Does it make sense to try to convince me of Paul's holiness, by using the words of Paul to put me down? Beep beep beep beep warning warning incoming Waybrain alert !!!!
Shifra, I understand what you're saying but, aren't you using Paul's words to convince yourself (and maybe others) that Paul was anything but holy?
And yet Paul instituted his own laws in the process. Laws about whether or not to marry and why, whether or not to divorce and why, laws about when women could and could not speak, laws about marking and avoiding, laws about divorce, etc.
Comment: Marriage involves two people not only one. Thus the law of liberty must be involved in shaping the means in which they treat each other.
Marriage can simply become another form of slavery. Also through the translation Paul's intent has been obscured.
It all seems a moot point when Paul says, there is neither male nor female..
So if there is neither male nor female which one in the relationship is the husband and which is the wife?
Another note, a law is not a law if God is not going to punish you for disobedience. God can only see us as holy because God looks to our spirits not our faults. (we would not know this if we did not have Paul's law of liberty.)
But by breaking the law of liberty we do pay a price in the flesh even though our spirits are untouchable...
If you have not read The Two Ways Of The First Century Church by David Anderson. You and others who are intersted in doctrinal topics might find it interesting.
It talks about the conflict between Paul and the legalistic Christian Jews Lead by James, the Lords Brother. As I remember, in some ways it supports your theories about Paul and in others it contradicts them.
And yet Paul instituted his own laws in the process. Laws about whether or not to marry and why, whether or not to divorce and why, laws about when women could and could not speak, laws about marking and avoiding, laws about divorce, etc.
Comment: Marriage involves two people not only one. Thus the law of liberty must be involved in shaping the means in which they treat each other.
Marriage can simply become another form of slavery. Also through the translation Paul's intent has been obscured.
It all seems a moot point when Paul says, there is neither male nor female..
So if there is neither male nor female which one in the relationship is the husband and which is the wife?
Another note, a law is not a law if God is not going to punish you for disobedience. God can only see us as holy because God looks to our spirits not our faults. (we would not know this if we did not have Paul's law of liberty.)
But by breaking the law of liberty we do pay a price in the flesh even though our spirits are untouchable...
Sorry, but that simply does not make sense to me. Oh, the first part sort of does, the part about things that involve more than one person, because obviously there is a lack of love if you go about pleasing yourself at someone else's expense all the time.
But if the notion that their is neither male nor female rules, then why bother stating the husband is the head of the wife? Why bother saying wives should remain silent in the church - which even Jewish law does not teach? If there is no punishment for disobedience then why are the wages of sin death? why are there writings regarding marking and avoiding? Why did Annanias die for lying?
***Darn, this is Abigail posting, btw, not Sushi***
Just a quick comment (to DrWW) and then I gotta run:
You speak of God looking on our spirits and not on our faults, and then you say we would not know of this if it weren't for Paul.
Well ...
Maybe YOU wouldn't know this if it weren't for Paul. But I would.
Perhaps when you have more time you'll tell DrWW (and the rest of us following this thread) how you would know it. And while you're doing that you might also address what 2 Peter says in verses 15 and 16
And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.
It seems to me that Peter had the opinion that Paul's writings (Epistles) were given to him by God. Should we just conclude he was hoodwinked by Paul and therefore toss out what he wrote as well?
Paul's epistles are not the productions of only one writer. I've personally detected (as a number of others before me) at least 3- 4 hands throughout canonical material attributed to "Paul", in many cases, within the same "letter". The canonical epistles are essentially orthodox reworkings and expansions of a group of writings which first enjoyed circulation in a much shorter form among the "gnostic" circles. The earliest known NT canon published by the Marcionites contained these shorter versions of Paul (circ.120-130), which interestingly enough, did not include "Acts" or the "Pastoral epistles", most likely because they had not been invented yet by their rivals.
Now consider for one moment: the earliest known "Pauline" enthusiasts - to whom Paul was the only true Apostle - among the most intense zealots for anything Pauline - were vegetarians and ascetics- almost like Essenes, really - which practiced various rituals of water baptisms and fastings - which teachers and ministers comprised of both men and women.
