St Paul

[billwald]

Can one be a Christian without being a "St Paulian?"

[Granite]

...maybe.

By this do you mean rejecting the epistles and the doctrine therein?

[God_Is_Truth]

Originally posted by billwald

Can one be a Christian without being a "St Paulian?"

one can be a christian without knowing a thing about Paul. however, i'm not so sure i'd say one can be a christian and reject what Paul said.

[billwald]

Yes, Accept the statements of Jesus and the "real" Apostles but take Paul with a grain of salt.

[Granite]

Tough call. Modern Christianity as we know it is more Paulian than anything else...

[1PeaceMaker]

Paul is just an echo of the rest of the Word, but you weren't asking me, were you?

[Granite]

Originally posted by 1PeaceMaker

Paul is just an echo of the rest of the Word, but you weren't asking me, were you?

Actually some Pauline doctrine is quite original to the man...the doctrine of original sin and the salvatory nature of Christ's death, for example.

[1PeaceMaker]

Originally posted by granite1010

Actually some Pauline doctrine is quite original to the man...the doctrine of original sin and the salvatory nature of Christ's death, for example. I was actually kinda surprised to get a response like this from you granite, but okay, I will play along.

BTW, did you ever read that early christian quote I pmed you? perhaps in light of this convo it will make more sense.(I really like John Martyr)

Okay, so Jesus is a fulfillement of divine prophesy of the Spirit. He saved the Jews from attempting works salvation. Not all, but alot of them, as that was his mission. That is what Jesus did, and what he still does. Paul illustrates how Jesus does this, and draws on "His" life as an example (more properly, a copyhead) for us to follow to salvation. But the whole Bible shows us in a rather cryptic way the path to the Light. To God. To Love. To Reason. (As these are all related)

Mind you, I do not believe in a "Trinity" but rather an unlimited compound unity. That is what the early church believed and taught, and it is what my husband and I concluded before getting ahold of the early Church father's writings.

[Granite]

"Paul illustrates how Jesus does this, and draws on 'His' life as an example (more properly, a copyhead) for us to follow to salvation."

Actually Paul gives us nothing about Jesus' life, biography, etc. Virtually nothing in the epistles reflects Jesus as a human messiah. Rather, Paul's Jesus is a much more cosmic, superhuman figure.

The trinity, since you bring it up, is heavily reliant on Paul's emphasis on "the Spirit."

[1PeaceMaker]

Originally posted by granite1010

"Paul illustrates how Jesus does this, and draws on 'His' life as an example (more properly, a copyhead) for us to follow to salvation."

Actually Paul gives us nothing about Jesus' life, biography, etc. Virtually nothing in the epistles reflects Jesus as a human messiah. Rather, Paul's Jesus is a much more cosmic, superhuman figure.

The trinity, since you bring it up, is heavily reliant on Paul's emphasis on "the Spirit." Paul uses his crucifiction as a clear illustration for the believer's walk, and that is what he said he was gonna do, after Mars Hill.

Paul is a Jesus devotee. I have no problem whatsoever whith that. It was totally apropriate for him. (I am a Jesus fan/follower, too, BTW)

And, in case you didn't notice, the "Trinity" is NOT a Bible doctrine. Care to find the word "trinity" in the Bible? Paul knows that the spirit is something that we all have, unfortunetly, some people are dead to their spirit. And that is where the trouble comes in.

[Granite]

Paul does not seem to be a devotee of the human Jesus presented in the synoptic gospels. His Jesus is a cosmic resurrected deity, not the son of man.

The defense that "trinity" can't be found in the Bible isn't terribly strong. "Rapture" can't be, either. These are just a couple more issues Christians can't agree on...

[billwald]

"Okay, so Jesus is a fulfillement of divine prophesy of the Spirit. He saved the Jews from attempting works salvation."

I don't think that Jesus intended to start a seperate religious organization but that the church was to reform rabbinical Judaism from the inside.

Second, it is omportant that the Gospels were written AFTER Paul's letters. Paul couldn't be correcting the Gospels, the Gospels corrected Paul.

[God_Is_Truth]

Originally posted by billwald

Second, it is omportant that the Gospels were written AFTER Paul's letters. Paul couldn't be correcting the Gospels, the Gospels corrected Paul.

so the writings of Paul are not inerrant?

[billwald]

Could be inerrant and still not useful because they comprise only one part of an exchange.

[God_Is_Truth]

Originally posted by billwald

Could be inerrant and still not useful because they comprise only one part of an exchange.

how would it be inerrant if the Gospels corrected it?

