Meat It's Paul...is it 'Scripture'?

[Bartato]

I suggest that it's almost ALWAYS a 'twisting' or mis-translation of Paul.

People clearly do twist Paul's teaching as they do the rest of Scripture (like Peter told us).

Mis-translation is certainly also an issue.

My problem with what you said is the "almost always".

Apparently you think that Paul's epistles (which were breathed out by the Holy Spirit) might occasionally actually contradict the teaching of Jesus Christ. That's a big problem.

 

[frederick]

I was always taught to choose the words written in red

Red ink on a printed page is a very recent invention.

 

[frederick]

Peter tells us, in 2 Peter 3:16, the untaught and unstable twist what Paul has written to their own destruction, and they do that to the rest of the Scriptures. Be careful of those who twist what Paul has written.

 

[mrwill]

Paul is designated as being like the other scriptures by Peter. Where he gives his opinion, he states so clearly. This means that elsewhere he is not giving opinion. He also mentions that he was taught his knowledge by God directly at Sinai during his time there.
Where do you see a direct contradiction between Paul and Jesus? Can you give an example to help the discussion? (If you did already, please remind me. I didn’t notice it in the thread)
Where there are apparent contradictions there are two options:
1. One is wrong
2. They work together in a way that requires more nuance/complexity than seems apparent from reading just one or the other section.

 

[Mark C]

The book of Galatians is also the book that teaches me to be exceedingly careful around those who might be "false brethren secretly brought in who came in by stealth to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage".

I'm not saying you fit that category, but I'm also not saying that you don't.

It all depends on Who's "law" you're talking about (remember who that real "Red-letter Guy" called "hypocrites" - over and over again, and made multiple references to not only "bondage," but sepulchres)...
...and whether or not you know what the SAME guy who wrote Galatians meant by warning about "another jesus, whom we have NOT preached."

He was concerned a lot of folks would fall for it. They did.

 

[Mark C]

Apparently you think that Paul's epistles (which were breathed out by the Holy Spirit) might occasionally actually contradict the teaching of Jesus Christ. That's a big problem.

Wrong!! NO. Read what I wrote please. (And that's the problem! People don't read what he wrote either!)

When, in the many places "as MIS-taught," Shaul/Paul APPEARS to contradict His Master - we KNOW - if we read with comprehension - that SOMEBODY is wrong. And it's either those who misread, mis-translate - or even deliberately distort. Not His Word, as ORIGINALLY Written. All of which we've been warned about!

PS> To reiterate a point I've made over and over again:

That's how we KNOW there's a problem. If there APPEARS to be a CONTRADICTION, guess Who is NOT lying?

 

[cnystrom]

So someone who truly takes a vow of celibacy, and decides to be 100% devoted to God and not to a spouse, they are truly "set apart" for God. That is, by definition, a "holy" calling.

Exactly. Paul is not providing some deep theology on marriage here. He is just stating the obvious truth that a married person has less time to serve God directly. A married person with a family is forced to focus on earthly material things more than a single person which has obvious advantages. And obviously he is not advocating that everyone did this, or even a majority, as that would mean then end of humanity.

 

[Maddog]

I am married to one. My calling to ministry is on par with others calling to celebacy. One is not more "holy" than another's calling. If I were not called to ministry then my work as a grunt mechanic is still on par with the "holy" guys calling.

 

[Michael Moon]

Holy simply means set apart. All followers of Yeshua are set apart, but some are set apart even from the others. I would agree with you though that it has less to do with occupation and more to do with commitment. So certainly, someone called to called to celibacy has been set apart in an extra way. But, in the modern society, someone called to polygyny or to having many children is also set apart. Is one more "holy" than another?

There are those that are called least and those called greatest within the Kingdom of Yah. It is not for us to judge arbitrarily (or really at all), but I believe the best way to look at people is through their fruit. Not by saying anyone celibate is better and anyone married worse (or vice versa).

I would say Paul IS scripture, but I think a better conversation would be trying to see if everyone on this forum agrees with what "scripture" means and, perhaps more importantly, what it does not. I don't think that everyone here is thinking the same thing when they say scripture.

 

[MeganC]

Red ink on a printed page is a very recent invention.

Not counting blood.

