Was Paul an Apostle?

[Vort]

Couple of thoughts on your thoughts:

Couple thoughts:

1. When teaching the NT, my approach is to read it from it's own context - that is I try not to interpret it in light of 20th (or 19th century) context or dogma.

I believe there is some value to be had in this, as it encourages us not to "read into the text" our prior beliefs. But I also think you cannot take this very far, because there simply is not enough material in the NT to be fully self-sufficient and cohesive. More importantly, we have learned some things by latter-day revelation that may give great illumination to some NT passages, and we would be foolish not to use such information to our advantage.

The trick, of course, is to separate legitimate "readings-in" from spurious ones. Prophets ancient and modern have failed at doing this properly, so perhaps we ought not to worry excessively about making such mistakes.

For example: I have long had as a pet peeve the interpretation of the Isaiah verses about "for all this his anger is not turned away, but his hand is stretched out still" as a loving God offering the hand of salvation despite his righteous anger, when the book itself defines the outstretched hand of God as the destruction of the wicked among his covenant people. But in the end, if the scriptures encourage people to repent and conform their lives to God, it really doesn't matter that the scripture is misinterpreted.

Another example: I have recently learned that the phrase "line upon line, precept upon precept" was originally meant as a mocking description of those living outside the covenant. Yet today, we use it as a model for learning divine truths, a use almost diametrically opposed to its original meaning. Is this a bad thing? Apparently, God doesn't think it's bad enough to bother correcting the "wrong" interpretation. Instead, he just uses it to instruct us.

I have long been impressed by the actions of the Lord at (for example) the pool of Bethesda, where a man begs for help because, when an "angel" of the Lord "troubled" the waters, whoever first got into the pool was magically healed of his ailment, and this poor soul had no one to dunk him after the "angel" did his business. Significantly, the Lord did not bother to correct the man's superstitious beliefs; rather, he simply healed him. This pattern is repeated throughout history: The Lord rarely bothers to correct wrong or superstitious beliefs unless they directly contradict his divine needs or covenants. Instead, he simply ignores them and teaches the important principles. What a great lesson to learn, if we could but learn it.

2. Acts makes a big deal of about the calling of Matthias into the 12. If Paul were one of the 12, one would think Acts would do the same for him.

The book of Acts may have been written before Paul was formally ordained an apostle. Alternatively, Matthias may have been mentioned specifically because he was the first, in order to show the natural order of apostolic succession, without bothering to name other apostles ordained later on. Paul was clearly recognized and acknowledged as an authoritative Church leader, so "Luke" may have felt no need to call out Paul's ordination specifically, assuming it was common knowledge.

[RipplecutBuddha]

He hanged himself, as is testified in two places. Is there some dispute about this?

In Matthew it states he hanged himself, and in acts 1:18 quote.. Now this man purchased a field with the reward of iniquity and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst and all his bowels gushed out.

No mention of hanging in Acts.

Now, let me say here that I agree with you, however if we are to be strict in our interpretation as it seems Snow is using....the two verses are not harmonious. The account in acts could mean he jumped from a cliff rather than hanged himself.

[volgadon]

Do we know that as fact? (that his knowledge didn't come from a vision?)

Neither Joseph nor whoever wrote it down records it as being from a vision.

The reason I ask is because even though I have no doubt that Joseph indeed had access and possibly read the Acts of Paul and Thecla, this source seems to have fewer descriptions on Paul (or let's say more general) than the one of Joseph. In the Thecla Paul is described just as short but Smith described him with an approximate height and all. Even the nose description is different. For me, the description Joseph makes of Paul (including hair color, complexion, etc) gives me the impression that he saw him at some point.

The main difference between the two is that APT describes Paul's countenance, whereas Joseph describes his voice. As for Paul's height, that would be Joseph defining what short meant according to the standards of his day. A Roman nosed is a large, hooked nose.

[Vort]

In Matthew it states he hanged himself, and in acts 1:18 quote.. Now this man purchased a field with the reward of iniquity and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst and all his bowels gushed out.

No mention of hanging in Acts.

Now, let me say here that I agree with you, however if we are to be strict in our interpretation as it seems Snow is using....the two verses are not harmonious. The account in acts could mean he jumped from a cliff rather than hanged himself.

Hmmm...

Do you know what happens to a man's bowels when his neck is broken?

They all, um, gush out.

True story. The Acts account is a reference to a hanging.

[Snow]

1. So modern revelation bearing upon NT issues is not trustworthy? The purpose of ongoing revelation is to clarify and build upon previous revelations/doctrines. I understand the effort of teaching the NT strictly from the NT, however a great deal of what we know about the NT comes from...outside the NT...such as The Acts of Paul and Thelca, NT scholars and the knowledge they have, the Dead Sea scrolls, ect.