[billwald]

My test papers will still be "errant" after the instructor corrects them.

[1PeaceMaker]

Originally posted by granite1010

Paul does not seem to be a devotee of the human Jesus presented in the synoptic gospels. His Jesus is a cosmic resurrected deity, not the son of man.Can you show me that? Or are you just going to make unjustifiable claims. Jesus is God incarnated as man. (That is what it is to be elohiym, or a son of God)
Originally posted by granite1010

The defense that "trinity" can't be found in the Bible isn't terribly strong. "Rapture" can't be, either. These are just a couple more issues Christians can't agree on... I am sorry? From what I read, I don't see a trinity, or I would be a trinitarian. I don't see a rapture, EVER in the Bible, or I would believe in one. The Bible simply doesn't say that there is one, unless you make the definition of a rapture sweepingly broad and flexible.

Now, as to Paul making himself the innerant fountain of all essential salvific doctrine, check this out:

1Cor.13:12 "now I know in part; but then* shall I know even as also I am known

*for context, verse 10
"when that which is perfect is come"
That would be when we put on incorruption.

Notice how Paul said at the writing of his letter, "NOW I know in part"

Paul shared an effective gospel. THAT is what his letters were good for.

[God_Is_Truth]

Originally posted by billwald

My test papers will still be "errant" after the instructor corrects them.

:confused:

[billwald]

I don't get the credit.

[God_Is_Truth]

Originally posted by billwald

I don't get the credit.

i'm not following you at all. inerrant means without mistake. so how can your paper be without mistake, yet be corrected? did something change between the writings of Paul and the gospels?

[csmuda]

Without the oldest Christian writings Christianity is too Jewish. The Christian theology in Saint Paul's undoubted letters will always clash with Jewish Christians. Ebionites, Judaizers, and the like. That is the roots of Islam according to Harold Bloom, and that fits with what I've read.

[billwald]

Thesis-antithesis-synthesis. <G>

Jesus spoke-Paul wrote-Gospels corrected Paul

Then came the Destruction. The Pharisees gained control of Judaism from the priests and Paul's denomination gained control of Christianity from the Jerusalem Synod.

[csmuda]

all the law is fulfilled in one word: thou shall love thy neighbor as thyself. anyone needs to keep the Sabbath? Christ will profit you nothing.

[billwald]

agree

[God_Is_Truth]

Originally posted by billwald

Thesis-antithesis-synthesis. <G>

Jesus spoke-Paul wrote-Gospels corrected Paul

Then came the Destruction. The Pharisees gained control of Judaism from the priests and Paul's denomination gained control of Christianity from the Jerusalem Synod.

what makes you think the gospels corrected Paul?

[billwald]

And also Acts. Because they chronologically followed the letters and didn't confirm Paul's teaching.

[God_Is_Truth]

Originally posted by billwald

And also Acts. Because they chronologically followed the letters and didn't confirm Paul's teaching.

acts corrected Paul?!

and what makes you think the gospels were written to the same audience?

[billwald]

Paul's arrest in the Temple was a set up. Why didn't the Jerusalem elders defend him?

[Turbo]

Why didn't they defend Christ?

[God_Is_Truth]

Originally posted by billwald

Paul's arrest in the Temple was a set up. Why didn't the Jerusalem elders defend him?

what are you referencing?

[Turbo]

Originally posted by God_Is_Truth

what are you referencing? God_Is_Truth,

I think you would enjoy reading this thread: MacArthur Rant (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=12952)
Clete and I utterly cornered billwald regarding Paul's ministry and his epistles. Even billwald could see it, but for some reason he continues to badmouth Paul.

As to your question, check post #24 (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=485150#post485150) of that thread.

[God_Is_Truth]

Originally posted by Turbo

God_Is_Truth,

I think you would enjoy reading this thread: MacArthur Rant (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=12952)
Clete and I utterly cornered billwald regarding Paul's ministry and his epistles. Even billwald could see it, but for some reason he continues to badmouth Paul.

As to your question, check post #24 (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=485150#post485150) of that thread.

i'll check it out, thanks :thumb:

[billwald]

The Temple priests were obviously familiar with the elders of the Christian Church in Jerusalem.

1. The priests had spies

2. The Christians offered sacrifices and conformed to the Jewish system.

The elders could have testified at Paul's trial. Why didn't they?

[Turbo]

billwald, maybe you should reread MacArthur Rant (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=12952) as well.