Paul was at odds with the real apostles

[Peccavi]

I think it more likely to be a “shock” as you call it to supporters of Pauline based theology ie. Luther who based his faith of Paul’s Epistles. It was as a result of studying Paul’s teachings he broke with Rome.

 

[Kliska]

I think it more likely to be a “shock” as you call it to supporters of Pauline based theology ie. Luther who based his faith of Paul’s Epistles. It was as a result of studying Paul’s teachings he broke with Rome.

And there are plenty of Catholics who strengthen their Catholic Christian faith by studying Paul, so what’s your point? You totally blow past what I just said and is clear in scripture; Paul was accepted by Jesus, Peter, and the rest of the crew. His writing was declared scripture by those you contend he was at odds with.

 

[KendraDZ1902]

I think it more likely to be a “shock” as you call it to supporters of Pauline based theology ie. Luther who based his faith of Paul’s Epistles. It was as a result of studying Paul’s teachings he broke with Rome.

Personal interpretation can do that to people.

 

[Peccavi]

Where does Jesus in scripture accept Paul ? Indeed where in Scripture does Peter ? Paul claims they do but there is no other evidence. My faith lies with Jesus alone. I have no need of other props to my faith but in his words and his teachings. If others do that is their choice to believe Paul’s version of events.

 

[KendraDZ1902]

Where does Jesus in scripture accept Paul ? Indeed where in Scripture does Peter ? Paul claims they do but there is no other evidence. My faith lies with Jesus alone. I have no need of other props to my faith but in his words and his teachings. If others do that is their choice to believe Paul’s version of events.

Well, the church that so kindly gave you books about Jesus is the same church that put Paul’s writings in there too.
Jesus didn’t write about his life, how can you know that those books are true and the others aren’t? You’ve just started the religion of Peccavi, wonder how that’s going to end up.

 

[Peccavi]

Probably in the Anglican Church here were you can hold different views in faith without being told your faith is inferior as long as you confess as I still do in the creed

I believe in God, the Father almighty,
creator of heaven and earth.

I believe in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord,
who was conceived by the Holy Spirit,
born of the Virgin Mary,
suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, died, and was buried;
he descended to the dead.
On the third day he rose again;
he ascended into heaven,
he is seated at the right hand of the Father,
and he will come to judge the living and the dead.
I believe in the Holy Spirit,
the holy Catholic Church,
the communion of saints,
the forgiveness of sins,
the resurrection of the body,
and the life everlasting.
Amen.
Nowhere does it mention " I believe in Paul"

 

[TimothyH]

This is from the Theology Dept of the University of Oxford, England by formidable theological scholars of international repute
"The view that Paul rather than Jesus was the founder of Christianity as a new religion, separate from Judaism, is based on the contrast between Jesus’ preaching of the Kingdom with Paul’s religion of redemption in which Christ’s death and resurrection are the centrepieces of a new mystery cult. Baptism is the means of entry, and the defilement of human sin is removed as the initiate enters into communion with Christ’s act of salvation. The message of Jesus about the Father has been transformed into a religion appropriate for the Graeco‐Roman world in which the heavenly Father plays only a minor role, and the Judaism of Jesus is stripped in Paul’s religion of its Jewish basis of the Torah. "
Ok so I cut it and pasted it from the University Website. So what. It gives a generally accepted view among scholars here (even some Catholic ones).

Cite the university website. I could only find it on Sherry Shiner’s website.

-Tim-

 

[TimothyH]

Since the writer claims that Paul changed his name, it makes me wonder about the academics of “CM” (whoever that is). It is always a bad sign when you can’t check out the credentials of the writer. Paul did not change his name. His Hebrew name was Saul and his Roman name Paul.
The article should be titled The Problem with the straw man Paul

Name changes were common with the Bible anyway, though.

Simon becomes Peter. Jacob becomes Israel. Abram becomes Abraham. Levi becomes Mathew. So I guess I don’t see how a scholar might accept St. Peter, as an example, but object to St. Paul. At least on that basis.

People don’t change their own names in the Bible. It doesn’t just happen. God changes their names.

The one who names you is your caretaker and steward. He is responsible for your wellbeing. The one who is named serves the one who names.

The very beginning of the Bible shows that God names man but allows man to name the beasts. This shows the order of creation, who serves whom and who is responsible for whom.

-Tim-

 

[Kliska]

Where does Jesus in scripture accept Paul ? Indeed where in Scripture does Peter ? Paul claims they do but there is no other evidence. My faith lies with Jesus alone. I have no need of other props to my faith but in his words and his teachings. If others do that is their choice to believe Paul’s version of events.

Reread Acts 9.

Reread Acts 21.

Reread 2 Peter 3.

