[belovedgift]

Is there any group of believers who reject the teaching of paul and study only the words of jesus as gosple?

[N0help4u]

I don't think many people would admit to it even if they do that. Like some Christians say it is okay to have sex with whoever they happen to be dating but Paul says if you do then you need to marry.
Also some of what Paul taught was of the culture of that day and people will claim his teaching on sex as 'being the culture of the day' that we no longer have to follow.

[jakester]

belovedgift - It's my opinion that if one were to consider himself a "believer", whenever he read Paul that his words would be compelling and authoritative... that they would be the truth that God had revealed to Paul and that he/she would see it that way.

Paul clearly had the view that his gospel was from God and whoever rejected his gospel, rejected the words of God. Paul argued at times for his authority based upon the fact that the Lord Jesus Christ had commissioned him as an apostle. Since this is so, it follows then that what Paul taught was an extension of that authority... that Paul was speaking on behalf of the Lord himself.

When I consider these things, I have only two conclusions to make in regards to your question. One, I can be a true believer but be in the midst of some confusion about whether Paul should be taken seriously. If I were a new believer but ended up being involved with a group of people who rejected Paul, I could be confused for a time. But I believe it is no problem because God can help me come to see that Paul's message is consistent with Jesus. On the other hand, if someone claims to be a believer and reject Paul's writings for the gospels, I'd have to wonder what he would do with the gospels when reading them. Does he only read the gospels through a set of lenses that supports how he sees the world, rather than reading the gospels and receiving the message it is putting forth? People can pervert the truth and say they are believers but how can I expect to take such a claim seriously when they reject the bible (or at least a great part of it... Paul wrote much of the New Testament)?

My opinion.

[Fr_Chuck]

There are people who believe any and everything, from UFO gods to no gods.

I did not search it highly, but try this
http://www.answering-christianity.co...ist_paul_1.htm

[Triund]

I know a guy who only takes 4 gospels as the NT. He has nothing to do with the rest. Therefore, there will be more people like him, for sure.

I think that if we remove any one section from the Bible, the word of God would be lost and the rest of the books would not make much sense. All these books are so well connected and show us the complete plan of God for HIS creation.

[homesell]

There are a couple of groups that do not accept some or most of the writings of Paul and argue that he changed the meaning of what Jesus was saying. Paul didn't change the meaning, he merely expanded on what Jesus had already said during His life and when he inspired the old testament.
There is at least one group I know of(there are over 1000 different "christian" cults out there), that take the words of Jesus and only the words of Jesus to live their life by.
Mainstream believers all accept Pauls writings as what he said it was- the word of God equal to any other writings which were already accepted as the word of God.

[belovedgift]

There are a couple of groups that do not accept some or most of the writings of Paul and argue that he changed the meaning of what Jesus was saying. Paul didn't change the meaning, he merely expanded on what Jesus had already said during His life and when he inspired the old testament.
There is at least one group I know of(there are over 1000 different "christian" cults out there), that take the words of Jesus and only the words of Jesus to live their life by.
Mainstream believers all accept Pauls writings as what he said it was- the word of God equal to any other writings which were already accepted as the word of God.

Do you know how I might get in contact with these anti-pauline groups?

[homesell]

Hello belovedgift,
I no longer live in the area I used to, but I'm sure a little research on the internet will bring them out of the woodwork so to speak. I hope you want to contact them as a witness rather than a victim.

[Athos]

This is one of the more incisive questions ever asked here.

The Gospels in my opinion are the essential core of Christianity. Paul is always secondary, but certainly not to be cast aside.

Catholicism has keyed on the Gospels while Protestantism has keyed on Paul and the Old Testament. I think this is the source of the differences between the two approaches to Christianity.

The story of Christ is best found in the Gospels. In the parables of Jesus, and the narrative of His life, we can find the heart of Christianity. Paul leaves his followers to think that every word has to be parsed. That is fine for some, and Paul does a good job parsing, but it is the Jesus Christ of the Gospels that is the primary foundation of Christian faith.

[Wondergirl]

Jesus Christ of the Gospels that is the primary foundation of Christian faith.

