I am familiar with the story in Acts of the conversion of Saul/Paul of Tarsus on the road to Damascus. But I've read opinions saying that most of the apostles including Peter did not agree with Paul's teachings. They argue that Paul's writings were included in the canon basically because the Gentile early Christians became more numerous and popular than the Jewish Christians, especially following the destruction of the temple by the Romans.
What scriptures did Paul teach from? The Letters from HIM were being written..so what Scripture did He read and teach from?
To which I would disagree, it was included, because God wanted it included..they were Paul's letters to the various Jewish synagogues based on Paul's knowledge of the OT and what the Holy Spirit inspired Him to write to them in answer to their questions..
But, something to consider..
let's look a little further at Paul..He was a Hebrew, not just a Hebrew but from the tribe of Benjamin, and a Pharisee..
So what does that mean? Because it has a certain meaning in which the Jewish believers understood, especially when he began speaking to them in their native tongue Hebrew..
They were the scribes..the Pharisees were considered the most expert and accurate expositors of Jewish law. So in other words He KNEW the Old Testment, and he knew the Jewish Laws..So for him to grasp, the spiritual aspects of the law (inward meaning), and not just the outward meaning of the laws..which they had been accustomed too, they believed him and being Jew's they searched the OT scripures to see if what He wrote to them in his responses and what He taught them when He was with them..to see if they lined up..and they found it did..
But we must also ask, what Scriptures did Jesus teach from?
What Scriptures did He refer them to? It would have been the exact same Scriptures Paul refered them too..the Old Testament..
So even though his teachings were not the exact same as Christ's they refered to the same Old Testament Scriptures
and what they taught, just as Christ's did..
I guess I am not advocating "Sola Scriptura" if there is evidence of bias in the choice of the canon. I am considering whether parts of the Bible (i.e. the descriptions of Jesus' teachings) should be trusted more than other parts, such as Paul's letters, if they don't agree with Jesus' teachings.
but something for you to consider...for yourself..
Do you believe ALL scripture inspired by God? If not, what parts are not, and which parts are? And if not all Scripture is inspired and inerrant, and infalliable, how can you even trust what is written concerning the words of Jesus?
How can you know that was not also altered in some way? To fit what some group of men wanted it to say?? Because if you can't trust one little part..you can't trust any of it..
I believe that God is fully capable of keeping ALL scripture including the NT that we now have together and for HIS purposes..that men may read it and know the way of Salvation.
What does this mean?
Rev 22:18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
Rev 22:19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and [from] the things which are written in this book.
Examples of disputes and disharmony between Paul and at least some other apostles: Acts 15; 1 Cor. 9:1-6; Philippians 3; I don't have time to look up more right now.
yes, I am aware of the personality disputes and struggles of
the early Christian church members..but what were they arguing over?
While reading up on these things to write my post, I've found some information that is new to me, but I am still interested in your thoughts.
Please read what they write..notice their words..I'll bold some of them that stand out to me, that should cause us, as believers in Christ to question their teachings..
from
http://paulproblem.faithweb.com/Far from meekly following Jesus, it has been and is suggested by many scholars of high repute, that Paul, or this "Romanized Paul" was an innovator who brought into Christianity all sorts of ideas and emphases that complicated and spoiled the original, simple religion of this assumed "historical Jesus".
This sort of view was and has been put forth forcefully to many over the centuries by many who, throughout history, have had access to information that the vast majority of Christendom today does not even know exits. I, as well as many others, have located personally and collect vast amounts of information amassed over the centuries that reveals a completely different perspective to this "Apostle to the nations" and this "first Christian." If you begin a comprehensive study into this area of Christian history, and have the ability to go beyond the "spin doctoring" by Gentile religious authorities over the ages, you can find "earth shattering evidence" that brings the traditional understanding of Paul crashing to the ground. These many "true followers of Jesus" as well as scholars throughout history who have such information come together in a unanimous conclusion that informs the interested reader that many of the "unhealthy" and "unpleasant" aspects of Christianity "find their origin in Paul." Among the things for which Paul may be held partly responsible are negative attitudes toward women, sexuality and the human body, and Jews. He also had authoritarian tendencies, and supported (implicitly) the social status quo in regard to slavery.
If you look at Paul's teachings..even regarding women, He did not have a negative attitude towards women, sexuality, the Human body or the Jews..(he was a JEW!!!)
He was certainly protective over women, and them being used
by men for sex. We can see in 1 Cor. 7, he was all for sex within marriage..just not outside of marriage..hmmm...just as God is..
Where is his negative attitude seen towards the Jew's?
Where is his negative attitude towards the human body?
Other than it being we sin in the flesh, which is true..
we are flesh and blood..and we sin..when we are dead and
with Christ..we will no longer sin..we are trapped in this human body until we die..that doesn't mean he had a negative
attitude towards it..
it sounds like the problem those who wrote this article have is that God has given Salvation to the Gentiles..and not to the Jews Only. What does Scripture say concerning those who call themselves Jews who are not Jews???
Rom 3:29 [Is he] the God of the Jews only? [is he] not also of the Gentiles? Yes, of the Gentiles also:
Rom 3:30 Seeing [it is] one God, which shall justify the circumcision by faith, and uncircumcision through faith.
Rev 2:9 I know thy works, and tribulation, and poverty, (but thou art rich) and [I know] the blasphemy of them which say they are Jews, and are not, but [are] the synagogue of Satan.
Rev 3:9 Behold, I will make them of the synagogue of Satan, which say they are Jews, and are not, but do lie; behold, I will make them to come and worship before thy feet, and to know that I have loved thee.