Paul didn’t write Acts nor did he write 2 Peter. Paul also had faith in Jesus alone, and in His words and teachings. There is not “Paul’s version of events” where Paul expects people to accept it without witnesses, in fact he proved himself to the church and proved he was indeed preaching the gospel of Jesus Christ. Paul’s and Jesus’ message is one and the same, and Paul constantly points to Jesus Christ as the Way, the Truth and the Life. Paul constantly underscores the Way to the Father is only through the Son, and that the whole point of Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection was to glorify the Father and provide a way for us to abide with the Father forever.

 

[ericc]

I never said I was using this as an excuse to leave the Catholic Church

My own beliefs are coloured by

1. a close reading of the Gospels and Acts where the conflict between Paul and the Apostles is only too clear (Paul was never an Apostle he just adopted the title for himself) and a study of the Epistle of James a too neglected work.

Not close enough. Peter and Paul both ended up in Rome. If there is rejection of Paul by Peter, they wouldn’t be working together. Earlier, Paul and Peter agreed to carve out the territory. Paul would do the Gentiles and Peter the Jewish crowd. As a latecomer and former church persecutor, Paul obviously need credentials. And he established it in various ways. He calls himself an apostle and several others as well. But he is not of the Twelve. But that doesn’t make him a non-apostle. An apostle is one who is being sent. Paul was specially selected by Christ to be set aside for work with the Gentiles. If he is not worthy of being called an apostle, the reconstituted 12 apostles would know about it and would have objected. But there were no objections. They met a couple of times and no mention was made of Paul being an unworthy apostle. They welcomed him in Jerusalem and sent him off to Antioch on other mission. Even Peter in 2 Peter 3:15-16 mentioned Paul’s writings and acknowledged him as a beloved brother. None of this sounds like the 12 apostles are against Paul and Paul never objected being sent by the apostles and elders in Jerusalem to other cities to preach.

1. Cardinal Newman’s* Apologia Pro Vita Sua* in which he doubts the Doctrine of Papal Infallibilty

So what. He is not the Church. There are earlier Church Fathers that don’t subscribed to the Church’s views but they remained obedient to her. Meaning, they accepted Church views as overriding their personal views. Newman accepted the final moderated language defining Papal Infallibility. True? Please disclose your source that gave you the view that he doubted Papal Infallibility.

1. the Catholic church is hemorrhaging members. It needs to acknowledge this and do more to understand why. Instead it makes excuses and apportions blame. It has covered up priestly child abuse and past abuses of unmarried mothers and illegitimate children.

Membership numbers tells you nothing about the Church authority to teach truth. Sure, there are sinners in the Church. Show me one that is sinless. Can you give details of the “past abuses of unmarried mothers and illegitimate children”. That is a rather dramatic charge.

It has neglected to teach its laity the Gospels in a meaningful way and too often sided with fascists, dictators and Corporations that oppress the poor, the voiceless and stifle dissent.

That is unsubstantiated propaganda. Which organization did you benchmark the Church against? Please disclose your research supporting your assertion.

1. a growing belief in Liberation Theology and the Radical Jesus

And who is guiding you?

1. a rejection of Luther and Calvin and justification by faith alone and the notion of earthly rewards for God’s elect !

Catholics don’t subscribe to any of these. Treasures are supposed to be stored in heaven and not earth.

If you believe the CC is the church established by Christ on Peter, you must rely on Christ warranty. So despite faults committed by church folks, you can not in all honesty stay away and deprive yourself of her. Staying away because of sinners in the Church is an extremely poor excuse. Because you are one too. And you as well as others in the Church still require repentance and forgiveness. As I do too.

 

[Peccavi]

Cardinal Newman is considered a Saint by English Catholics, Catholics who for centuries have held the faith until recent years against persecution and exclusion. I think his views are worth listening to as set against the Ultramontanism of Cardinal Manning who posed the contrary opinion.
As for Paul’s theology see one critical eample from an Oxford professor youtube.com/watch?v=WkcjFHYIugY

Oxford has always been a major theological university since it was first recorded seminar in 1096 so it has 1000 years of teaching Christian theology.

 

[AKDee]

I never said I was using this as an excuse to leave the Catholic Church

My own beliefs are coloured by

1. a close reading of the Gospels and Acts where the conflict between Paul and the Apostles is only too clear (Paul was never an Apostle he just adopted the title for himself) and a study of the Epistle of James a too neglected work.

Paul was called by Jesus directly on the road to Damascus. The other 12 apostles were likewise called by Jesus directly. Are you denying that the Lord has the authority to call an Apostle after he has Risen and returned to Heaven? Bear in mind that Paul performed miracles, such as raising the dead, just as the other apostles did, which should be proof enough of his true calling. He also was miraculously preserved from death on multiple occasions, which should be proof enough of his divine protection.

1. the Catholic church is hemorrhaging members. It needs to acknowledge this and do more to understand why. Instead it makes excuses and apportions blame. It has covered up priestly child abuse and past abuses of unmarried mothers and illegitimate children. It has neglected to teach its laity the Gospels in a meaningful way and too often sided with fascists, dictators and Corporations that oppress the poor, the voiceless and stifle dissent.

The Church has more than acknowledged priestly child abuse and other abuses and has been actively making efforts to rout this evil out, particularly under former Pope Benedict and Pope Francis.

I can’t even fathom how you would say that the Church neglects to teach the gospels in a meaningful way to the laity. The daily readings contain a gospel every day, and more often than not the Priests homily is related to the gospel reading rather than to one of the other readings where the application of the gospel to our daily life is frequently explained. As a former protestant, I find that there is far more reading of scripture in the Catholic Church than in the average protestant church. There are also numerous Catholic Study Bibles where the notes on the scriptures sometimes are longer in length than the scriptures itself, in an effort to help us to understand and apply the teachings. We are encouraged to read scripture on our own, just as protestants are. I can’t understand why anyone would ever say the Catholic Church doesn’t emphasize teaching of the gospels to the laity.

I also am baffled at your accusation that the Church has sided with fascists, dictators and corporations to oppress the poor, the voiceless and to stifle dissent. Are you speaking of the current Church, or…? Because Pope Francis’ leadership is polar opposite of what you’re accusing and I can’t think of any time in recent history where your accusation fits. My memory only goes back to the 1970’s so I guess you need to be more specific.What time frame, specifically, are you referring to? And what exactly is it that the Church did that you are referring to? Which fascist regime, dictator or corporation did the Church side with to oppress the poor, the voiceless and stifle dissent?

1. a growing belief in Liberation Theology and the Radical Jesus

I don’t even know what this refers to. Please expand.

1. a rejection of Luther and Calvin and justification by faith alone and the notion of earthly rewards for God’s elect !

Well, for one, Luther added the word “alone” to St. Paul’s words. It wasn’t in there to begin with. Lutherans and Catholics have reached an agreement on the topic of Sola Fide and no longer are in disagreement. Many Lutherans, as a result, are coming home to the Catholic Faith. We have a priest in my diocese that is a former Lutheran preacher.

 

[Peccavi]

Newman’s private views published traditioninaction.org/ProgressivistDoc/A_139_Nw-Infallibiity.html

 

[AKDee]

Sigh

I’m bowing out on this discussion. This is just getting bizarre.

Peccavi, I hope you find the answers you are looking for.

 

[Peccavi]

I was about to say much the same We obviously studied under different Theology tutors
Go with God

 

[jlhargus]

I never said I was using this as an excuse to leave the Catholic Church

My own beliefs are coloured by

1. a close reading of the Gospels and Acts where the conflict between Paul and the Apostles is only too clear (Paul was never an Apostle he just adopted the title for himself) and a study of the Epistle of James a too neglected work.

Could you be more specific concerning the conflict between Paul and the apostles in the Gospels and Acts? Paul was indeed an Apostle he was sent directly by Christ and received his knowledge of the Gospel directly from Christ by revelation.

[Gal1:11 But I certify you, brethren, that **the gospel which was preached of me is not after man. 12 For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.]

[Gal2:1 Then **fourteen years after I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, and took Titus with me also. 2 And I went up by revelation, and communicated unto them that gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but privately to them which were of reputation, lest by any means I should run, or had run, in vain.]

[Eph3:1For this cause **I Paul, the prisoner of Jesus Christ for you Gentiles, 2 If ye have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which is given me to you-ward: 3 How that by revelation he made known unto me the mystery; (as I wrote afore in few words, 4 Whereby, when ye read, ye may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ) 5 Which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, as it is now revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit; 6 That the Gentiles should be fellowheirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel: 7 Whereof I was made a minister, according to the gift of the grace of God given unto me by the effectual working of his power.]

Paul taught the same Gospel as the other Apostles.

 

[ericc]

Newman’s private views published traditioninaction.org/ProgressivistDoc/A_139_Nw-Infallibiity.html

Unfortunately you are guilty of omission of what happened after Vatican Council. That letter to the Bishop Ullathorne reflects Newman’s concern about the views of “an aggressive insolent faction be allowed ‘to make the heart of the just to mourn whom the Lord hath not made sorrowful?’”. This was pre-Vatican Council. Fortunately these neo-Ultramontanes were rejected. This is what Newman wrote after Vatican Council. A Letter Addressed to the Duke of Norfolk on Occasion of Mr. Gladstone’s Recent Expostulation… newmanreader.org/works/anglicans/volume2/gladstone/section8.html

1. So much as to my posture of mind before the Definition: now I will set down how I felt after it. On July 24, 1870, I wrote as follows:—

"I saw the new Definition yesterday, and am pleased at its moderation—that is, if the doctrine in question is to be defined at all. The terms are vague and comprehensive; and, personally, I have no difficulty in admitting it.

Hence, there were 2 opinions about papal infallibility before the Council definition, a moderate and an extreme one. The moderate one which Newman held won the day.