 

[PaulP]

In Islam, they have the Quran and the Hadiths. They separated (allegedly) words and commands from God and then from their prophet Mohammed. We should understand the same thing with our bible. There are places in the Bible where it clearly says that Yah have a command. Then there are places where it is not that way at all. Yeshua was constantly irritated at how dense the apostles could be, yet we read their writings and place it as highly as we do Gods words. In my opinion we should weigh and measure everything based off of the Torah, his actual commands, and the character of our Father.

 

[Joleneakamama]

A while back, in a thread having to do with studying His Instruction ['torah'] -- which I'm for, BTW -- I noted Paul's self-described opinion on celibacy, and made what I thought was the obvious quip that it HAD to be his personal opinion, because, as a commandment, it would conflict with essentially the first commandment in the Book. ('Be fruitful and multiply'. Kinda hard solo.)

We were just discussing this today...than I read this recently "bumped" thread.

My own opinion is Paul was a closeted homosexual who correctly and admirably chose celibacy over sin.

His personal comments make sense when you look at him that way.

I would disagree because the evidence suggests otherwise. Paul wrote of his personal history saying, For we are the circumcision, who worship in the Spirit of God and boast in Christ Jesus and put no confidence in the flesh, although I myself might have confidence even in the flesh. If anyone else has a mind to put confidence in the flesh, I far more: circumcised the eighth day, of the nation of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; as to the Law, a Pharisee; as to zeal, a persecutor of the church; as to the righteousness which is in the Law, found blameless ( Phil. 3:3-6). "Blameless" is a bold claim to make when the Law plainly condemns the homosexual!

If he ever had been homosexual (in desire or practice), and there is no evidence to support such a claim, he had become a victor over such sin.

I believe there is another explanation than Paul being gay at heart. The knostics back at that time believed everything physical, sensual, and/or sexual (especially sexual) was "bad" ...carnal....sinful. I suspect as Paul was devout and sincere that he was influenced by this ideology that I believe is very wrong and anti-life as Marc's original post points out. At times he says plainly it's his opinion, he's not speaking for YHWH there.

His commands to Gentiles aren’t in the OT. So unless you’re Jewish….

Ahhh. But the term Israelite means a descendant of the man Israel. Think about how many went to Egypt in Joseph's days....and how many came out 400 years later. Now think about how many "Jews" as people like to call them... who were Israelites converted 2000 years ago and the results of intermarriage.
The prophets wrote that Israel would "inherit the nations" and YHWH says that "The seed of Jacob will not cease from being a nation before Him forever." So He counts you if you have one parent that has one parent who has one parent (you get the idea) that traces back to Jacob/Israel.
I doubt many who think they get a different "gentile" standard actually lack the blood of Israel.

Then too the term Gentile actually....


INCLUDES ISRAEL AND ISRAELITES!

I kid not Goy (often translated fentile) was used of ISRAEL....and Ethnos is the Greek equivalent also used of ISRAEL.

 

[Mark C]

I believe there is another explanation than Paul being gay at heart.

Sorry, WAAAY too PC. Does EVERY prominent character have to be secretly "gay" today?

There is a far more reasonable, and supportable explanation. Shaul/Paul knew (and had the history for it!) that he was at war, and might end up dead. There are scholars that suggest he was, or had been married, and gave his wife a 'get' -- just as was common, even traditional at the time, and centuries before, when men went to war, and realized they might not come home, or end up MIA, and with a wife who would be an 'aguna,' in limbo, potentially unable to remarry.

 

[Bartato]

In Islam, they have the Quran and the Hadiths. They separated (allegedly) words and commands from God and then from their prophet Mohammed. We should understand the same thing with our bible. There are places in the Bible where it clearly says that Yah have a command. Then there are places where it is not that way at all. Yeshua was constantly irritated at how dense the apostles could be, yet we read their writings and place it as highly as we do Gods words. In my opinion we should weigh and measure everything based off of the Torah, his actual commands, and the character of our Father.

No, that does not seem like a proper way for us to approach the Bible. The whole of Scripture is inspired by God.

The Logos of God (Christ), become flesh, among us must have the absolute preeminence.

"Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world. He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature, and he upholds the universe by the word of his power. After making purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high, having become as much superior to angels as the name he has inherited is more excellent than theirs." (Hebrews 1:1-4 ESV)

"He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him. And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together. And he is the head of the body, the church. He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in everything he might be preeminent. For in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of his cross." (Col. 1:15-20 ESV)

Of course the Torah is consistent with the Logos, the Word become flesh. He gave the Law to Moses.

