Christians rejecting Paul's teachings?

[FR0G]

Are there CHristians who reject the teachings of Paul, even feel they're in disagreement with the teachings of Jesus? If there are CHristians with these beliefs, are they found in all denominations, or is there a specific denomination which holds these beliefs?

[Bizzlebin Imperatoris]

I didn't know there was such a thing :confused:

[Treasure the Questions]

Are there CHristians who reject the teachings of Paul, even feel they're in disagreement with the teachings of Jesus? If there are CHristians with these beliefs, are they found in all denominations, or is there a specific denomination which holds these beliefs?
Why do you ask, FROG?

Karin

[seebs]

I've seen many people reject mainstream interpretations of Paul's beliefs, and some claim that Paul was in error, and corrupted the faith. I personally think that Paul is just very hard to understand.

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

I think we forget that Paul didn't know he was writing Scripture; he was writing to a particular church, in a particular situation, in a particular culture, facing particular issues, at a particular time.

Even for them, Peter admits, some things he says are hard to understand. They're even harder for us.

Many conservative exegeses of Paul's letters seem to ignore the context in which the letters were written, and interpret them as if they were written to us, today, here, facing the issues that we face. But GIGO; a faulty assumption here can lead to a faulty interpretation there.

[Treasure the Questions]

GIGO, Karl? If I didn't know better I'd think you'd started speaking baby talk!!;)

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

GIGO, Karl? If I didn't know better I'd think you'd started speaking baby talk!!;) Heh heh - so far the only baby talk I've learnt is [clears throad]

Ahem.

"Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!
Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!
Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!
Waha
Waha
Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!
Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!
Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!"

But GiGo?

Garbage In Garbage Out - first rule of data processing.

;)

[Treasure the Questions]

I see. thanks for the enlightenment. :)

[CaDan]

Garbage In Garbage Out - first rule of data processing.

;)

My father, who is a "Systems Specialist" (they ran out of titles) and remembers the day the first Honeywell arrived on-site with the label FULLY TRANSISTORIZED, has always insisted GIGO means

Garbage In, GOSPEL Out!

[FR0G]

I think we forget that Paul didn't know he was writing Scripture; he was writing to a particular church, in a particular situation, in a particular culture, facing particular issues, at a particular time.



So, that begs the question - IYO should Paul's letters have been included in the BIble? Why or why not?

[praying]

Are there CHristians who reject the teachings of Paul, even feel they're in disagreement with the teachings of Jesus? If there are CHristians with these beliefs, are they found in all denominations, or is there a specific denomination which holds these beliefs?


I don't reject Paul's teachings but in my opinion there are some of Paul's teachings that are in contrast with Jesus' what stands out the most for me, forgive I can not think of the book or verse, is where he is admonishing believers to cast out other believers who have fallen short. I don't believe Jesus would cast out anyone, He would not accept sinful behavior but He would not turn his back. I think that will only occur when the final judgement is made.

[praying]

I think we forget that Paul didn't know he was writing Scripture; he was writing to a particular church, in a particular situation, in a particular culture, facing particular issues, at a particular time.

Even for them, Peter admits, some things he says are hard to understand. They're even harder for us.

Many conservative exegeses of Paul's letters seem to ignore the context in which the letters were written, and interpret them as if they were written to us, today, here, facing the issues that we face. But GIGO; a faulty assumption here can lead to a faulty interpretation there.

emphasis mine.

I think that can be said of how many things are interpetted in the Bible.

[pmcleanj]

Many conservative exegeses of Paul's letters seem to ignore the context in which the letters were written, and interpret them as if they were written to us, today, here, facing the issues that we face.

Not just ignore the context, but even often ignore the rest of the letter! It never fails to amaze me that someone can read Galatians -- which is specifically and emphatically about not making oneself subject to the Law once one has been set free by the Gospel -- and use a verse out of it as a foundation for a rule like "the Bible forbids consuming alcohol" (Gal 5.21).