They didn't know, recognize or accept the version of "Saul/Paul" as depicted in our "Acts". Nor those sections interpolated into the Pauline material by their orthodox competition,
which re-cast Paul in their image, and gave him a new identity and history, and tweaked his theology to counter the beliefs of the earlier movement out of which the figure of Paul originally emerged. Among the beliefs concerning the life of the apostle of this earlier movement, was that Paul had actually witnessed the crucifixion, and had even written "the Gospel". (which hardly accords with the spin of material on Paul in the later production of "Acts"!)
Who was "Paul", really?
It's a very good question, when considering there are versions of the life of Paul which preceded the mix presented through the essentially anti-Marcionite propaganda of our orthodox material.
"Paul" may indeed have been an alias.
I've heard Simon Magus, Marcion of Sinope, and even Judas Iscariot proposed.
Paul's epistles are not the productions of only one writer. I've personally detected (as a number of others before me) at least 3- 4 hands throughout canonical material attributed to "Paul", in many cases, within the same "letter". The canonical epistles are essentially orthodox reworkings and expansions of a group of writings which first enjoyed circulation in a much shorter form among the "gnostic" circles. The earliest known NT canon published by the Marcionites contained these shorter versions of Paul (circ.120-130), which interestingly enough, did not include "Acts" or the "Pastoral epistles", most likely because they had not been invented yet by their rivals.
Now consider for one moment: the earliest known "Pauline" enthusiasts - to whom Paul was the only true Apostle - among the most intense zealots for anything Pauline - were vegetarians and ascetics- almost like Essenes, really - which practiced various rituals of water baptisms and fastings - which teachers and ministers comprised of both men and women.
They didn't know, recognize or accept the version of "Saul/Paul" as depicted in our "Acts". Nor those sections interpolated into the Pauline material by their orthodox competition,
which re-cast Paul in their image, and gave him a new identity and history, and tweaked his theology to counter the beliefs of the earlier movement out of which the figure of Paul originally emerged. Among the beliefs concerning the life of the apostle of this earlier movement, was that Paul had actually witnessed the crucifixion, and had even written "the Gospel". (which hardly accords with the spin of material on Paul in the later production of "Acts"!)
Who was "Paul", really?
It's a very good question, when considering there are versions of the life of Paul which preceded the mix presented through the essentially anti-Marcionite propaganda of our orthodox material.
"Paul" may indeed have been an alias.
I've heard Simon Magus, Marcion of Sinope, and even Judas Iscariot proposed.
Danny
Paul nor his writings are "Gnostic"... If they were then salvation would be of works and not of the grace of God. You might want to sturdy that foundation of yours a bit before you start breaking up the writings of Paul with supposed "other" authors...
Also, the immortal leaves his/her earthly "imperfect" flesh behind for the body for Christ.
1Corinthians 4:14
I write not these things to shame you, but as my beloved sons I warn you.
Do you know what you are talking about wearword, when you say 'gnostic'?
I didn't know anything about it till I heard about here at GSC.
And I did some online research as well as communication with one who knows.
Gnosticism is holiness through knowledge rather than holiness due to the gift of God.
1Corinthians 8:1
Now as touching things offered unto idols, we know that we all have knowledge. Knowledge puffeth up, but charity edifieth.
1Corinthians 13:2
And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing
1Co 13:8
Charity never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away.
Comment: Our English word for knowledge comes from the root word gnosis...
Agree or disagree, the Unseen One has done more studying than most folks on GS. You may not agree with his conclusions, but he has done his homework.
It seems more that he has rewritten history with pure supposition...
Just a quick comment (to DrWW) and then I gotta run:
You speak of God looking on our spirits and not on our faults, and then you say we would not know of this if it weren't for Paul.
Well ...
Maybe YOU wouldn't know this if it weren't for Paul. But I would.
1Co 2:4
And my speech and my preaching was not with enticing words of man's wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power:
1Co 2:13
Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
Comment: God implies NONE are exempt from the nature of man's wisdom... I prefer to believe the word because it leads to humility and not human pride (which you seem full of...) You reject the great mystery, as if you knew it all along... maybe it is time to get honest WITH YOURSELF... <_<
You reject the great mystery, as if you knew it all along... maybe it is time to get honest WITH YOURSELF...