2. a) The fact of Matthias' calling into the 12 being in Acts doesn't mean every new apostle has to have their calling process in scripture.

b) How do we know Paul's acceptance into the 12 wasn't recorded somewhere else that has been lost to time?

c) Why would scriptural documentation even be necessary on Paul's authority when (sorry to bring up 19th & 20th century context or dogma) We have repeated confirmation of his apostleship from the living apostles and prophets today? Not to mention the fact that his writings are in the NT to begin with...

You might as well try to determine how Judas Iscariot 'really' died....strictly from the NT...

While I understand the premise of teaching the NT from its own context, it's somewhat disingenuous. The NT has supporting scriptures in the OT as well as the BoM, D&C, and PoGP that are included in the NT manual for the Gospel Doctrine class. You can't really isolate it from all other scripture and get the entire message it contains.

1. I'm not sure where you get the notion that I am asserting here that modern revelation is untrustworthy. I didn't say or imply that. It is simply not central to my methodology. Mormons get that perspective from every other teacher in every other setting. I offer a different focus. I dispute that know much of anything about the NT context from The Acts of Paul Thelca. It is a mid to late 2nd century forgery whose intent was to deceive Christians. It is a somewhat erotic work and even somewhat pornographic. The DSS don't have much, of anything to offer on the NT unless you want to understand the minor Essene sect but the NT doesn't even mention the Essenes.

2.

a: All one can say is that the NT is silent about whether or not Paul was called as a member of the 12 but it is not silent on the other known 13 members.

b: Well - how do we know that the existence of cave trolls and balrogs is not attested in the historical work now lost to us. We don't so and so it is irrelevant.

c: It depends on what you mean by "necessary." Since my focus in the NT in the Roman-Greco context of the meridian of time, it is relevant. If your focus is on what the 20th century LDS Church thinks, then that's another matter. The fact that Paul's writings are in the Bible doesn't make him an apostle. The majority of books in the NT have unknown authors.

Disingenuous means lacking sincerity or frankness. That's hardly the case. I am very sincere and completely honest about my methodology and intentions and I work assiduously to maintain factual accuracy and will gladly correct any discovered error.

Stuff from other sources comes up - I refer to the JST on occasion, the class participates and shares their POV, scripture is quoted, etc. It is just not my focus.

[Snow]

The book of Acts may have been written before Paul was formally ordained an apostle. Alternatively, Matthias may have been mentioned specifically because he was the first, in order to show the natural order of apostolic succession, without bothering to name other apostles ordained later on. Paul was clearly recognized and acknowledged as an authoritative Church leader, so "Luke" may have felt no need to call out Paul's ordination specifically, assuming it was common knowledge.

Thanks for the response (above) that I didn't quote.

As for the part I did quote: The most likely dating for Luke-Acts is something like 70 to 85 AD, after the traditional date of Paul's death... although the NT doesn't speak to his death and an alternate tradition has him traveling to Spain instead of dying a martyr's death in Rome.

As to whether more were ordained to the 12 after Matthias - the text is silent but since Paul is the unabased hero of Acts, logic suggests (to me) that if it were so, Acts would say so. Moreover Acts lays out the qualifications for it and Paul doesn't meet the qualifications:

Acts 1: 21 Therefore it is necessary to choose one of the men who have been with us the whole time the Lord Jesus was living among us, 22 beginning from John’s baptism to the time when Jesus was taken up from us. For one of these must become a witness with us of his resurrection.

Part of the reason I bring this up, is if Paul were one of the 12, why doesn't he understand the plan of salvation?

[Snow]

Hmmm...

Do you know what happens to a man's bowels when his neck is broken?

They all, um, gush out.

True story. The Acts account is a reference to a hanging.

Your apologetics are showing. If the author of Acts had wanted to portray Judas as having been hanged, he would have... but he chose otherwise.

[Vort]

Your apologetics are showing. If the author of Acts had wanted to portray Judas as having been hanged, he would have... but he chose otherwise.

I didn't intend to engage in apologetics. When I learned at a young age that a broken neck causes the bowels to relax and evacuate their contents, I understood what Acts was referring to. It seemed, and seems, clear to me that it is referring to a self-inflicted neck-breaking hanging, going headlong (to maximize the body fall, which provides the force needed to break the neck) and resulting in evacuation of the bowels.

Not sure what else it would refer to. What would you suggest? Do you think it refers to some Hebrew form of hara kiri? I'm not trying to be confrontational. I seriously don't know what else to make of plunging headlong and having all one's bowels gush out, other than a hanging that breaks the neck.

[Snow]

I didn't intend to engage in apologetics. When I learned at a young age that a broken neck causes the bowels to relax and evacuate their contents, I understood what Acts was referring to. It seemed, and seems, clear to me that it is referring to a self-inflicted neck-breaking hanging, going headlong (to maximize the body fall, which provides the force needed to break the neck) and resulting in evacuation of the bowels.

Not sure what else it would refer to. What would you suggest? Do you think it refers to some Hebrew form of hara kiri? I'm not trying to be confrontational. I seriously don't know what else to make of plunging headlong and having all one's bowels gush out, other than a hanging that breaks the neck.

His guts burst asunder and his bowels fell out... Not that the contents of his bowels were expelled from out of his bowels I should think.

[RipplecutBuddha]

Hmmm...

Do you know what happens to a man's bowels when his neck is broken?

They all, um, gush out.

True story. The Acts account is a reference to a hanging.

Let me try this again.

In post #24 I said ".....how Judas Iscariot 'really' died...."

I had hoped that this was indicative of my attitude that his manner of death was never in question to most people. I brought it up simply to illustrate the inaccuracies when one uses a too restrictive process of scriptural interpretation, as per what I feel of Snow's method which is why I brought it up at all.

I never really worried about how Judas Iscariot died....it's never been relevant to my testimony in all honesty.

In post #27 I further illustrated the example I used based upon previous discussions I've had with other people in the past over the topic, but I clearly stated that I agreed with you that Judas Iscariot hanged himself. It may have escaped your attention.

I don't want to hijack the thread over this topic any longer than I already have. I just wanted to clarify my position so there's no misunderstanding.

Edited August 19, 2011 by RipplecutBuddha

[Vort]

His guts burst asunder and his bowels fell out... Not that the contents of his bowels were expelled from out of his bowels I should think.

So you interpret it as meaning that his abdominal wall was ruptured. That seems to fit reasonably well with the wording, but it would suggest there was an unmentioned knife or sword or other instrument involved to cut his belly open. I interpret "all his bowels gushed out" to be a sort of euphemism for the bowel contents rather than the actual organs themselves, which I think would not really "gush".

I would be interested to see an authoritative Bible commentary give an interpretation according to speech patterns of the time. A few various translations I've looked at seem to interpret the "burst asunder" more or less as "his body exploded". If this is a valid translation, then that might preclude the "pooped his pants" interpretation.

RipplecutBuddha: I didn't take your comments as a thread hijack and didn't mean to contribute to one myself.

[Snow]

I would be interested to see an authoritative Bible commentary give an interpretation according to speech patterns of the time. A few various translations I've looked at seem to interpret the "burst asunder" more or less as "his body exploded".

Acts 1:18 - Robertson's Word Pictures of the New Testament, Bible Commentary

[volgadon]

Acts 1:18 - Robertson's Word Pictures of the New Testament, Bible Commentary

Despite Snow's penchant for using very old NT commentaries as the final word, he is correct in this instance.

Festschrift to honor F. Wilbur ... - Google

[Just_A_Guy]

Snow, what leads you to assert that Paul doesn't seem to understand the Plan of Salvation?

Also, how about the possibility that Paul was an ordained apostle (i.e. priesthood office) without being an actual member of the Quorum of the Twelve? There is latter-day precedent--per Wikipedia, Alvin Dyer and Thorpe Isaacson were both ordained Apostles but never formally became members of the Quorum of the Twelve. (And of course, Matthias Cowley withdrew from the Q of 12 in 1905 and was duly replaced, but retained his office of Apostle for another six years.)

[Vort]

Also, how about the possibility that Paul was an ordained apostle (i.e. priesthood office) without being an actual member of the Quorum of the Twelve? There is latter-day precedent--per Wikipedia, Alvin Dyer and Thorpe Isaacson were both ordained Apostles but never formally became members of the Quorum of the Twelve. (And of course, Matthias Cowley withdrew from the Q of 12 in 1905 and was duly replaced, but retained his office of Apostle for another six years.)

I am not (yet) convinced that the current modern Priesthood offices of elder, high priest, seventy, patriarch, and apostle are identical to Priesthood offices in earlier dispensations. Obviously, the Priesthood is the same for all time. But the offices seem tailored to the needs of the dispensation. The term "high priest", for example, refers to the leader of the Levitical Priesthood officiators. When used with reference to the Melchizedek Priesthood, the term "high priest" often means simply "a holder of the high (i.e. Melchizedek) Priesthood", such that a latter-day elder would fully qualify as a "high priest". Similarly, today we have the office of "patriarch" in the Priesthood, but the ancient patriarchs and the Patriarchal Priesthood* they held surely is not limited in reference to this particular office, but to the Priesthood as a whole.

*I realize there are those who maintain that the Patriarchal Priesthood is a separate entity from the Melchizedek Priesthood, some even suggesting that it is somehow a "higher" Priesthood. I think this is completely bogus, but it's a thread derailment in any case.

[Snow]

Snow, what leads you to assert that Paul doesn't seem to understand the Plan of Salvation?

To be fair to Paul, I can't think of any Biblical author that demonstrates an awareness of the plan of salvation as understood by Latter-Day Saints, specifically, I was referring to Paul's belief that salvation comes through faith in the death and resurrection of Jesus and nothing else.

The authors of Mark, Matthew and Luke saw salvation as primarily a result of doing good deeds and making a lifestyle change.

The author or authors of John saw it as primarily arising from faith in Jesus as the Son of God

And Paul saw it as primarily coming out of a belief in the resurrection of Jesus,

Mormons believe that it comes from faith and from works, that one on it's own won't get the job done... to be technical, for us, these days, salvation is given to those who have faith in Jesus as the Christ, once they have done all that they can through works, obedience and repentance.

Also, how about the possibility that Paul was an ordained apostle (i.e. priesthood office) without being an actual member of the Quorum of the Twelve? There is latter-day precedent--per Wikipedia, Alvin Dyer and Thorpe Isaacson were both ordained Apostles but never formally became members of the Quorum of the Twelve. (And of course, Matthias Cowley withdrew from the Q of 12 in 1905 and was duly replaced, but retained his office of Apostle for another six years.)

Sure - it's possible. I don't dispute that he was or could have been an apostle (in the specific use of the word, not just the general "messenger"), but think that it not clear cut that such was the case from the text of the NT,

[beefche]

Snow, do you mean salvation as in being exalted or saved from outer darkness?

[Snow]

Snow, do you mean salvation as in being exalted or saved from outer darkness?

For that matter, I don't think any biblical authorship demonstrates a cleat understanding of the difference, but here I am referring to something other than the general salvation that comes to all men regardless of whether or not one has faith in Christ and obeys God

[mordorbund]

I think Paul's perspective is borne out from his life experience. How necessary are works and good deeds when you've been performing them all your life, but the real turning point is when you are called in the midst of all this zeal to worship Jesus Christ? Contrast that with the other authors who underwent traditional discipleship training.

[Snow]

So today's lesson was from Galatians.

I have a couple thoughts - questions:

Paul is really upset that after he had left Galatia, other missionaries came in and preached that in order to follow Christ, people first need to become Jewish. Paul calls that a perversion of the Gospel.

In Gal 5:12 he says that he hops that those that preach that conversion to Judaism - which requires circumcision - would, while they are performing the circumcision on the converts, slip and cut off their own genitals.

That's harsh - but in the interesting part is that in Gal 5:2-6 - he says that those that let themselves be circumcised frustrate the grace of God and thus lose their salvation.

Could Paul be right? Is not being circumcised - not becoming Jewish before becoming a follower of Jesus - a requirement for salvation? It may not be a big problem today but it was a big issue in the early Church before the issue was eventually settled. Are those early Christians who first became Jewish not saved as Paul says?

[Justice]

I think he is speaking about their belief and intention.

If the leaders of the Church, the Apostles, make an official declaration (as it appears that they did at the time since it is in scripture) that Christ is the way, and not the Law of Moses, and a member still feels they have to go through the Law of Moses first, and teaches others to do so, I think that would be a problem.

If people who read the Bible would see that "the law" or "the law of works" IS the Law of Moses, it would be much easier for them to see how works and faith grow together.

I would love to sit in your class.

[Snow]

I think he is speaking about their belief and intention.

If the leaders of the Church, the Apostles, make an official declaration (as it appears that they did at the time since it is in scripture) that Christ is the way, and not the Law of Moses, and a member still feels they have to go through the Law of Moses first, and teaches others to do so, I think that would be a problem.

If people who read the Bible would see that "the law" or "the law of works" IS the Law of Moses, it would be much easier for them to see how works and faith grow together.

What there a decision made?

Obviously it is clear in Paul's mind but I don't see any evidence that the Church/Apostles had taken a position on the issue. It had been decided in the Jerusalem Gentiles didn't NEED to convert to Judaism first but this is about whether they CAN. On the matter of Jews and Gentiles, Paul was at odds with Peter and others who sided with Peter on issues relating to the Jew/Gentile conundrum, and Paul takes pains to tell the reader that the others turned against him.

I would love to sit in your class.

Well... I am pretty unorthodox. I teach primarily from a historical / scholarly perspective and let the class members add in all the modern understanding and inspirational stuff. There has been a very enthusiastic response and attendance is way up... and I've only been ratted out to the Bishop once.

[classylady]

I love this thread! My understanding of Paul has certainly been enlightened.

[spamlds]

I think your answer is better found in Galatians. This is my own personal way to look at it, so you can take it for what it's worth, but I think it plays out doctrinally and scripturally.

Paul saw the Lord and became a "witness of the resurrection" which is requirement that was needed when Matthias was chosen. There is a difference between having an apostolic witness and holding the priesthood office of Apostle. There are many members of the Church, both men and women, who have an apostolic witness of the Lord. Seventies have an apostolic calling, but they are not apostles.

Thus, many years went by wherein Paul preached from an apostolic witness, without the benefit of ordination to the office of Apostle. We have no record in the Bible of him being ordained to the Melchizedek Priesthood, but we assume that this was the case as we understand the priesthood and the necessity of authority.

In Galatians, Paul says that he went up to Jerusalem after 14 years preaching the gospel. He says that he met with the presidency of the Church: Peter, James, and John. They extended to him "the right hands of fellowship," and gave him and Barnabas charge over preaching the gospel to the Gentiles. I believe that this is when he received the office of the Apostleship. Galatians 2:9 says:

"And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision."

Following this, we read of Paul disputing with Peter over his actions regarding the Gentiles. I think this would have been unlikely and uncalled for if Paul were not among "equals" in the Quorum of the Twelve.

I'm just reading between the lines here. but it seems to add up. It could well be otherwise.

[Justice]

What there a decision made?

I like Romans 2.

11 For there is no respect of persons with God.

12 For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law;

13 (For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.

14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:

15 Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another; )

...

25 For circumcision verily profiteth, if thou keep the law: but if thou be a breaker of the law, thy circumcision is made uncircumcision.

26 Therefore if the uncircumcision keep the righteousness of the law, shall not his uncircumcision be counted for circumcision?

27 And shall not uncircumcision which is by nature, if it fulfil the law, judge thee, who by the letter and circumcision dost transgress the law?

28 For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh:

29 But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.

If you understand that "the law" is speaking of the Law of Moses and not the Law or laws of Christ, (called Law of Faith in the New Testament) then it makes scriptures like this much easier to understand. So, when you read Romans 2 assume the Law of Moses when it says the law and it makes perfect sense what they are saying.

To me, it is saying that it is important for one to live the law they believe. Since these are Christians, they need to live the Law of Christ (faith), whether they be circumcised or not. Whether they live the Law of Moses is entirely up to the individual, but the Law of Moses can't save because it's a precursor to lead us to Christ and His law or Gospel, which is the law that saves. Many have taken it to mean works are not necessary since the works of the law were done away. But, a studious reading will show that it is referring to the law of Moses, and not commandments in general, especially Christ's commandments. Christ did give commandments, and they are to be followed if you claim to believe in Him

Romans and Galatians are the best two chapters in the Bible for dealing with the "Law of Moses" verse the "Law of Faith." Again, if you read the New Testament with the understanding that the law of works means the Law of Moses, and the law of faith means Christ's commandments and Gospel, it makes pefect sense. Take these scriptures for example in Romans and Galatians:

Romans 3:27 Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith.

law of works = Law of Moses, law of Faith = Christ's commandments and Gospel.

Romans 3:28 Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.

the law = Law of Moses, faith = Christ's commandments and Gospel.

Romans 3:31 Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law.

Continue the this pattern in all these scriptures and they become perfectly clear.

Romans 4:13 For the promise, that he should be the heir of the world, was not to Abraham, or to his seed, through the law, but through the righteousness of faith.

Romans 4:14 For if they which are of the law be heirs, faith is made void, and the promise made of none effect:

Romans 4:16 Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace; to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed; not to that only which is of the law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham; who is the father of us all,

Romans 9:32 Wherefore? Because they sought it not by faith, but as it were by the works of the law. For they stumbled at that stumblingstone;

Galatians 2:16 Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.

Galatians 3:2 This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?

Galatians 3:5 He therefore that ministereth to you the Spirit, and worketh miracles among you, doeth he it by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?

Galatians 3:11 But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith.

Galatians 3:12 And the law is not of faith: but, The man that doeth them shall live in them.

Galatians 3:23 But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed.

Galatians 3:24 Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.