The Apostle Paul

  • Thread starter Thread starter rcwitness
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
R

rcwitness

Guest
I have been contemplating Paul for some time now. His life and work is astounding, really. I would like to hear your thoughts about him and his Apostleship.

Why the need for an Apostle to the gentiles, when Peter stated,"…that by my mouth the gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe."? Was it not enough for the 12 to extend their ministry?

Why are some things in Paul’s letters difficult to understand, if he was trying to reach the gentiles?

I see Paul as being a humbling revelation to Peter and the twelve. His ministry had a central focus on lifting up the outcasts,…the ones with lesser gifts. And paying little mind to reverence of the “chosen ones”. Indeed this can be twisted to a misunderstanding of the proud, who detest authority, and use Paul’s independence as reason to reject apostolic teaching. But Paul’s conversion and grace was perceived by the Apostles and given their right hand of fellowship. An important element to his enounter with the Apostle in Galations 2, is that Paul received a revelation to be confirmed through Peter and the others. Not because he was inferior, but because it was God’s desire. So, part of his fellowship with them was the rebuke Paul gives to Peter, for his fear of the circumcision party.

So, the book of Acts opens with Peter and the twelve, and along comes Paul and takes over the story with his evangelic missionary work. Now, in our sacred scriptures, we have an overwhelming dose of Paul’s ministry. So, though many things he writes can be twisted and misunderstood, yet he is given a healthy portion of the Sacred Scripture that is upheld by the faithful for many centuries!

Peace be with you,
Michael
 
rcwitness said:
Why are some things in Paul’s letters difficult to understand, if he was trying to reach the gentiles?
Click to expand...
We are all the products of our background to some extent and our habits of thought die hard. The fact that before his conversion St Paul persecuted the Christians demonstrates that he had been a strict Jew who was traditional and legalistic. That explains his authoritarian tone in some of his letters and his frequent references to the Law but they are insignificant compared to his love, humility and rejection of the need for circumcision. He described himself as “the least of the Apostles” yet he was undoubtedly the greatest missionary in the early Church.
 
So, Paul had a funny way to seemingly contradict himself. I believe this was the basis for Peter’s acknowledgment of some things being hard to understand.

For example…
In Galatians, we see Paul emphisize the way in which he received the gospel. Ch. 1:11,12 “For I would have you know, brothers, that the gospel preached by me is not man’s gospel. For I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ.”

He continues and adds, “I did not immediately cunsult with anyone…”

Now the seeming contradiction is that he did in fact receive healing, baptism and even receiving the Holy Spirit through men. Jesus told him immediately to go to the Church (Acts 9) vs 17,18
“So Ananias…laying his hands on him he said,‘Brother Saul, the Lord Jesus who appeared to you on the road by which you came has sent me so that you may regain your sight and be filled with the Holy Spirit.’…Then he rose and was baptised.”

And back to Galatians,
He wishes to express that he did not go immediately to Peter, or the others who were Apostles before him. Yet, he did go after three yrs to visit Peter for a couple wks. Then many yrs later, he visits Peter and the others in Jerusalem, because of a revelation. Apparently, the Lord desired him to go to them, in order to confirm his gospel, yet his gospel was confirmed by Peter and nothing was even added to him.

I think the truth of this seeming contradiction is not so difficult, however, it exists and should be acknowledged in light of his teachings regarding faith and works of the Law. Paul’s good gospel was always emphisizing the grace above all. Jesus Christ was the promise and fulfilment of the Law. Access, then, to this fulfillment is not achieved through more works of the Law, but through faith…and freely given.

So when the Church (and James in Scripture) defines Justification as requiring works of faith, it seems to contradict Paul’s teachings. That’s when we get misunderstanding. Works of the Law by their nature have an element of earning God’s favor, or remaining in God’s favor. This is impossible even for those blameless according to the Law (For example Job or even Mary). But the Grace of God hidden from the world, yet in time, revealed and meritted through Jesus is not based on anything man could have done through works. So, our initial Justification is through faith and proven true through works of the nature which is awarded to us by Christ’s love.