Paul was a brilliantly insightful social theologian. But his reasoning and teaching is highly sophisticated, and part of a well-reasoned and complete system of thought -- not a collection of isolated rulings to be taken out of context. And, it must be admitted, his thought obviously occasionally overran his secretaries' abilities to keep up, and I suspect even overran his own speech. You can detect in the letters obvious breaks where he's gotten off-track or ahead of himself, and had to pull himself back.

I wonder how often something that he wrote or said would eventually run full circuit through the Christian community and get back to him twisted out of recognition, leaving him banging his head against his cell wall shouting "No, no, no! That's not what I said!"

[praying]

. And, it must be admitted, his thought obviously occasionally overran his secretaries' abilities to keep up,

Paul had a secretary!! :eek: ;)



I wonder how often something that he wrote or said would eventually run full circuit through the Christian community and get back to him twisted out of recognition, leaving him banging his head against his cell wall shouting "No, no, no! That's not what I said!"

I am sure he right now wears a helmet in heaven :P

[Toney]

Jesus, before the crucifixion said He had come first for the "lost sheep of Israel." He was a Jew, ministering to Jews, speaking to Jews. When the risen Christ appeared to Paul, the mission to the Gentiles began, or at least it began when it became quite clear to Paul that his mission was to Gentiles, not to Jews.

It is useful to remember that Paul was a Hellenized Jew from the diaspora, not Judea.

I was never taught much by the church either in Sunday school or from the pulpit about how the Bible should really be read and interpreted. Or, perhaps, I just never really cared, never really questioned. I thought, for instance, that Paul's letters were in chronological order. Wrong. Worse, that the Gospels were written first. Wrong. I thought Paul wrote Hebrews. Wrong. I thought Paul got knocked off his horse and immediately went to work. Wrong (it was 9 long years before his 'mission' actually began; before he was 'sent'). The list continues.

[AudioArtist]

I think Paul says some very important individual things, such as matters like tongues and the works of the Holy Spirit and how they apply today, and how Jesus the Son relates to God the Father.

He does seem to be sexist sometimes though, which I will put down to the way he had to deal with certain specific Churches.

Eleminating Paul's letters would remove significant revelations about God and Jesus, though. Also, I think the parts where he casts out sinners are often misunderstood (though I don't really understand them myself!) One thing for certain is that they were specific cases in specific churches, so to learn how to deal with sinners GENERALLY we can look to jesus and also the book of James for answers.

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

So, that begs the question - IYO should Paul's letters have been included in the BIble? Why or why not?
I'm not sure why you think my post suggests that question at all.

All it means is that we need to bear the things I mentioned in mind when reading them.

[McCravey]

I think the problem we have with some of Paul's statements have to do with the running and organization of the churches.

Seems we have the same problem today

[Bizzlebin Imperatoris]

I think the problem we have with some of Paul's statements have to do with the running and organization of the churches.

Seems we have the same problem todayI think if we did follow Paul's teaching, especially on church structure, we'd be better off.

[McCravey]

I think if we did follow Paul's teaching, especially on church structure, we'd be better off.

I will respectfully disagree with you on that one. I feel as if men's personalities get in the way of church organization. People begin to act as if they have authority over others and everything becomes more like clubs, armies, governments, gangs, political action committees,
fashion shows, motivational meetings, etc. than churches.

I would enjoy worshiping in a structureless chruch (kind of like this forum, except of course for the "rules" of the forum) if I could find one.

[artybloke]

[QUOTE=McCravey
I would enjoy worshiping in a structureless chruch (kind of like this forum, except of course for the "rules" of the forum) if I could find one.[/QUOTE]

Society of Friends? :)

[McCravey]

[QUOTE=McCravey
I would enjoy worshiping in a structureless chruch (kind of like this forum, except of course for the "rules" of the forum) if I could find one.

Society of Friends? :)[/QUOTE]

I planned to go there last Sunday, but Frances interfered. I don't know when I will be able to try again, but I will plan to.

I learned about them from Seebs. It sounds like they fit what I am looking for.