Where did you get this idea from? No one has said they reject the mystery. That's just what you are seeing that is not there. Besides an understanding of the mystery is another thing we all know in part. If we could get together on these things, much can be gained from each other via the Holy Spirit working.
Then get into what was actually happening in the 1st and 2nd centuries, which are recorded as factual and true.
Could you point our where I was wrong instead of just telling me I am wrong and then giving a slew of links.
(That is in your own words...)
The Holy Bible taught me what gnosticism is not wikipedia...
If I relied on wikipedia for faith and practice I would be agnostic...
Wearword,
Where did you get this idea from? No one has said they reject the mystery. That's just what you are seeing that is not there. Besides an understanding of the mystery is another thing we all know in part. If we could get together on these things, much can be gained from each other via the Holy Spirit working.
To imply the Bible (i.e.Paul's revelations) is not needed to know God's wisdom is inane...
I love you all and before this gets out of hand I thought I would let you know this first...
You are mistaken in that you used a dictionary for the word from the bible instead of actually doing some searches for different ideas and meanings. The bible is NOT the only source for truth.
A slew of links? I gave you two.
If you don't want to learn more about it that's fine.
But you are the one who said someone else didn't know what they were talking about.
When it's actually you not understanding what the person is talking about.
And seemingly, you do not want to look any further then the bible.
Which is a big mistake imo, there is so much to be learned from many sources.
And God's hand can be seen in them if you look.
Most are afraid or just stubborn to consider other ideas and facts.
For a variety of reasons, which I could list.
But I'd rather just say be honest and consider more then you think you can.
Cause it is within you to look and consider without much effort.
If someone else does it for you then you won't get much from it.
I believe all exploration is great. God leads each of us on their own individual journeys. Shifra, keep exploring!
I've been down some interesting paths myself - and been known to believe one thing, then as I learned more, change my mind. We're all on a personal walk with God.
I believe there was no one better God could have used to reach out to the gentile/pagan nations with the message of Christ, then Paul.
First, people say, why did God send Christ when he did? Because the Kiaros was right. I.e., not the chronological time period, but Kairos is used in the sense of, the time is right.
Rome was the main power or Kingdom in the world at that time (I know there was china, etc., but its interesting to see what the Bible says about the division between east and west).
To spread the message to the gentiles and pagans, one thing all had a knowledge of, at that time, under Roman rule was a general Hellinistic way of thinking. Thus, the time was right.
The doctrine of "Logos" was a profound Hellinstic concept that had spread, people from africa, Alexandria, Europe and all over understood this concept. We read about it in John, the first few verses. The gentiles and pagans understood this.
God needed a Jewish person (Paul), learned and thoroughly knowledgeable of the OT, prophecies, law, etc. - a true, devout, Jewish believer. Someone who could explain all of this to the gentiles.
He also needed someone versed in the gentile greek concepts. This was extremely important.
Most people then were not Jews. They did not understand Judaism.
Paul was able to explain the significance of Christ, and his fulfillment then, and in the future, in terms of the OT law and prophets, in a language and with concepts totally understandable to the Gentiles/pagans.
We saw the result, the Word spread throughtout the known Roman empire and beyond.
Paul was able to synthesize the OT, and via his intimate relation with Christ and the Spirit - this ministry given to him by God - he was able to synthesize the OT with what had happened - Christ. He was able to put it in Gentile terms and carry it into the New Testament. That's why its called a "New Testament."
Via revelation, the new came into concretion. Progressive revelation.
Without Paul, Christianity would have been another Jewish "sect." Christianity would have died out. Peter would have gone back under the law, and he was heading there when Paul confronted him.
Christ told Peter, when he was old, another would carry him. I believe that "another" was Paul. It was Paul who confronted him, got him back out from under the law, and Peter called him his brother.
What you see in the book of Acts is the struggle in early Christianity between OT law and NT grace, the law having been fulfilled. And it was a struggle.
From reading outside sources about James, whose followers caused riots and his devotion to law, I could say maybe he was a huge hinderance to the spread of the Word. If he had had his way, Christianity surely would have died out.
We have to remember they were human, all, with strengths and weaknesses.