Furthermore, we are not all Apostles, who can say,“We receive God’s instructions by Him and not by any man.” Therefore, the Confirmation of Paul by the other’s was not so that he needed to be corrected, but that he should be like us, who rely on the fellowship and leadership of the Church built on Peter, and the 11 other Apostles.
 
rcwitness

So, the book of Acts opens with Peter and the twelve, and along comes Paul and takes over the story with his evangelic missionary work. Now, in our sacred scriptures, we have an overwhelming dose of Paul’s ministry. So, though many things he writes can be twisted and misunderstood, yet he is given a healthy portion of the Sacred Scripture that is upheld by the faithful for many centuries.

I too love Paul for the brilliance and the boldness of his theology. But I do not place Peter second to Paul in influence over the early Christians and Christians today. The way I understand the Gospels is that they come to us primarily through the telling of the stories by Peter to all who would listen. Mark certainly was one of his veteran listeners, his secretary, so to speak, and was with Peter in Rome before his death. After the deaths of Peter and Paul, Mark goes to work copying down from notes and memory all that Peter told him about Jesus. So Peter, not Paul, is the principle speaker in the New Testament; all the more so as the other Gospels echo and even expand upon what Mark wrote.
 
Charlemagne_II said:
rcwitness

So, the book of Acts opens with Peter and the twelve, and along comes Paul and takes over the story with his evangelic missionary work. Now, in our sacred scriptures, we have an overwhelming dose of Paul’s ministry. So, though many things he writes can be twisted and misunderstood, yet he is given a healthy portion of the Sacred Scripture that is upheld by the faithful for many centuries.

I too love Paul for the brilliance and the boldness of his theology. But I do not place Peter second to Paul in influence over the early Christians and Christians today. The way I understand the Gospels is that they come to us primarily through the telling of the stories by Peter to all who would listen. Mark certainly was one of his veteran listeners, his secretary, so to speak, and was with Peter in Rome before his death. After the deaths of Peter and Paul, Mark goes to work copying down from notes and memory all that Peter told him about Jesus. So Peter, not Paul, is the principle speaker in the New Testament; all the more so as the other Gospels echo and even expand upon what Mark wrote.
Click to expand...
Paul is extremely popular with non-Catholic Christians precisely because there are things in his epistles that are hard to understand. Since non-Catholic/Eastern Orthodox Christianity is based upon and survives by private interpretation alone, Paul’s words can easily be twisted to mean anything.
 
po18
**
Paul is extremely popular with non-Catholic Christians precisely because there are things in his epistles that are hard to understand. Since non-Catholic/Eastern Orthodox Christianity is based upon and survives by private interpretation alone, Paul’s words can easily be twisted to mean anything. **

Yes, he is popular with Protestants. He is not so popular with far left Protestants who gag at his moral conservatism.
 
Charlemagne_II said:
po18
**
Paul is extremely popular with non-Catholic Christians precisely because there are things in his epistles that are hard to understand. Since non-Catholic/Eastern Orthodox Christianity is based upon and survives by private interpretation alone, Paul’s words can easily be twisted to mean anything. **

Yes, he is popular with Protestants. He is not so popular with far left Protestants who gag at his moral conservatism.
Click to expand...
‘Far left’ anybody’s do not really like his moral teachings, that’s for certain.
 
Charlemagne_II said:
rcwitness

So, the book of Acts opens with Peter and the twelve, and along comes Paul and takes over the story with his evangelic missionary work. Now, in our sacred scriptures, we have an overwhelming dose of Paul’s ministry. So, though many things he writes can be twisted and misunderstood, yet he is given a healthy portion of the Sacred Scripture that is upheld by the faithful for many centuries.