I would be interested in hearing more about them. I've read all the material I could find. Are there any testimonies about them I could gain a greater understanding from before I go? What should I expect from my first visit?

[Treasure the Questions]

Don't want to steal arty's thunder, but I know he doesn't spend long here as a rule.

The British Quaker's website is here http://www.quaker.org.uk/

they probably have a link to the American.

Advices and Queries is an interesting read IMO, as is a lot of Quaker Faith and Practice (http://www.quaker.org.uk/), especially some of the later chapters.

Karin

[McCravey]

Don't want to steal arty's thunder, but I know he doesn't spend long here as a rule.

The British Quaker's website is here http://www.quaker.org.uk/

they probably have a link to the American.

Advices and Queries is an interesting read IMO, as is a lot of Quaker Faith and Practice (http://www.quaker.org.uk/), especially some of the later chapters.

Karin

Thanks Karin.

[Toney]

I wonder how similar the British Friends are to Orthodox Quakers in the U.S.

In the West Country (Cornwall in particular), the "big three" seemed to be Friends, Chapel goers (Wesleyans) and Anglicans (Church of England). My Cornish parish is a Royal Peculiar (like Westminster Abbey, not under the jurisdiction of the local bishop) and was founded by King Athelstan in the 900's. Some of that original Saxon church is extant. However, parish worship is decidedly Celtic Christian even today and furthermore one of the clergy (a priest) is female. Interestingly, the local witch in the village was invited (and came) to Christine's ordination!

Here is an info link on Quakers from Religious Tolerance (http://www.religioustolerance.org/quaker.htm).

The folks who developed this site have some family history at St Buryan in Cornwall. (http://users.netconnect.com.au/~jburrell/hutchens.html)

Frog, Having realised how off-topic I was with the above post, here is a link to a piece that appeared in the Kansas City Star (http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascitystar/living/religion/8724370.htm?1c) earlier this year. It suggests that Paul needs an extreme makeover. Personally, I believe that Paul's writings are essential to the proper understanding of Christianity, but that the poor fellow is one of the most misunderstood, misused, and misinterpreted men in the history of the world. I hope you will read this piece. CaDan, Poly and others may find the work of Mark Ramos (http://mywebpages.comcast.net/nanosmd/lectures.html) interesting.

[seebs]

What's curious to me is the existence of Christian groups that pretty much ignore what Christ said, and focus entirely on Paul.

[BBAS 64]

Are there CHristians who reject the teachings of Paul, even feel they're in disagreement with the teachings of Jesus? If there are CHristians with these beliefs, are they found in all denominations, or is there a specific denomination which holds these beliefs?
Good Day, Frog

It is kind of sad, but none the less it does exist:

Honoured Sir, how could it enter into your heart to choose a text to disprove the doctrine of election out of Romans 8, where this doctrine is so plainly asserted? Once I spoke with a Quaker upon this subject, and he had no other way of evading the force of the Apostle's assertion than by saying, "I believe Paul was in the wrong."



http://www.spurgeon.org/%7Ephil/wesley.htm (http://www.spurgeon.org/%7Ephil/wesley.htm)



Peace to u,

Bill

[seebs]

Well, Peter once said he didn't know Jesus, and I believe he was in the wrong. :)

[CaDan]

I learned about them from Seebs. It sounds like they fit what I am looking for.


Alright! TWO boxes of Cap'n Crunch with Crunchberries for me!

Maybe seebs will tell the story sometime (hint, hint).

[praying]

What's curious to me is the existence of Christian groups that pretty much ignore what Christ said, and focus entirely on Paul.

I am with you on that seebs.

[Treasure the Questions]

Well, Peter once said he didn't know Jesus, and I believe he was in the wrong. :)
Oooh Seebs! You heretic!;)

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

Let's not forget the ones who seem to forget the entire NT. ;)

[McCravey]

Well, Peter once said he didn't know Jesus, and I believe he was in the wrong. :)

Or worse yet, at the time he was probably correct.

