Paul is not the same Paul or Saul

[Burkladies]

I was responding to another string concerning apostles and their gospel
writings, but there is more information I hope is repeated by pastors.
I was taught there were many authors of the gospels including the
apostles to whom the gospels have been titled. In addition St. Paul's
letters are not all of 'Paul' formerly Saul. Many Pauls as well as St.
Paul's students wrote the letters by 'Paul'.
As a result I think 'Pauls' letters are best left to the countrys to
whom they were written so long ago. So called christians quote the
saint in place of Christs words, Christ is who needs to be quoted. I
think they are trapped in their egos just like Saul was. Maybe also
being indoctrinated in Jewish theology twisted in warped by their
pastor or priest. I heard this constantly when I used to listen to
their lessons.

[r***@yahoo.com]

Post by Burkladies
I was taught there were many authors of the gospels including the
apostles to whom the gospels have been titled. In addition St. Paul's
letters are not all of 'Paul' formerly Saul. Many Pauls as well as St.
Paul's students wrote the letters by 'Paul'.

I'd be interested in learning about some of the evidence for this
assertion.
How did the people that taught you this know?

Post by Burkladies
So called christians quote the saint in place of Christs words,
Christ is who needs to be quoted.

Christ is often quoted. So I'm assuming you mean he 'alone'
should be quoted.
Why is that? Is everything else wrong? Or merely untrustworthy?

Post by Burkladies
I think they are trapped
in their egos just like Saul was. Maybe also
being indoctrinated in Jewish theology twisted in warped by their
pastor or priest.

Why is it you think paul was "trapped in his ego"?
In fact, I should ask: what do you mean by that?

[Burkladies]

Romans was written by students of Paul, other wise known as Pauline.
Ephesians, Colossians and 2 Thessalonians are debating who the author
or authors is. 1&2 Timothy and Titus are not by Paul. Read the work
of different scholars, they often share the work of other scholars
also. For example Elaine Pagels is well researched and written.

<If Peter is equating Paul's writings with scripture either you
must.......> Where did Christ say I must have anything to do with a
Pharsee? Is this Peter, Paul and Mary the music group because that is
how the question sounds.

Christ is the chief corner stone.

Post by r***@yahoo.com

Post by Burkladies
I was taught there were many authors of the gospels including the
apostles to whom the gospels have been titled. In addition St. Paul's
letters are not all of 'Paul' formerly Saul. Many Pauls as well as St.
Paul's students wrote the letters by 'Paul'.

I'd be interested in learning about some of the evidence for this
assertion.
How did the people that taught you this know?

---

[On Romans, I'd like specific citations. I haven't read a lot of
Pagels, but I have read some. I'm not aware of her challenging the
authorship of Romans. E.g. here's a discussion between her and Ben
Witherington about Paul, where she agrees with what she says is the
common view that Paul himself wrote Romans, I-II Corinthians, I (and
maybe II) Thessalonians, Galatians, Phillipians, and Philemon.

http://www.beliefnet.com/story/143/story_14376_6.html

Normally the term "Pauline" is used as the adjectival form of Paul,
e.g. referencing the "Pauline letters" means letters written by or in
some cases attributed to Paul. I've never heard it used as a name for
Paul's followers.

I'm not aware of any substantial challenge that Paul wrote the letters
listed above. Of course you can find someone that will support
anything, but even fairly liberal scholars accept Paul's authorship
of Romans.

--clh]

[surety]

Post by Burkladies
<If Peter is equating Paul's writings with scripture either you
must.......> Where did Christ say I must have anything to do with a
Pharsee? Is this Peter, Paul and Mary the music group because that is
how the question sounds.