Paul's central point, and key to salvation, is a crucified Messiah, a "suffering servant." For Paul, only the death and resurrection of Jesus mattered. Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians that the idea of a suffering Messiah was the greatest "stumbling block" for Jews. To Jews, it was a ridiculous claim, because their Messiah was going to be a descendant of King David, a figure of grandeur and great power, someone who would overthrow God's enemies, and then rule over God's people and the rest of the nations with a rod of iron.

Jesus, a Jew steeped in Jewish culture and teachings, was the quintessential apocalyptic Jewish prophet. He anticipated that the God of the Jews would truly intervene in history, overthrow the forces of evil, and set up His kingdom on earth. In order to enter God's kingdom, Jesus told the Jewish crowds that they needed to do what God had commanded in the Jewish law, i.e. the summary being to carry out the two greatest commandments--love God with all your heart, soul, and mind, and love your neighbor as yourself.

Did Paul and Jesus advocate the same religion? Jesus = keep the Law in order to enter the kingdom. Paul = believe in the death and resurrection of Jesus in order to enter the kingdom. Paul later affirmed throughout his epistles that the Law had nothing to do with the Gospel, with salvation. The Law is for damnation, whereas the Gospel (Jesus) is for salvation. If the Jews rejected Jesus the Christ, the Messiah, Jews rejected God and therefore God rejected them.

The question on the table is, "Is there any group of believers who reject the teaching of paul and study only the words of jesus as gosple?" I don't know about churches or groups. Jews for Jesus? -- would have to read up on them. I'm sure there are scholars and professors in theological circles who do.

[jakester]

This is one of the more incisive questions ever asked here.

The Gospels in my opinion are the essential core of Christianity. Paul is always secondary, but certainly not to be cast aside.

Catholicism has keyed on the Gospels while Protestantism has keyed on Paul and the Old Testament. I think this is the source of the differences between the two approaches to Christianity.

The story of Christ is best found in the Gospels. In the parables of Jesus, and the narrative of His life, we can find the heart of Christianity. Paul leaves his followers to think that every word has to be parsed. That is fine for some, and Paul does a good job parsing, but it is the Jesus Christ of the Gospels that is the primary foundation of Christian faith.

Athos - I agree with you that the story of Christ is best found in the gospels. I disagree with you though on the idea that Paul "leaves his followers to think that every word has to be parsed." I think if I understand Paul rightly, his perspective on what he wrote in the New Testament was this:

"For this reason I, Paul, a prisoner for Christ Jesus on behalf of you Gentiles— assuming that you have heard of the stewardship of God's grace that was given to me for you, how the mystery was made known to me by revelation, as I have written briefly. When you read this, you can perceive my insight into the mystery of Christ, which was not made known to the sons of men in other generations as it has now been revealed to his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit. This mystery is that the Gentiles are fellow heirs, members of the same body, and partakers of the promise in Christ Jesus through the gospel.

Of this gospel I was made a minister according to the gift of God's grace, which was given me by the working of his power. To me, though I am the very least of all the saints, this grace was given, to preach to the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ, and to bring to light for everyone what is the plan of the mystery hidden for ages in God who created all things, so that through the church the manifold wisdom of God might now be made known to the rulers and authorities in the heavenly places. This was according to the eternal purpose that he has realized in Christ Jesus our Lord, in whom we have boldness and access with confidence through our faith in him. So I ask you not to lose heart over what I am suffering."

The idea of parsing is in a way accurate but it could be taken the wrong way. The way I see it is that Paul took the fragmented pieces of Christ's life, the Old Testament prophecies, the covenants of God and Abraham, Moses, and David, and wove them together in a manner that gave insight into the mind of God and what it was he was doing in history as it related to the Jews and the Gentiles. The wrong idea of parsing, I think, is to take every single word Jesus said and try to extract some higher meaning out of it and I think that this is a sort of mystical connotation and one that I would not personally subscribe to.

Additionally, I think it is caricaturing (a type of distorting) of Catholics and Protestants to say Catholics key in on the gospels and Protestants key in on Paul and the OT. I'm not Catholic so I guess by default I'd be a Protestant... although I really don't care all that much for titles. I and many of the believers I know find all of the bible to be instructive and edifying. I have spent much time in the gospels, the apostles (in addition to Paul you have Peter, James, John, and Jude writing the NT), and the Old Testament. The whole of the bible is to be taken seriously because as Paul writes:

"All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work."

