New to THEOS - intro and question

[Barnsweb]

I first learned of Steve on KCBC and was overjoyed to hear he agreed with my understanding that we need to be disciples of Jesus, as this is what I learned He taught. I don't know Steve's spiritual 'roots', but I was raised Church of Christ and a few of their doctrines - namely non-instrumental worship and if something is not approved in the New Testament it is prohibited - both of these have offended my soul, so to speak. After a mid-life crisis I had to determine the truth for myself and I turned to note each and every thing Jesus (Y'shua) taught, which lead to the stark fact that what He taught and what Paul taught are not all that compatible. Over time I came up with a web site that listed all the teachings of the Master, noting the importance He put on being hearers and doers of whatever He had to say is the direct Doctrine of God.

Upon recommendation from someone else I purchased a book on the topic and find it extremely interesting and I'm wondering how many others also have concern for what 'we' in the West have received and consider Scripture. Well, actually two books. First came the AENT (Aramaic English New Testament - Netzari Press LLC, 2010; its claims to be the nearest to original are well substantiated (manuscript to 167 AD)). The second book is 'Jesus' Words Only', by Douglas J. Del Tondo, Esq, 2007.

Is anyone here conversant in either? My dear brothers in Christ, I fear we need to do as God commands - apply the same tests to Paul that God commands that we reject those who would lead us away from doing what God said to do.

My accounting of His words is at:
onediscipletoanother.org

Replies and discussion is appreciated!
Richard

[steve]

Hi Barnsweb,

Welcome to the fellowship here! I, for one, cannot see any difference between the teachings of Christ and those of Paul.

—Both taught that Jesus is the Son of God, the Lord, the Messiah, the King and Savior:

Jesus: John 5:18; 10:36; 13:13; Matt.16:16-17; 28:18
Paul: Acts 9:22; 17:7; Romans 1:3; 10:9; Phil.2:11

—Both taught that a man is justified, prior to doing any righteous deeds, through humble repentance and faith toward God.

Jesus: Luke 18:13-14; 23:42-43; John 5:24; 6:40, 47
Paul: Acts 13:39; Roman 3:26; 5:1; Eph.2:8-9; Titus 3:5-7

—Both taught that good works (works of obedience to God) are essential to the Christian life.

Jesus: Matthew 5:16; 7:24-27; 16:27; 25:31-46
Paul: Romans 2:6-10; 6:15-18; 8:4; Eph.2:10; Gal.5:6,16-25; Titus 1:16; 2:14; 3:1, 14

—Both taught that love for God and for one another is the supreme test of one's salvation.

Jesus: John 13:34-35
Paul: 1 Cor.13:1-3

—Both taught that the Law of Moses was holy, just and good.

Jesus: Matt.5:17-20
Paul: Romans 7:12

—Both taught that ceremonial laws do not rank in the same class as ethical and moral standards in the Law.

Jesus: Matthew 9:13; 12:2-7; 23:23-24
Paul: Romans 2:25-27; Col.2:16-17

—Both taught (for example) that Sabbath observance and kosher diet were not absolute requirements.

Jesus: Matthew 12:2-8; Mark 7:15-19
Paul: Rom.14:1-6; Col.2:16-17; 1 Tim.4:1-5

—Both taught that Jesus fulfilled the ceremonial (e.g., the sacrificial) requirements of the Law.

Jesus: Matthew 5:17; Mark 10:45
Paul: 1 Corinthians 5:7; 2 Tim.2:5-6 (see also Hebrews 9:25-26; 10:11-12

—Both taught that a New Covenant was established in the Upper Room, and ratified by Christ's death.

Jesus: Luke 22:20
Paul: 2 Cor.3:6 (see also Hebrews 8:13)

—Neither enforced the requirement of New Covenant disciples to follow Jewish ceremonies.

Jesus: Matthew 12:2-7; John 5:8-9
Paul: Galatians 4:10-11; 5:1-6; Col.2:20-21

—Both taught that following the teachings of Christ is the only true discipleship, and that those who do not agree with Christ's teachings are confused and dangerous.

Jesus: Matthew 7:24-27; 11:29; 28:19-10; Luke 6:40; John 8:31
Paul: 1 Cor.11:1; 2 Cor.10:5; 1 Timothy 6:3-4 (See also Hebrews 5:9)

—Both taught that neither faith alone nor works alone are adequate for living a life pleasing to God.

Jesus: Matthew 7:21; Luke 6:40
Paul: Galatians 5:6; Ephesians 2:8-10

—Both taught the same eschatology.

Jesus: Matthew 25:31-46; John 5:28-29; 6:39, 40, 44, 54
Paul: Acts 24:15; 1 Thess.4:15-17; 2 Thess.1:6-9; 2 Timothy 4:1

—Both described the character of God the same way.

Jesus: Matthew 5:45; Luke 6:35-36; 15:20-24; John 3:16
Paul: Romans 5:7-8; 8:29; Eph.2:4;



Where are you finding the stark disagreement between the two?



Jesus taught that to receive or reject those whom He sends is the same as receiving or rejecting Himself (John 13:20).