Let me spell this out as in A.B.C.. In 2Peter chapter 3 verses 15-16
(this is found in the New Testament), one reads:
" 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."
Now don't pretend you don't know who Peter or Paul is in Scripture by
making snide remarks referring to a now defunct folk group. Peter who
spent three years with Jesus and was a witness of His resurrection puts
his stamp of approval on Paul's writings "in his epistles" by equating
them with scripture "as they do also the other SCRIPTURES". You now
have a 3 cord rope (Jesus, Peter and Paul) which is unbreakable unless
of course you are determined to follow the liberal gobbelygoop in which
case you will find yourself in the latter half of Peter's statement
..."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."
This is not rocket science. Perhaps Saul was a Pharisee putting his
trust in his own righteousness but through conversion of Saul to Paul
(which I take it is incredible to you), Paul began learning to put no
confidence in the flesh but rather to Christ Jesus.

[surety]

Post by Burkladies
<If Peter is equating Paul's writings with scripture either you
must.......> Where did Christ say I must have anything to do with a
Pharsee? Is this Peter, Paul and Mary the music group because that is
how the question sounds.

Let me spell this out as in A.B.C.. In 2Peter chapter 3 verses 15-16
(this is found in the New Testament), one reads:
" 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."
Now don't pretend you don't know who Peter or Paul is in Scripture by
making snide remarks referring to a now defunct folk group. Peter who
spent three years with Jesus and was a witness of His resurrection puts
his stamp of approval on Paul's writings "in his epistles" by equating
them with scripture "as they do also the other SCRIPTURES". You now
have a 3 cord rope (Jesus, Peter and Paul) which is unbreakable unless
of course you are determined to follow the liberal gobbelygoop in which
case you will find yourself in the latter half of Peter's statement
..."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."
This is not rocket science. Perhaps Saul was a Pharisee putting his
trust in his own righteousness but through conversion of Saul to Paul
(which I take it is incredible to you), Paul began learning to put no
confidence in the flesh but rather to Christ Jesus.

[Burkladies]

I'll put this another way as well.
As you know, Christ did not say....you must > reject Peter who was
embraced directly by Christ thus rejecting Christ > as well, or embrace
both Jesus and Peter and Paul.

Peter who spent three years with Jesus and was a witness of His resurrection puts his stamp of approval on >Paul's writings "in his epistles" by equating > them with scripture "as they do also the other SCRIPTURES". You now > have a 3 cord rope (Jesus, Peter and Paul) which is unbreakable...

So Paul a Jew, pharasee is equated with the Torah making them
unbreakable in the views of who?

This 3 cord rope is an allegory for many things. Applying the rope to
Jesus, Peter and Paul is stretching parables I think.

conversion of Saul to Paul > (which I take it is incredible to you). Perhaps if I lived through Saul's time, I would. Saul and his conversion to Paul is barely applicable to my studies in Christ. Paul repeats the Torah a lot and what Christs says. In my opinion, St. Paul is fluff.

[surety]

Post by Burkladies
I was responding to another string concerning apostles and their gospel
writings, but there is more information I hope is repeated by pastors.
I was taught there were many authors of the gospels including the
apostles to whom the gospels have been titled. In addition St. Paul's
letters are not all of 'Paul' formerly Saul. Many Pauls as well as St.
Paul's students wrote the letters by 'Paul'.
As a result I think 'Pauls' letters are best left to the countrys to
whom they were written so long ago. So called christians quote the
saint in place of Christs words, Christ is who needs to be quoted. I
think they are trapped in their egos just like Saul was. Maybe also
being indoctrinated in Jewish theology twisted in warped by their
pastor or priest. I heard this constantly when I used to listen to
their lessons.

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.
(2Pe 3:15-16)
If Peter is equating Paul's writings with scripture either you must
reject Peter who was embraced directly by Christ thus rejecting Christ
as well, or embrace both Jesus and Peter and Paul.

[Burkladies]

Post by surety
If Peter is equating Paul's writings with scripture either you must
reject Peter who was embraced directly by Christ thus rejecting Christ
as well, or embrace both Jesus and Peter and Paul.

I guess that depends which method of interpretation you use. Of course
Peter was one of the twelve which does not make him infallable, but a
reliable writer of Christs words.
So how do you come to your conclusion? Because Christ did not
say....you must > reject Peter who was embraced directly by Christ thus
rejecting Christ > as well, or embrace both Jesus and Peter and Paul.

I do think Paul is over used.

surety ha escrito: