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).