The Son Himself is the Standard, and He alone now has the absolute preeminence, even above the Written Word.

 

[OttoM]

Consider this - perhaps headship and monogamy only doctrine wouldn’t have such pushback from the mainstream church - if pastors spent more time reading from the Law of Moses?

Paul’s letters are letters written to a specific group of people - living in a different time - with different circumstances. For example - he says don’t marry because you will suffer persecution. Then he goes back to the law of Moses by saying that if you do marry - you aren’t sinning. He just personally believes you’re better off not marrying. But he didn’t say “I prohibit you from marrying.”

However, people have twisted that part of his letter - by issuing prohibitions on marriage themselves. For example, Catholic priests are not allowed to marry (for the most part). That’s why it’s always good to go back to the Rock - what does the un-changing Rock say - who is the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow. Hebrews 13:8

 

[Joleneakamama]

Sorry, WAAAY too PC. Does EVERY prominent character have to be secretly "gay" today?

To be clear I was not suggesting he was.
My thinking was that he, being a "pharisee of pharisees" was probably influenced by the contemporary religion of his day which included the knostics.

 

[Ruth Elizabeth]

I believe there is another explanation than Paul being gay at heart. The knostics back at that time believed everything physical, sensual, and/or sexual (especially sexual) was "bad" ...carnal....sinful. I suspect as Paul was devout and sincere that he was influenced by this ideology that I believe is very wrong and anti-life as Marc's original post points out. At times he says plainly it's his opinion, he's not speaking for YHWH there.

I'm shocked and grossed out by the fact that people openly accuse a prophet of such a sin. If I were Paul, I would be offended.
It comes from not actually viewing homosexuality as a real sin I suppose. It comes from not believing that it is merely a temptation and a trap of the devil. But once you have accepted a sin in your heart enough to have defined yourself by that sin, you have lusted in your heart.
Paul speaks so openly against homosexuality condemns men turning from the natural use of the women and burning in their lusts one towards another, read Romans 1. There is no way he would have accepted and secretly defined himself by a sin that God burned nations for. There is no way a man who in 1 Corinthians 6 talks about how your body is a temple, would pay enough heed to any temptation that he would define himself openly or secretly as a homosexual, and by doing so, offend God.

 

[MemeFan]

Consider this - perhaps headship and monogamy only doctrine wouldn’t have such pushback from the mainstream church - if pastors spent more time reading from the Law of Moses?

Good point.

Only issue is that pastors won't prefer texts providing arguments against their beliefs.

When marriage is topic of sermon when is verse about women rights of food, clothing and sex ever read? Like never because it would imply ammo for proving falsehood of monogamy-only doctrine.

 

[OttoM]

Good point.

Only issue is that pastors won't prefer texts providing arguments against their beliefs.

When marriage is topic of sermon when is verse about women rights of food, clothing and sex ever read? Like never because it would imply ammo for proving falsehood of monogamy-only doctrine.

Bingo. There-in lies the deceptiveness of it all. They tell you that the scriptures are truth. They just hope you don’t really believe, and deep dive yourself.

I think the best solution would be for every Sunday (most services are on Sunday) - there’s a continual reading of the first 5 books. Maybe 15-20 minutes. That way people can at least hear the Word. But they won’t - it would be opening up a can of worms.

 

[Joleneakamama]

No way. I'm honestly shocked and grossed out by the fact that you people would openly accuse a prophet of such a sin. If I were Paul, I would be offended.
It comes from not actually viewing homosexuality as a real sin I suppose. It comes from not believing that it is merely a temptation and a trap of the devil. But once you have accepted a sin in your heart enough to have defined yourself by that sin, you have lusted in your heart.
Paul speaks so openly against homosexuality condemns men turning from the natural use of the women and burning in their lusts one towards another, read Romans 1. There is no way he would have accepted and secretly defined himself by a sin that God burned nations for. There is no way a man who in 1 Corinthians 6 talks about how your body is a temple, would pay enough heed to any temptation that he would define himself openly or secretly as a homosexual, and by doing so, offend God.

I agree with you....but you quoted me and then posted like you think that was my suggestion.