[sculpturegirl]

In the US there are two main types of Quakers- Liberal Quakers and "Orthodox" Quakers. Liberal Quakers are so interested in tolerance that you don't really even need to believe in God to be a part of the "congregation." A friend of mine who works for the Quaker camp in MD says that they are so egalitarian that no one makes a decision and so peaceful that they are passive-agressive.

I would love to find a more orthodox quaker group, but the only one is an hour from here. They believe in Jesus Christ. I love a lot of their practices and simplicity in life.

The web is always a good resource to find different groups- good luck!

Paul is certainly very misunderstood. People think that he is very sexist. I don't think that "There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus" sounds very sexist to me. Certainly he believed in gender roles, but gender roles aren't always sexist. I personally agree with many gender roles, but with the corrupt nature of people, they have been perverted and women have been oppressed by those roles.

One of my favorite passages that is always taken out of context and out of the Spirit is the ever famous "Wives, submit to your husbands, as to the Lord." It seems that hardly any one reads what is required of the husband. "Husbands, love your wives just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her." (Eph. 5:22/25) Imagine that! Christ was the servant to his church, he healed her, washed her feet, clothed her, fed her and then he DIED for her sake! Wow, that is AWESOME responsibility for a husband. I will submit any day to a man who loves me such as this.

My 2 cents.

[seebs]

I'm in a fairly liberal Quaker group, but most of us are Christians in the traditional way. Not all... But I guess that doesn't bug me.

[notinvain]

He would not accept sinful behavior but He would not turn his back. I think that will only occur when the final judgement is made.
I respectfully disagree with the fact that Jesus didn't turn his back on people.

How about the rich young ruler?

How about the cities that Jesus denounced because they refused to repent?

There are more but I will need to look them up.

[praying]

I respectfully disagree with the fact that Jesus didn't turn his back on people.

How about the rich young ruler?

How about the cities that Jesus denounced because they refused to repent?

There are more but I will need to look them up.

he did not turn his back he gave them a choice and they made it, the wrong one but they turned their back on Jesus not the other way around. He told how and what and they turned away.

[muffler dragon]

I don't reject Paul's teachings but in my opinion there are some of Paul's teachings that are in contrast with Jesus' what stands out the most for me, forgive I can not think of the book or verse, is where he is admonishing believers to cast out other believers who have fallen short. I don't believe Jesus would cast out anyone, He would not accept sinful behavior but He would not turn his back. I think that will only occur when the final judgement is made.
I apologize for putting my nose in the business of others, considering I don't congregate in this forum much; but I hope you won't mind if I make a small interjection.

I just wanted to clarify regarding Sha'ul. He never admonished believers to cast out others who had or are falling short. Instead, he admonished believers to cast out those who willfully disobey the precepts set forth by G-d. The difference is the heart condition. Those who try are completely worthy to stay in the 'congregation' to learn and grow; whereas, those who are a detriment are not.

I will presume that you (anyone and everyone) understand the difference that I am trying to make.

Shalom,

m.d.

[notinvain]

he did not turn his back he gave them a choice and they made it, the wrong one but they turned their back on Jesus not the other way around. He told how and what and they turned away.
So did Jesus save these people anyway?

[Treasure the Questions]

In the US there are two main types of Quakers- Liberal Quakers and "Orthodox" Quakers. Liberal Quakers are so interested in tolerance that you don't really even need to believe in God to be a part of the "congregation." A friend of mine who works for the Quaker camp in MD says that they are so egalitarian that no one makes a decision and so peaceful that they are passive-agressive.

I visited a Quaker meeting on holiday and a couple of people there were interested in Bhuddism. However, I think they were interested in what it could teach us as Christians, not as an alternative faith.

The lady who runs our local Quakers is a lovely lady with pacifist principles. She has just gone to Palestine as part of the Ecumenical Accompanier Programme - she also got us some olive oil from Palestine, so that we could help those Palestinian olive growers who are having trouble exporting their produce due to the restrictions currently imposed on them.

As with any group of people there are always a few who give it a bad name, but liberal Quakers seem to be good people with Christ-centred values in the main.

Karin

[Toney]

m.d., Thanks for your post! It is good to see you here.

So did Jesus save these people anyway?

I do not believe it can be said that either He did or He did not. Surely such matters are God's Providence.

On CF, I note an inverse correlation to preoccupation with sin and Romans 14:12, " So then, each of us will give an account of himself to God. Therefore let us stop passing judgment on one another. Instead, make up your mind not to put any stumbling block or obstacle in your brother's way" (emphasis mine).

The burden of this genetic defect called Original Sin, dangled in front of Christianettes like a flaming carrot is, IMO, just such a "stumbling block or obstacle." It can rob us of productive years and promote spiritual malaise and despair. Those who teach it teach stupidity. It is they who see a need to exorcise infants (infant baptism) to rid them of this inherited evil.

[muffler dragon]

Not a problem, Toney. I'll have to see about spending some more time here.

[McCravey]

Just one note to add to the comments on Paul's teachings;

We have to know the difference between what Paul has to say and what Christ is saying to us through Paul.

It is our responsibility to know His (Christ's) voice....this comes through familiarity.

In my position as an agricultural teacher I keep a small herd of goats. They know me well. They know that I bring the feed, that I take care of their needs, etc. They protest loudly if I am a little slow in my duties. They also don't trust anyone else but me. (sometimes I swear I hear them calling my name as I approach the barn)

But they know my voice.

When I listen to Paul speaking, I mostly hear God's voice. Sometimes I don't.

When he is getting on to the church as the poster describes....I hear only Paul speaking.

To advance a doctrine on every word that Paul says shows a lot of immaturity on the part of Christians.

Our only responsibility is to do what His voice tells us to do...the Good Shepherd.

Some verses:

Jhn 10:14 I am the good shepherd, and know my [sheep], and am known of mine.

Psa 95:7 For he [is] our God; and we [are] the people of his pasture, and the sheep of his hand. To day if ye will hear his voice,

Jhn 10:3 To him the porter openeth; and the sheep hear his voice: and he calleth his own sheep by name, and leadeth them out.


Jhn 10:4 And when he putteth forth his own sheep, he goeth before them, and the sheep follow him: for they know his voice.


Jhn 10:5 And a stranger will they not follow, but will flee from him: for they know not the voice of strangers.

[Bizzlebin Imperatoris]

Then how do you discern it through the words of another writer? That seems to leave a lot of room for "cut and paste theology" and "get of scripture free" cards...

[McCravey]

The words are true and have the sound of His voice no matter who says them or how many times they are repeated they're still fresh.

[Bizzlebin Imperatoris]

How is it that some people believe they are God's words and some not then? What method do you use to determine who is speaking?

[seebs]

A good question.

Try this experiment.

Get a crayon, and a reasonably thick paper napkin, and scribble 1 Corinthians 13 on it. Now show it to someone who's never read the Bible, and ask them if they think it describes real love.

The truth is recognizable to us.

[McCravey]

How is it that some people believe they are God's words and some not then? What method do you use to determine who is speaking?

It's based on love. If you are in love with someone and you hear their voice your heart recognizes it.

If you know them very well, then you can tell which words are said by the one you love and which words were added, or paraphrazed by the messenger.

[sculpturegirl]

Seebs- Sorry if I offended you! None of the Quakers I know out here claim to be Christians, but obviously they must be out there.

[Bizzlebin Imperatoris]

It's based on love. If you are in love with someone and you hear their voice your heart recognizes it.

If you know them very well, then you can tell which words are said by the one you love and which words were added, or paraphrazed by the messenger.
Then why do many people have different views? Do they all not love Christ?

[McCravey]

Then why do many people have different views? Do they all not love Christ?

I think some love Christ, maybe they all love christ. It is when we love him so much that we also love those that he loves.....when his friends become our friends.....his interests become our interests. Then, not other's views but only his views become important.