But Paul was the perfect choice for reaching the gentile/pagan world at that time. He had lived and been raised in both worlds and knew both world intimately, from Jewish prophecy to Greek philosophy, he was able to travel and teach in both worlds.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
34
23
45
50
Popular Days
Jul 25
48
Jul 27
32
Jul 22
22
Jul 24
16
Top Posters In This Topic
Abigail 34 posts
Shifra 23 posts
Larry N Moore 45 posts
DrWearWord 50 posts
Popular Days
Jul 25 2007
48 posts
Jul 27 2007
32 posts
Jul 22 2007
22 posts
Jul 24 2007
16 posts
Larry N Moore
Shifra, I understand what you're saying but, aren't you using Paul's words to convince yourself (and maybe others) that Paul was anything but holy?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
DrWearWord
Abigail wrote:
And yet Paul instituted his own laws in the process. Laws about whether or not to marry and why, whether or not to divorce and why, laws about when women could and could not speak, laws about marking and avoiding, laws about divorce, etc.
Comment: Marriage involves two people not only one. Thus the law of liberty must be involved in shaping the means in which they treat each other.
Marriage can simply become another form of slavery. Also through the translation Paul's intent has been obscured.
It all seems a moot point when Paul says, there is neither male nor female..
So if there is neither male nor female which one in the relationship is the husband and which is the wife?
Another note, a law is not a law if God is not going to punish you for disobedience. God can only see us as holy because God looks to our spirits not our faults. (we would not know this if we did not have Paul's law of liberty.)
But by breaking the law of liberty we do pay a price in the flesh even though our spirits are untouchable...
Edited by DrWearWordLink to comment
Share on other sites
Larry N Moore
You're forgetting one thing -- the context of this verse is in relationship to the "body of Christ." In that "body" gender is not an issue.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ckeer
Hi Shifra.
If you have not read The Two Ways Of The First Century Church by David Anderson. You and others who are intersted in doctrinal topics might find it interesting.
It talks about the conflict between Paul and the legalistic Christian Jews Lead by James, the Lords Brother. As I remember, in some ways it supports your theories about Paul and in others it contradicts them.
It can be read at:
http://my.en.com/~anders/intro.html
Link to comment
Share on other sites
DrWearWord
So are we the fleshly reality or the spiritual reality?
You cannot be perfect and imperfect at the same time.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
DrWearWord
Before Paul's conversion he was not much more (comparatively) than an radical Muslim cleric...
Edited by DrWearWordLink to comment
Share on other sites
cman
That's a good one wearword and shows some thinking for sure.
Funny when we ask the questions the answers are in the questions usually.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
templelady
Of course you can. You can have perfect spritual communication with Heavenly Father while being in a physical body that is paralized by a stroke.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ckeer
unless logically speaking you are perfectly imperfect.
In this case the reality of Spiritual perfection in Christ existing in the physical reality of an imperfect physical body living in a carnal world.
I think Paul and others address this at times in the Bible.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sushi
Sorry, but that simply does not make sense to me. Oh, the first part sort of does, the part about things that involve more than one person, because obviously there is a lack of love if you go about pleasing yourself at someone else's expense all the time.
But if the notion that their is neither male nor female rules, then why bother stating the husband is the head of the wife? Why bother saying wives should remain silent in the church - which even Jewish law does not teach? If there is no punishment for disobedience then why are the wages of sin death? why are there writings regarding marking and avoiding? Why did Annanias die for lying?
***Darn, this is Abigail posting, btw, not Sushi***
Edited by SushiLink to comment
Share on other sites
cman
Hi Abigail,
lol...I did think it was Sushi for a moment there...lol...
i was getting ready for the punch line!..:)
Well regarding all this about women, marriage, divorce and including virgins, eunuchs,
male, female husband, wife and probably more terms.
I just don't buy it that he is talking about what we see with our eyes,
the fleshly part of all these terms, the dictionary meaning ya know.
Gotta up the thinking a bit for me for it to make sense.
These are spiritual works of art, us people to which he is writing.
Not many translators see it as such and have written in there own thinking.
Not letting it say what it is trying to communicate about our relationship with God.
And especially the Lord Jesus Christ, of which he is talking about.
And the mark and avoid thing has been so abused by so many it ain't funny.
I just back off of that and think common sense and just life in general.
I know some times who to avoid, so they are marked by me.
Because I want to avoid being caught in a trap,
and protect my sanity and thinking and peace in my house and heart.
