so, you have to follow Jesus OR Paul.
o k.
Well, to tell you the truth, that is kind of the impression I get from scripture. Unfortunately, the older I get, the less I understand it.
When I was a kid I could have devotions on the whole Bible and not see anything wrong with it. I would write pages and pages of explanations for myself as to how Paul fit with James. As far out as Paul's constantly reversing logic got, I didn't consider the idea that it might just contradict itself, or other scriptures.
Every so often enough time passes and I pick it up again, get out pens and looseleaf paper, and analyze it in depth in an effort to try to reconcile all of it with itself.
I continually set out to prove that the New Testament is cohesive.
Consistently, I run into serious problems.
For example, a couple weeks ago I decided to start at the beginning of Paul's theology: Romans. I read the first 3 chapters and appreciated much of what he had to say. Then I got to 3:19-end of chapter. This is where he introduced justification by faith for the first time. Now, in chapter 2 he had just made a case for Gentiles being judged by the law of nature written in their hearts. Interestingly, he said in 2:13: "So then, it is not the hearers of the law, but the doers of the law who are justified." So this is pro-law.
Then in 3:19 he begins a different direction. In 3:20 he says "no flesh is justified by the law." Finally in the last verse he says, "Then do we nullify the law? But no! Rather we establish it." Then I was really really hoping to read his explanation of how his justification by faith theory establishes the law, but he gave nothing to that end.
I wrestled and wrestled and wrestled with how to make his claims reconcile with each other, and I never could, because of his own lack of connection between justification by faith and establishing the law.
This was just my last attempt to understand Paul. A year and a half ago I was studying other epistles of his and I ran into problems with those as well. Like three weeks ago, my studies were a fair attempt at genuinely trying to understand Paul from the perspective that he is legitimate. I made each attempt in good faith, but every time I really study his words deeply I come away with the same sour taste in my mouth and concerns in my mind that his statements are full of contradictions.
I hope you can see my genuine sincerity in studying the Bible. I gave it a fair shot countless times.
Maybe you can study Paul isogetically and tell me what you learn. I would love to discover some answers to the questions that arise as I study him.
Studying Jesus is a lot different from studying Paul. Granted, we don't have Jesus's words directly from Him, and Peter's flavor (of the synoptic gospels) and John's flavor are different, and John's emphasis on love closely resembling his own words in the epistle of 1 John might suggest that a lot of words ascribed to Jesus were actually from John, but I find the content of Jesus's words better. Less selfish, maybe. Definitely not as self-absorbed.
I think that a lifetime of studying the Bible has familiarized me with the various flavors of authorship, and over time the subtleties and peculiarities of the different authors has led me to ponder the age old question, just how much was the Bible written by man, versus how much was it written by God?
There are many things I still appreciate from the Apostle Paul, and I find some of his verses useful as quotes to live by. I suspect that the great truth about the Bible is muddy. Much of it is good, inspired by God, and some of it is far less useful or even dangerous, written by holy men on their bad days. I think all of it exists for our benefit, but we need to be careful how we use it, because its purpose is to draw people closer to Jesus and not further away from Him.
I hope you appreciate my transparency.