The question, then, is: Did Jesus send Paul as an apostle? If not...

—what happened on the Damascus Road? Did Paul lie about this?

—why did Peter and the other apostles recognize his claims to apostleship as legitimate? Were they false and unreliable apostles also?

—where did "the [miraculous] signs of an apostle" (2 Cor.12:12) in his ministry come from?

—why did he accept suffering, beatings, imprisonment, poverty, etc. for the sake of Christ?

—then we lose the credibility even of one of our Gospels which was written by a disciple and companion of Paul's (Luke), who could not possibly have held major disagreements with him. If Luke's Gospel can't be trusted, then neither can large portions of Mark or Matthew, which parallel Luke to a very large extent.


For a professed follower of Christ to reject the authority of Paul clearly seems problematic.

[Barnsweb]

I'm sort of hung up on a couple of things that seem different so far. God told us to be careful to do what He said and to test those who say they are speaking in His name. Passages such as Deu. 4, 12,13 and 18 come to mind, as does Isaiah 'if they speak not according to the Law and the Testimony there is no light in them. Jesus taught the same standards, putting emphasis on His refining teachings of the grace and truth of God. John, in I and II John, particularly taught the need to abide in the teachings of Jesus.

So what is it that Paul is confusing me over?

1. Saying the commandments are death to us and the Spirit is life. God said the Spirit would be sent to write His directions to us upon our hearts that we be drawn from the heart to keep them - not count them as death - not to discount them in any way. So how is it Paul seems to say in one of his letters that the Law was nailed to the cross - Jesus directly said not to think He came to destroy or loosen the commandments of God or the prophets.

2. That Paul gave his words many times as a 'thus sayeth the LORD' when I don't find the same things in the teachings of Jesus. For anyone to have a 'thus sayeth the LORD' they have to pass the tests mentioned above, which I can't find so far that Paul does.

Just a couple of things, but there may be more... The Bereans only had one sermon to check to see if Paul taught according to the Scripture - we have a number of books to check and see if Paul did. As Balaam was a true prophet who later taught falsehood, we need to ensure Paul didn't likewise teach it was ok to eat meat sacrificed to idols. (Christ's letter to Ephesus in Revelation)

[Barnsweb]

Peter, nor any of the twelve, called Paul an apostle. Peter said Paul was a brother who wrote things difficult to be understood, that others would twist, just as they do 'other' Scriptures. But then, there are many who doubt 2 Peter is actually written by Peter, including those who have the oldest preserved manuscripts from 167 AD. 2 Peter is not in the primary scroll as a sure thing - it came to them later and was somewhat questionable...

[Barnsweb]

From what I see, only Paul, Luke and Paul's followers considered him to be an apostle. Revelation says there are twelve apostles. Judas was eliminated, he was replaced before Pentecost. So Paul cannot be an apostle in the true sense - he wasn't among the disciples from the beginning. Additionally, when he went to Jerusalem, he pretty much had no regard for those who were apostles? Who was there? None of the twelve? And why do we see James reality of 'faith without works is dead', if not in response to what Paul was teaching?

The more I look into it, the more I question If I should listen to Paul at all... just a question at this time, and I appreciate your input, especially your list of where Jesus and Paul agree. I'll check into those.

[Singalphile]

Hello and welcome, Barnsweb.

I don't know much about the issue you raise. There are a couple of matches on a "Tondo" search here:
http://theos.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f= ... ndo#p53549
http://theos.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f= ... ndo#p51029
... so at least someone is familiar with it, but if it's been discussed more directly here, I can't find where.

A dedicated thread in one of the Scripture sub-forums - or wherever you think people might most easily find it in the future - might be a good idea, I think.

I'm glad that you're able to join in the discussion here.

[steve]

Hi Barnsweb,

I am glad you are here. I would like to address your concerns:

1. Saying the commandments are death to us and the Spirit is life. God said the Spirit would be sent to write His directions to us upon our hearts that we be drawn from the heart to keep them - not count them as death - not to discount them in any way. So how is it Paul seems to say in one of his letters that the Law was nailed to the cross - Jesus directly said not to think He came to destroy or loosen the commandments of God or the prophets.

I’m sure that Paul agreed that Jesus did not come to destroy the law and the prophets. Like Jesus, Paul believed that Jesus came to fulfill them. Like Peter (1 Peter 1:10-12) Paul affirmed that the law and the prophets tended to be misunderstood by the Jews (2 Cor.3:14-16) before the Spirit was given (which Jesus said would result in the disciples being led into all truth). Jesus seemed to think similarly about the blindness of the Jews (e.g., Matt.13:15; 15:14).

Paul’s statements contrasting “the Spirit” and “the Letter” (the latter equated with the Jewish law code) seem completely in agreement with Jesus’ words to the woman at the well. She wanted to know what the law required with reference to ritual worship (location, etc.). Jesus said that true worshipers will not be concerned about such ritual matters (“neither in this mountain nor Jerusalem”). He said God seeks people to worship Him “in Spirit and in Truth.” I believe that Paul’s words are right on the same page.