I'd bet you a nickel that the translation is very screwy....maybe even a dime :)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Shifra
Just a quick comment (to DrWW) and then I gotta run:
You speak of God looking on our spirits and not on our faults, and then you say we would not know of this if it weren't for Paul.
Well ...
Maybe YOU wouldn't know this if it weren't for Paul. But I would.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Larry N Moore
Perhaps when you have more time you'll tell DrWW (and the rest of us following this thread) how you would know it. And while you're doing that you might also address what 2 Peter says in verses 15 and 16
And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.
It seems to me that Peter had the opinion that Paul's writings (Epistles) were given to him by God. Should we just conclude he was hoodwinked by Paul and therefore toss out what he wrote as well?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheInvisibleDan
Paul's epistles are not the productions of only one writer. I've personally detected (as a number of others before me) at least 3- 4 hands throughout canonical material attributed to "Paul", in many cases, within the same "letter". The canonical epistles are essentially orthodox reworkings and expansions of a group of writings which first enjoyed circulation in a much shorter form among the "gnostic" circles. The earliest known NT canon published by the Marcionites contained these shorter versions of Paul (circ.120-130), which interestingly enough, did not include "Acts" or the "Pastoral epistles", most likely because they had not been invented yet by their rivals.
Now consider for one moment: the earliest known "Pauline" enthusiasts - to whom Paul was the only true Apostle - among the most intense zealots for anything Pauline - were vegetarians and ascetics- almost like Essenes, really - which practiced various rituals of water baptisms and fastings - which teachers and ministers comprised of both men and women.
They didn't know, recognize or accept the version of "Saul/Paul" as depicted in our "Acts". Nor those sections interpolated into the Pauline material by their orthodox competition,
which re-cast Paul in their image, and gave him a new identity and history, and tweaked his theology to counter the beliefs of the earlier movement out of which the figure of Paul originally emerged. Among the beliefs concerning the life of the apostle of this earlier movement, was that Paul had actually witnessed the crucifixion, and had even written "the Gospel". (which hardly accords with the spin of material on Paul in the later production of "Acts"!)
Who was "Paul", really?
It's a very good question, when considering there are versions of the life of Paul which preceded the mix presented through the essentially anti-Marcionite propaganda of our orthodox material.
"Paul" may indeed have been an alias.
I've heard Simon Magus, Marcion of Sinope, and even Judas Iscariot proposed.
Danny
Link to comment
Share on other sites
DrWearWord
Paul nor his writings are "Gnostic"... If they were then salvation would be of works and not of the grace of God. You might want to sturdy that foundation of yours a bit before you start breaking up the writings of Paul with supposed "other" authors...
Also, the immortal leaves his/her earthly "imperfect" flesh behind for the body for Christ.
1Corinthians 4:14
I write not these things to shame you, but as my beloved sons I warn you.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
cman
Do you know what you are talking about wearword, when you say 'gnostic'?
I didn't know anything about it till I heard about here at GSC.
And I did some online research as well as communication with one who knows.
Edited by cmanLink to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
Link to comment
Share on other sites
DrWearWord
Gnosticism is holiness through knowledge rather than holiness due to the gift of God.
1Corinthians 8:1
Now as touching things offered unto idols, we know that we all have knowledge. Knowledge puffeth up, but charity edifieth.
1Corinthians 13:2
And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing
1Co 13:8
Charity never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away.
Comment: Our English word for knowledge comes from the root word gnosis...
It seems more that he has rewritten history with pure supposition...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
DrWearWord
1Co 2:4
And my speech and my preaching was not with enticing words of man's wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power:
1Co 2:13
Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
Comment: God implies NONE are exempt from the nature of man's wisdom... I prefer to believe the word because it leads to humility and not human pride (which you seem full of...) You reject the great mystery, as if you knew it all along... maybe it is time to get honest WITH YOURSELF... <_<
Edited by DrWearWordLink to comment
Share on other sites
cman
You are incorrect and do not understand, wearword.
I suggest you look up Gnostic in your search engine.
Gnostcism and eary christian writings.
As well as Marcion and the gospels you have never seen.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/
You could start here-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnosticism
Which is a basic surface reading.
Then get into what was actually happening in the 1st and 2nd centuries, which are recorded as factual and true.