Lastly, one thing to note is that Jesus Christ is actually the cornerstone of the foundation. Paul makes a point in Ephesians to say that Christ has brought together Jew and Gentile through his death and resurrection. The teachings of the apostles and prophets are the foundation to all that we can know regarding this story and Paul puts it this way:

"And he came and preached peace to you who were far off and peace to those who were near. For through him we both have access in one Spirit to the Father. So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone, in whom the whole structure, being joined together, grows into a holy temple in the Lord. In him you also are being built together into a dwelling place for God by the Spirit."

So to me the teaching of the other apostles and the prophets are foundational to our faith and it is Christ who actually unites their teaching together as it is he who is the subject of the discussion at hand.

[arcura]

I agree with Athos on this.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

[revdrgade]

I did not answer this question when I first read it the other day, but then this morning as I was doing a personal Bible study I came upon these verses from St. Peter about the teachings of St. Paul and thought them to be pertinent to the question:

2 Pe 3:15-17

15 Bear in mind that our Lord's patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him.

16 He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.

17 Therefore, dear friends, since you already know this, be on your guard so that you may not be carried away by the error of lawless men and fall from your secure position.
NIV

[Tj3]

The Gospels in my opinion are the essential core of Christianity. Paul is always secondary, but certainly not to be cast aside.

I do not understand how anyone can say that the largest single piece of the NT is secondary. All scripture is inspired by God.

Catholicism has keyed on the Gospels while Protestantism has keyed on Paul and the Old Testament. I think this is the source of the differences between the two approaches to Christianity.

I disagree entirely. I do not know of any protestant or other non-Catholic church which has focused solely or primarily on Paul. Because of the large amount of the NT which was penned by Paul, his works would rightly be given proportional coverage, but that is not to say that it is taken any more seriously or importantly. I will say that I have had a few debates over the years with some Catholics who considered Paul's writing to be non-canonical, and others who seriously downplayed his books, however that is not to necessarily say that they were representative of the whole either.

[belovedgift]

I did not answer this question when I first read it the other day, but then this morning as I was doing a personal Bible study I came upon these verses from St. Peter about the teachings of St. Paul and thought them to be pertinent to the question:

2 Pe 3:15-17

15 Bear in mind that our Lord's patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him.

16 He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.

17 Therefore, dear friends, since you already know this, be on your guard so that you may not be carried away by the error of lawless men and fall from your secure position.
NIV

It continues to say"but grow in grace and in the Knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ."

[arcura]

revdrgade,
Very Good.
Thanks.
Fred

[classyT]

I am sure there are people who reject Paul teachings.. He constantly had to defend his "apostleship" ( is that a word?) back in his day. Without Paul we don't have much of a NT since he wrote a lot of it. We would NEVER completely understand GRACE, the love of God, salvation, faith, the church... and the list goes on and on.

[Athos]

I will say that I have had a few debates over the years with some Catholics who considered Paul's writing to be non-canonical,

No Catholic has ever said Paul's writings are non-canonical. Stop lying. Your incessant criticism of Catholicism expressed here is disgusting, bigoted and pathetic. You play God under the guise of only you being able to read the Bible correctly.

Leading people astray with your lies and half-truths, as you do, is exactly what Jesus warned against.

Shape up, there's still time.

[Tj3]

No Catholic has ever said Paul's writings are non-canonical. Stop lying. Your incessant criticism of Catholicism expressed here is disgusting, bigoted and pathetic. You play God under the guise of only you being able to read the Bible correctly.

Leading people astray with your lies and half-truths, as you do, is exactly what Jesus warned against.

Shape up, there's still time.

You did not read what I said. I stated that I have spoken with some who have claimed that, but perhaps in your hatred of me, you neglected to note that that I stated that their comments were not necessarily representative of others. Let me quote:

--------------------------------
I will say that I have had a few debates over the years with some Catholics who considered Paul's writing to be non-canonical, and others who seriously downplayed his books, however that is not to necessarily say that they were representative of the whole either.
--------------------------------

What I stated is true. Perhaps before you make false and demeaning comments about others, you should read clearly and get your facts straight. Comments made of blind hatred without regard for the facts simply discredit you.

[arcura]

Athos,
I must agree with you about Tom.
I can not believe that any good catholic would ever say the Paul's writing were not canonical.
Toms hatred about that which is Catholic has stood out often on noticeable on several different boards over the years.
Peace and kindness,
Fred