Paul kindof stepped over the line more than once

gubberningbody

I was thinking of the passage at Galatians 1:6-8

" I marvel that YOU are being so quickly removed from the One who called YOU with Christ’s undeserved kindness over to another sort of good news. 7 But it is not another; only there are certain ones who are causing YOU trouble and wanting to pervert the good news about the Christ. 8 However, even if we or an angel out of heaven were to declare to YOU as good news something beyond what we declared to YOU as good news, let him be accursed. 9 As we have said above, I also now say again, Whoever it is that is declaring to YOU as good news something beyond what YOU accepted, let him be accursed."

So that was either hyperbole and irritation on his part and we shouldn't take it or anything else he said in a letter without some careful consideration, or he was seriously out of line in going down that road.

Pistoff

I think Paul stepped over the line when he went along with the ten young men vowing at the temple in Jerusalem, rather than just owning up to the fact that he DID think that following the law was unnecessary.

gubberningbody

Right about that too.

Nevermind all the rabinnicizing he did after Jesus tried to get all these to just knock it off.

Of course none of this creation makes any sense to me either, so I suppose some prefer some coherent narrative even if it doesn't touch any of the really difficult questions.

finallysomepride

If he was alive today he would be in the mental hospital along with John & probably a few of the others LOL

Kinjiro

Paul was just one of those over-zealous pricks... he just switched sides... he would be one of those old single bethelites that get assigned to congos; his only pleasure in life would be messing with them and making them feel miserable...

An a-hole with a cause and a grandeur complex... I correct myself.. today he would be one of the gb

PSacramento

Paul was certainl zelaous, he had the zeal of the convert, but we must not throw the baby out with the bathwater.

In regards to Galations, He was answering issues that had arosen in regards to people claiming that Jesus was not ressurected, which is the central theme of the Gospel he preached to them.

When Paul said that people preaching a gospel different than what he preached ( Jesus's ressurection and his being our lord and saviour) are accursed, he is echoing Jesus's words that "woe to anyone who is the stumbling block" to another's faith, "better that person not be born".

Pistoff

When Paul said that people preaching a gospel different than what he preached ( Jesus's ressurection and his being our lord and saviour) are accursed, he is echoing Jesus's words that "woe to anyone who is the stumbling block" to another's faith, "better that person not be born".

Paul was said to be a Pharisee; Pharisees believed in the resurrection. Thomas' community, probably not.

Paul's take on Jesus was unique to him; Paul's interest in Jesus is only in his role in the fight between light and darkness, not his miracles, not his teachings.

Paul's ideas were chosen to be the basis for christian ideas by those who selected the Bible canon hundreds of years later, silencing those who followed other gospels about Jesus. Paul's rules make for good community building, but do not reflect the diversity of belief about Jesus that existed in the 1st and 2nd century.

PSacramento

Paul was said to be a Pharisee; Pharisees believed in the resurrection. Thomas' community, probably not.

Paul's take on Jesus was unique to him; Paul's interest in Jesus is only in his role in the fight between light and darkness, not his miracles, not his teachings.

Paul's ideas were chosen to be the basis for christian ideas by those who selected the Bible canon hundreds of years later, silencing those who followed other gospels about Jesus. Paul's rules make for good community building, but do not reflect the diversity of belief about Jesus that existed in the 1st and 2nd century.

Quite correct, Paul was indeed a Pharisee and certainly many of those teachings were embedded in him and hard to get rid of.

I don't think Paul's take on Jesus was unique to him, he seems to focus on certainparts far mor than others, Paul's emphazies on Faith and Love are in line with Jesus's.

The Apostolic Fathers may have favoured Paul, but many of their doctrines were unique to them and not to Paul.

Pistoff

Quite correct, Paul was indeed a Pharisee and certainly many of those teachings were embedded in him and hard to get rid of.

Yes, including the resurrection, NOT a belief of all jews circa 180CE to 50 CE.

But the resurrection view held out, Paul's restrictive views about women held out too and his rules for congregations, something Jesus did not discuss.

PSacramento

Quote:

Yes, including the resurrection, NOT a belief of all jews circa 180CE to 50 CE.

But the resurrection view held out, Paul's restrictive views about women held out too and his rules for congregations, something Jesus did not discuss.

Well, Jesus taught of the ressurection so that was not "just Paul" doing the talking.

Paul's views on the role of women are still debated, outside of 1Timothy Paul seems to hold women in high regard, even mentioning some of them by name as "deacons", if I recall correctly.

As for the rules of the congregation, that too is debated. Paul certainly didn't follow them in his life time and didn't ask permission of the apostles very much.

Jesus taught that no one was above anyone else, Paul taught that the head of the chruch is Christ and all others are "slaves", BUt to respect your "elders" and such, IF they were preaching the right Gospel.

Paul kindof stepped over the line more than once

Share this