2. That Paul gave his words many times as a 'thus sayeth the LORD' when I don't find the same things in the teachings of Jesus. For anyone to have a 'thus sayeth the LORD' they have to pass the tests mentioned above, which I can't find so far that Paul does.

Paul passes every test of a true prophet that I have ever encountered in scripture. He forbade the worship of other gods (as per the test in Deut.13:1-3). He predicted things that came true (as per the test in Deut.18:21-22). He confessed that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh (as per the test in 1 John 4:2), and he said that sound doctrine is equated with “the words of our Lord Jesus Christ” (1 Tim.6:3), which makes Him a total supporter of Christ's teaching and authority (passing his own test, in 1 Cor.12:3, about declaring that Jesus is Lord).

Of course, like Jesus Himself, Paul did not approve of legalism, but he affirmed the legitimacy of all the law and the prophets, which means he did not fail the Isa.8:20 test either.

Every test passed.

He quoted Jesus as his authority as often as possible, but was quick to admit when he was either giving his own sanctified judgment about a matter, and where he was extending the teaching of Christ to circumstances about which Christ did not have occasion to speak directly (1 Cor.7).

Just a couple of things, but there may be more... The Bereans only had one sermon to check to see if Paul taught according to the Scripture - we have a number of books to check and see if Paul did. As Balaam was a true prophet who later taught falsehood, we need to ensure Paul didn't likewise teach it was ok to eat meat sacrificed to idols. (Christ's letter to Ephesus in Revelation)

Paul discouraged the eating of meat sacrificed to idols in any situation in which it might lead the eater or any other person into idolatry (1 Cor.8-10). The Torah nowhere forbade eating meat sacrificed to idols, per se—just idolatry itself. The rabbis went beyond the Torah in forbidding all eating of such meat. Paul was closer to Torah on this than were the rabbis.

In granting liberty in this matter, Paul was only echoing Jesus, who said that what a man eats will not defile him (Matt.15:11).

Peter, nor any of the twelve, called Paul an apostle. Peter said Paul was a brother who wrote things difficult to be understood, that others would twist, just as they do 'other' Scriptures. But then, there are many who doubt 2 Peter is actually written by Peter, including those who have the oldest preserved manuscripts from 167 AD. 2 Peter is not in the primary scroll as a sure thing - it came to them later and was somewhat questionable...

Peter’s authorship of 2 Peter is only as tenuous as is the apostolic authorship of the Book of Revelation. Both were rejected and both were accepted together in the early history of the church (neither were embraced wholeheartedly until 397 AD—after which both were accepted). You seem to accept the authority of Revelation. To do this, while seriously questioning 2 Peter is simply inconsistent.

If Peter really was aware of Paul’s letters (as he claims in 2 Peter 3:15-16, and as the contents of 1 Peter seem to demonstrate), then he knew that, in all his letters, Paul called himself “an apostle of Jesus Christ” (the same title that Peter himself wore). If Peter knew Paul was openly claiming such apostleship, but did not accept the claim as genuine, Peter would have called Paul a “false apostle”—not “our beloved brother.”

From what I see, only Paul, Luke and Paul's followers considered him to be an apostle.

Well, actually, unless Paul is making up false history, Peter, James and John acknowledged that Paul’s ministry among the Gentiles was as authentic and legitimate as was Peter’s among the circumcision (Gal.2:8-9). It would be pretty bold for Paul to make such stories up when the Jerusalem apostles were still living to refute him. In fact, the next thing Paul did after sending that letter was to attend a church council with the Jerusalem apostles—who confirmed their endorsement of his ministry and doctrine. Paul's claims about this meeting with the other apostles certainly could have been checked by any contemporary who read them. It seems unlikely that a man willing to die for his testimony would make up unnecessary false stories which could easily be debunked.

Revelation says there are twelve apostles.

And 2 Peter recognized Paul’s ministry (which was never represented as anything other than that of an apostle).

Judas was eliminated, he was replaced before Pentecost. So Paul cannot be an apostle in the true sense - he wasn't among the disciples from the beginning.

The twelve definitely were a unique group. According to Peter, et al., they were sent to the circumcision. Paul’s apostolic troupe were recognized by the others as having a similar ministry to the uncircumcision. This was apparently agreed upon among them all (Gal.2:8-9).

And why do we see James reality of 'faith without works is dead', if not in response to what Paul was teaching?

James could not have been refuting Paul’s teaching, since the “faith/works” thing was taught the same way by Paul as by James—except that Paul brought it up more frequently than did James (e.g., Gal.5:6; Eph.2:10; Titus 2:14). James was apparently writing against the antinomians. Paul wrote against them also (see Romans 2:5-10 and 6:15ff).

Your apparent misreading of Paul may lead you to reject Christ’s own appointee as the primary witness to the Gentiles. If you are yourself a Gentile (I don’t know this to be so) then you may be in danger of bearing false witness against a true brother, and rejecting Christ’s ambassador to you.

Please consider the contents of my previous post (above).

[Barnsweb]

Yes, I'll certainly check out the references cited. Your input is much appreciated.

Richard