I too love Paul for the brilliance and the boldness of his theology. But I do not place Peter second to Paul in influence over the early Christians and Christians today. The way I understand the Gospels is that they come to us primarily through the telling of the stories by Peter to all who would listen. Mark certainly was one of his veteran listeners, his secretary, so to speak, and was with Peter in Rome before his death. After the deaths of Peter and Paul, Mark goes to work copying down from notes and memory all that Peter told him about Jesus. So Peter, not Paul, is the principle speaker in the New Testament; all the more so as the other Gospels echo and even expand upon what Mark wrote.
Click to expand...
Paul’s ministry was not to give glory or testimony to Peter as Chief Apostle. It seems obvious that that was established and not something to define further. What was, is, and always will be something to emphisize, is our behaviour, wheather we are laymen, clergy, or the chief bishop of the Church. Paul’s Apostleship (as far as appointing, and revelations) was nothing Peter had anything to do with. However, Paul did in fact consult the Chief on matters that were in debate. Also, like I mentioned, to confirm the gospel he preached was in unison with the others. And in both cases in scripture, Paul was standing firm before the Lord.

Therefore, Paul, like any Christian has the opportunity to be in better standing before God than someone else even though they may hold a higher possition in the Church. “Whoever is the least among you, will be the greatest in Heaven.” Its possible that Paul was greater in his obedience to God than Peter. Only God knows.

It was Peter’s job to admonish, feed, encourage, teach, speak for the body of Apostles ect. Paul had a motivation to do more than what was expected of him. To say that Peter was more influential than Paul…I dont say one way or the other. Peter had the charism of infallibility. He was an ultimate confirmation on earth, such as his successors. This does not neccessarily equate to most influence. I dont think we need to compare the work of the two, because we cant see what God sees.

So to be clear,…I dont disagree with you, nor do I agree with you. I would rather not debate anyone about which is greater in the work that was given the Lord’s workers. I dont need Peter to be greater than Paul to be the vicar of Christ. The book of Acts definitely focusses in on Paul’s mission work. That is quite obvious and significant. Perhaps that in itself was God’s great gift to Paul. Like Peter had an authority of place in the whole Church.

Peace
Michael
 
rc

**So to be clear,…I dont disagree with you, nor do I agree with you. I would rather not debate anyone about which is greater in the work that was given the Lord’s workers. I dont need Peter to be greater than Paul to be the vicar of Christ. The book of Acts definitely focusses in on Paul’s mission work. That is quite obvious and significant. Perhaps that in itself was God’s great gift to Paul. Like Peter had an authority of place in the whole Church. **

They were both powerful presences in the early Church. As to which had more influence, we will never know. Luke knew Paul and traveled with him, so the emphasis in Acts is on Paul’s missionary work. Mark knew Peter in the last years, and recorded the Gospel (according to Peter) with Peter as the one charged with feeding the sheep, which he did. One does sense an ongoing tension between them.
 
Charlemagne_II said:
They were both powerful presences in the early Church. As to which had more influence, we will never know. Luke knew Paul and traveled with him, so the emphasis in Acts is on Paul’s missionary work. Mark knew Peter in the last years, and recorded the Gospel (according to Peter) with Peter as the one charged with feeding the sheep, which he did. One does sense an ongoing tension between them.
Click to expand...
There is a sense of that, isnt there. I’m not sure why, though. Paul seems to be quite “sharp” and intolerant of Peter’s bad behavior. But this is good, because he is in a high position, and should be held accountable for wrong behavior.

We dont know of any tension from Peter. But Paul cut him no slack because he was Chief. In fact, he made sure in his conscience, that Peter was walking the straight and narrow. No surprise here, Peter had his faults. And it was not his goodness that prompted our Lord to choose him. But we know too, that he had his great moments and love.

It seemed very important for Paul to give all glory to God directly. He was very conscientious of not falling back into his religious fervour. He does not give thanks to Stephen for his gracious prayer. He knows its due to God and focusses on God. Yet, he must have admired Stephen’s faith.
 
rc
**
Peter had his faults. And it was not his goodness that prompted our Lord to choose him. But we know too, that he had his great moments and love. **

So true. He had his moments of humility, no doubt. Where he and Paul disagreed, Peter came around to profess the truth Paul was preaching. That was a pope who allowed truth to trump his own ego.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top