Saul/Paul

[bupanishad2012]

What place did St. Arius, or does the Arian Catholic Church, assign to the enigmatic and problematic so-called "Paul the Apostle"? Was St. Arius like the Ebionites who rejected him outright, hearkening back to James? I'm also still struggling with the relationship, if any, between ancient Ebionism and Arianism. Please let me know whatever you can on these two things. Oh, one more: What part would "St. Paul's" writing hold in a pure Arian Bible?

[dark_knight]

As far as I can tell, Epistles of St.Paul have always been a matter of dispute between Gentile Christians and Judaistic and Jewish Christians.
Thus, Ebionites and many other have abandoned his writings.
I believe that the True Catholic Church has always embraced them, however.

Problem behind St.Paul's is that his writings have been mispresented, misinterpreted and (at least in some Bible translations) corrupted by the Trinitarian Church.

Some have problem with him, because they do not want to submit to the will of God, as presented by his Apostle. This may sound harsh, but I know we can discuss these things without labelling anyone a heretic etc. It should also be remembered that Shaul (Paul) was himself a highly educated Jewish pharisee.
Apostle Paul himself wrote:

"Our proclamation of the Christ crusified is foolishness to the gentiles and a stumbling block for the Jews, but to those who have been called - both Jews and Gentiles - it is Christ, power and wisdom of God" 1.Corinthians 1:23,24
(I translated it in my head from finnish Bible, not having esword in this comp.).

:innocent:

[bupanishad2012]

As far as I can tell, Epistles of St.Paul have always been a matter of dispute between Gentile Christians and Judaistic and Jewish Christians.
Thus, Ebionites and many other have abandoned his writings.
I believe that the True Catholic Church has always embraced them, however.

Problem behind St.Paul's is that his writings have been mispresented, misinterpreted and (at least in some Bible translations) corrupted by the Trinitarian Church.

Some have problem with him, because they do not want to submit to the will of God, as presented by his Apostle. This may sound harsh, but I know we can discuss these things without labelling anyone a heretic etc. It should also be remembered that Shaul (Paul) was himself a highly educated Jewish pharisee.
Apostle Paul himself wrote:

"Our proclamation of the Christ crusified is foolishness to the gentiles and a stumbling block for the Jews, but to those who have been called - both Jews and Gentiles - it is Christ, power and wisdom of God" 1.Corinthians 1:23,24
(I translated it in my head from finnish Bible, not having esword in this comp.).

:innocent:
Paul also was the one who delineated the subordination of the Son to the Father in 1 Cor. 15:28. A very compelling verse!

[Danage]

Supposedly Paul of Tarsus (St. Paul) said that Jewish laws were of no consequence to the Gentiles, but as oe of the Ten Commandments stated:
Respect the Sabbath (Friday night to Saturday night) and keep it holy.
If Christians follow the Ten Commandments then the Sabbath is not on SUNday, but on the Jewish Sabbath.
In this way Paul would have contradicted Christianity, so he wouldn't have said that. His letters could have been changed, but I doubt it. Paul and his abandonment of Jewish law must be a myth.

[bupanishad2012]

He also subordinated himself to James and Peter at Jerusalem, and actually circumcised Timothy (I think, if I remember correctly). That does not sound like a hater of the Torah!

[Danage]

Sorry, I didn't say that I believed that. I said that it was a supposition of a few Christian churches. I actually believe Paul of Tarsus never relieved Gentiles and Hebrew Christians from the laws of the Tanakh.

[dark_knight]

I believe that true Christians are under the Law of God (i.e the so called Decalogue), but not the ceremonial law. Also, as Paul and other apostles wrote, we are all breakers of law, and we are not saved by keeping the law, but because of the Faith in ransom sacrifice of Christ Jesus! Still, as our faith must produce good fruit, so we are striving to keep the Law - not because it would provide us salvation, but because we love the Lord.

Though Peter and James were obviously 'big shots' in early Messianist community and Paul submitted to them, the NT leaves little room for inffallibility and 'over-eminence' of Peter, because Paul rebuked Peter for being hypocritical by changing tables when Messianist Jews came in the room, as he was dining with Gentile Christians.

[David Kone]

We were all born into a family that has unresolved family issues which have been raging for thousands of years. St. Paul not only had to deal with the disputes within the inner family, the Jews, but also, as the representitive of the distant cousins, the gentiles, to whom he was sent. He was caught between both of their battles. We, like they must have, need to remind ourselves who our common Father is and join in respect towards Him in all our dealings. St. Paul is a little like the peace officer who when sent to restrain the husband from beating his wife is attacted by the wife for threatening her husband. There is no way that he is going to ever look blameless.

[brotherkev]

"Our proclamation of the Christ crusified is foolishness to the gentiles and a stumbling block for the Jews, but to those who have been called - both Jews and Gentiles - it is Christ, power and wisdom of God" 1.Corinthians 1:23,24
(I translated it in my head from finnish Bible, not having esword in this comp.).

:innocent:

You did pretty good, since I love e-sword for my KJV

[Postulare42]

I am inclined towards the Ebionite view, but do not accept it absolutely.

