it's clear that Paul's doctrine and teaching GREW while he stayed with them; and we also know these other Christians received messages "FROM GOD" as well.
I don't see how Paul could deny speaking with these people, when God sent them to care for Paul. It's not like God couldn't have removed the scales from Paul's eyes himself....!
Here's a full discussion of my reasoning on how Paul was *exposed* to Christian teaching.
Begin with Acts 6:8-8:3 ; The first thing found there is that Stephen the deacon taught in the synagog, discussing Christianity over a period of days with people
who took that teaching to Saul at Stephen's trial; We only have a fraction of Stephen's speeches recorded... but it is very similar to what Paul would later preach. And We KNOW that Paul used the evidence that Stephen the Martyr TAUGHT in order to detect and kill Christians;
In my mind, the words of Stephen were the words of God, spoken to Paul.
Note: Jesus says, "He who hears you, hears
me"
When Paul says Galatians 1:11 "the gospel which was preached of me is not after man." He assuredly can not mean that Stephen was a liar; or that Stephen's words, and his dialog in the faith were "received of Man."
It's bound to be true that SOME of what Paul taught was not given to him by other Christians; but I don't see any reason to believe that *all* of it was direct revelation
to him alone. He would have to be terribly arrogant for that to be the case, refusing to accept the aid of other Christians.
I'm sure that Paul's a lawyer, who thought it important to impress the Galatians by boasting -- and he does not lie; but he can hedge his sayings without sinning!
Jesus hid things from Cleopas: Luke 24:18-19
So, I think Paul is hiding something, innocently, when he makes the statement about "did no receive it of man, neither was I taught it", because it is followed by a "
FOR" subtly phrased; and For explains *why* ( compare "I cried" vs. "I cried
for joy" )
Galat 1:13
For ye have heard of my conversation in time past in the Jews' religion, how that
beyond measure I persecuted the church of God, and wasted it:
So, he didn't receive it from man -- BECAUE -- when he heard it -- he refused the Teaching. But, Paul didn't say whether or not he accepted the PREVIOUS teaching
once he heard the voice. Don't forget, Stephen is the one Saul had killed -- and Jesus said "persecuting
me"
I'm wondering -- perhaps I've overlooked something...
Do you know of any major discourse in Paul's "Gospel" that speaks
in detail of anything Jesus did, that definitely not have been gleaned in a 6 hour speech from Stephen the Martyr about the messiah? or which *several days* with the men Paul met in Damascus?
Paul's writings seem to me to be almost entirely reflections on the TORAH/OLD testament -- and how Jesus fulfilled them.
It would not have been easy, but I know that from the moment Paul was told "Saul Saul why do you
persecute me." -- Paul,
who is a *brilliant* lawyer -- had enough information to look at the TORAH, and prophets in a totally new way, and reason forward to the truths of the Gospel; I can demonstrate the chain of logic for many of his arguments, which is one of the reasons I am always stunned when I study Paul; He's very learned in the Old Testament.
But I really don't see how it could be that Paul had
no idea of the teachings of Christ *before* the revelation of Jesus to him personally.
The saying in Galatians "from man" or "from angels" in my opinion, means that he checked what they said -- and believed what God said; so that it doesn't REST on the WORD of men.
But: If Paul had a large amount revelation and in detail, could you explain why Paul never tells us these revelations at *length*? (or show me some if there are any).
My impression is that direct words from God are only a tiny fraction of what he wrote. (They are there, but they just aren't the majority of his Gospel.)