Edited by cmanLink to comment
Share on other sites
cman
Wearword,
Where did you get this idea from? No one has said they reject the mystery. That's just what you are seeing that is not there. Besides an understanding of the mystery is another thing we all know in part. If we could get together on these things, much can be gained from each other via the Holy Spirit working.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
DrWearWord
Could you point our where I was wrong instead of just telling me I am wrong and then giving a slew of links.
(That is in your own words...)
The Holy Bible taught me what gnosticism is not wikipedia...
If I relied on wikipedia for faith and practice I would be agnostic...
To imply the Bible (i.e.Paul's revelations) is not needed to know God's wisdom is inane...
I love you all and before this gets out of hand I thought I would let you know this first...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
cman
You are mistaken in that you used a dictionary for the word from the bible instead of actually doing some searches for different ideas and meanings. The bible is NOT the only source for truth.
A slew of links? I gave you two.
If you don't want to learn more about it that's fine.
But you are the one who said someone else didn't know what they were talking about.
When it's actually you not understanding what the person is talking about.
And seemingly, you do not want to look any further then the bible.
Which is a big mistake imo, there is so much to be learned from many sources.
And God's hand can be seen in them if you look.
Most are afraid or just stubborn to consider other ideas and facts.
For a variety of reasons, which I could list.
But I'd rather just say be honest and consider more then you think you can.
Cause it is within you to look and consider without much effort.
If someone else does it for you then you won't get much from it.
Edited by cmanLink to comment
Share on other sites
Sunesis
I believe all exploration is great. God leads each of us on their own individual journeys. Shifra, keep exploring!
I've been down some interesting paths myself - and been known to believe one thing, then as I learned more, change my mind. We're all on a personal walk with God.
I believe there was no one better God could have used to reach out to the gentile/pagan nations with the message of Christ, then Paul.
First, people say, why did God send Christ when he did? Because the Kiaros was right. I.e., not the chronological time period, but Kairos is used in the sense of, the time is right.
Rome was the main power or Kingdom in the world at that time (I know there was china, etc., but its interesting to see what the Bible says about the division between east and west).
To spread the message to the gentiles and pagans, one thing all had a knowledge of, at that time, under Roman rule was a general Hellinistic way of thinking. Thus, the time was right.
The doctrine of "Logos" was a profound Hellinstic concept that had spread, people from africa, Alexandria, Europe and all over understood this concept. We read about it in John, the first few verses. The gentiles and pagans understood this.
God needed a Jewish person (Paul), learned and thoroughly knowledgeable of the OT, prophecies, law, etc. - a true, devout, Jewish believer. Someone who could explain all of this to the gentiles.
He also needed someone versed in the gentile greek concepts. This was extremely important.
Most people then were not Jews. They did not understand Judaism.
Paul was able to explain the significance of Christ, and his fulfillment then, and in the future, in terms of the OT law and prophets, in a language and with concepts totally understandable to the Gentiles/pagans.
We saw the result, the Word spread throughtout the known Roman empire and beyond.
Paul was able to synthesize the OT, and via his intimate relation with Christ and the Spirit - this ministry given to him by God - he was able to synthesize the OT with what had happened - Christ. He was able to put it in Gentile terms and carry it into the New Testament. That's why its called a "New Testament."
Via revelation, the new came into concretion. Progressive revelation.
Without Paul, Christianity would have been another Jewish "sect." Christianity would have died out. Peter would have gone back under the law, and he was heading there when Paul confronted him.
Christ told Peter, when he was old, another would carry him. I believe that "another" was Paul. It was Paul who confronted him, got him back out from under the law, and Peter called him his brother.
What you see in the book of Acts is the struggle in early Christianity between OT law and NT grace, the law having been fulfilled. And it was a struggle.
From reading outside sources about James, whose followers caused riots and his devotion to law, I could say maybe he was a huge hinderance to the spread of the Word. If he had had his way, Christianity surely would have died out.
We have to remember they were human, all, with strengths and weaknesses.
But Paul was the perfect choice for reaching the gentile/pagan world at that time. He had lived and been raised in both worlds and knew both world intimately, from Jewish prophecy to Greek philosophy, he was able to travel and teach in both worlds.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.