The quote from 1 Corinthians indicates the ferocity of the Johannites' rejection of Jesus in the 1st Century, and that of their allies among many in other sects of Judaism. The Jerusalem community of the Jesus Movement must have been a source of much contention in those turbulent times.

[miseretur]

Quote of Jehovah's Witnesses view, they too are "Unitarian" and yet they appreciate Paul. Paul did not teach the Trinity. If someone is taught the disciples, so it would be John the Apostle. Which, incidentally, is now considered the most gnostic, Whether they even invented a most amazing about him dissertations. The liberal theologians argue that Jesus was John gay mate. Areiolainen Church is also close to this interpretation because they are cautious praise Mari Magdalene.
Even the picture that appears in da vinci code movie has been put in the page to submit this link. Although the theological value of the painting is non-existent. Therefore at least self-interpret this deliberate provocation, to approach the Gnostic tradition.
Trinity resistance and popular Culture, unfortunately, now go hand in hand.
Hopefully arian church does not fall for blashemy, for this question.
Today is fashion opposed the old traditions, and when peoples do that they also opposed old churches, but not a theolocigal reasons.
Only because the world spirit told them to do that, that is a new religion too. New Age.
The new doctrine must be very careful if they intend to assure a good Conservative, like me.
But I do not write any more because the point concerns originally Paul :-)

Was Paul one of the 12 apostles?

Though having strong conviction and proofs as to his own apostleship, Paul never included himself among “the twelve.” Prior to Pentecost, as a result of Peter’s Scriptural exhortation, the Christian assembly had sought a replacement for unfaithful Judas Iscariot.

Two disciples were selected as candidates, perhaps by vote of the male members of the assembly (Peter having addressed himself to the “Men, brothers”; Ac 1:16). Then they prayed to Jehovah God (compare Ac 1:24 with 1Sa 16:7; Ac 15:7, 8) that He should designate which of the two he had chosen to replace the unfaithful apostle. Following their prayer, they cast lots and “the lot fell upon Matthias.”—Ac 1:15-26; compare Pr 16:33.

There is no reason to doubt that Matthias was God’s own choice. True, once converted, Paul became very prominent and his labors exceeded those of all the other apostles. (1Co 15:9, 10) Yet there is nothing to show that Paul was personally predestinated to an apostleship so that God, in effect, refrained from acting on the prayer of the Christian assembly, held open the place vacated by Judas until Paul’s conversion, and thus made the appointment of Matthias merely an arbitrary action of the Christian assembly. On the contrary, there is sound evidence that Matthias was a divinely appointed replacement.

At Pentecost the outpouring of holy spirit gave the apostles unique powers; they are the only ones shown to have been able to lay hands on newly baptized ones and communicate to them miraculous gifts of the spirit. (See APOSTLE [Miraculous powers].) If Matthias were not in reality God’s choice, his inability to do this would have been apparent to all. The record shows this was not the case. Luke, the writer of Acts, was Paul’s traveling companion and associate during certain missions, and the book of Acts therefore undoubtedly reflects and coincides with Paul’s own view of matters. That book refers to “the twelve” as appointing the seven men who were to handle the matter of the food distribution problem. This was after Pentecost of 33 C.E. but before Paul’s conversion. Hence Matthias is here acknowledged as one of “the twelve,” and he shared with the other apostles in laying hands on the seven designates.—Ac 6:1-6.

Whose name then appears among those on the “twelve foundation stones” of the New Jerusalem of John’s vision—Matthias’ or Paul’s? (Re 21:2, 14) One line of reasoning would make it appear that Paul is the more likely one. He contributed so much to the Christian congregation by his ministry and particularly by his writing a large portion of the Christian Greek Scriptures (14 letters being attributed to him). In these respects Paul ‘outshone’ Matthias, who receives no further direct mention after Acts chapter 1.

But sober consideration makes evident that Paul also ‘outshone’ many of the original 12 apostles, some of whom are rarely even named outside the apostolic lists. By the time that Paul was converted, the Christian congregation, spiritual Israel, had been established, or founded, and had been growing for perhaps a year or even more. Then, too, Paul’s first canonical letter was evidently not written until about 50 C.E. (see THESSALONIANS, LETTERS TO THE) or as much as 17 years after the foundation of the new nation of spiritual Israel on Pentecost of 33 C.E. These facts, plus the evidence submitted earlier in this article, thus clarify the matter. It seems reasonable, therefore, that God’s original choice, namely, Matthias, as the one to replace Judas among “the twelve apostles of the Lamb,” remained firm and unaffected by the later apostleship of Paul.

What, then, was the purpose of Paul’s apostleship? Jesus himself stated that it was for a particular purpose—not as a replacement for Judas—but that Paul might serve as an ‘apostle [sent one] to the nations’ (Ac 9:4-6, 15), and Paul recognized this as the purpose of his apostleship. (Ga 1:15, 16; 2:7, 8; Ro 1:5; 1Ti 2:7) This being so, his apostleship was not needed to serve as a foundation when spiritual Israel was established on Pentecost, 33 C.E.

[Postulare42]

Here is a helpful wiki on the subject of Saul of Tarsus:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Perspective