Was Paul Really A False Apostle?

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
P

phil112

Guest
" Originally Posted by aMessianic
I don't perceive myself to be in any corner."

Have you beaten your wife/girlfriend/child/friend lately? Yes or no?

I always heard it "Do you still beat your wife," but your way is even better. It did go unnoticed, shame.
Why yes, I did make a mistake. I can see by the sincere posts you make this IS the "show your good manners" thread.
 
Dec 18, 2013
6,733
45
0
Please show me where it is said that Paul "companied with the [eleven] all the time that the Master Yehoshua went in and out among us, beginning from the baptism of John, unto that same day that he was taken up from us". Thanks!

Where is it written than Luke is an apostle?

It is written that Joseph Smith heard from "Jesus". What gives you the right to judge this blessed apostle of Jesus? ;) ;)

You find the "apostle Joseph Smith" to be in conflict when you compare his writings with what was taught by Messiah. I, too, find the "apostle Paul" to be in conflict when I compare his writings with what was taught by Messiah.

How can you judge "apostles", when you deny me the right to do the same?

Well, I am not here to debate about Buddha. Perhaps in another thread. :)

I'm saying he created new teachings which are not in line with what YHVH or Messiah taught, such as faith-alone, or that Cretans are slow bellies and always liars, or that women cannot speak in congregations, or women are saved by childbirth, or sinners should be handed over to Satan, or that believers cannot eat with sinners (Messiah ate with sinners!), or that foods sacrificed to idols are ok to eat, or YHVH's holy-days should not be observed, etc.

See Revelation 21:14. Yes, I recognize John as a valid and legitimate apostle of Messiah. His teachings are in perfect harmony with Messiah's. Acts is not John's first-hand testimony about Paul. It is Luke's second-hand information.
1. I never said Paul was one of the original 12 apostles nor that he was there from the moment Jesus was Baptised by John the Baptist. Nor were any of the 12 since the first of them were called by Jesus after his Temptation by Satan (whom he rebuked awesomely fulfilling a lil more prophecy in the process), which was after his baptism by John the Baptist. However, Saul of Tarsus (again before he convert to The Apostle Paul) would have been a Pharisee and would have been witness to parts of Jesus life or episodes of the Gospels if you will, but from another perspective, that of Saul of Tarsus.

2. It's not written that Luke is an apostle, nor Matthew or Mark. However it is held that they wrote their Gospels in accordance to Jesus teachings and under guidance of the other Apostles. Since we know John was an Apostle we know that their stories align with his, plus he probably talked to them firsthand until they were scattered due to Herod's persecution after he kill John's bro (of the 4 gospel-writers I like John best cause he had first hand witnessed most the stuff and obviously have connections to Mary, was supposedly the last apostle to stay by Jesus side while he on the cross, and hey apparantly he was cool enough to be shown one of the most mind blowing books and prophecies of all time; Revelations.) So like I said there is a high degree of probability that Luke being a witness to Jesus, being in accordance to Jesus teachings, and being approved by the other Apostles may have been acclaimed an Apostle himself by the other Apostles and The Holy Spirit of Jesus.

3. Oh Joseph Smith, I think maybe like Buddha this be better off for another topic, but since that old ruffian be before us let's just go over it again. Yet again like Buddha parallel, Joseph Smith don't claim that Jesus told him anything. Joseph Smith claims a being called Maroni told him a story that is highly contradictory to the teachings of Jesus and the teachings of the Apostles. Maroni claimed to tell Smith about his "Jesus" but Jesus himself never talked to Smith, not even by Smith's account. All that Smith claims he received from this Maroni being, and the Maroni being claimed Jesus flew over to America and did all that stuff. Thus Joseph Smith is not an apostle, Joseph Smith is a false prophet. Especially considerring Smith's background in hogwarts school of witchcraft and wizardry (freemasonry) and his highly occult rituals, and the fact some being called Maroni told him all these things. Among many other things that just proves Smith to be at the very least a fraud and at the most a victim of demons (due to smith being into witchcraft) or satan (pretending to be an angel again maybe?). Just like with Buddha and Mara.

I haven't denied you the right to judge anything for yourself. Observe you are judging True Apostles and Fake Apostles for yourself in many posts all ready. Have I banned thee from doing this? No, I merely am arguing with you usign a combo of your own words, my own words, and scripture to support my side of the debate. Just a friendly debate brother, I'm not meaning any harm or ill will towards ya. I can see you are a keen speaker/typer yourself and I like that.

3. (skipping Buddha by request cause ya that hodgepodge could go on all day)

Now okay this is a point I like here, and this is actually very valid for you to bring up. See, just like we judge on the False Apostles how they false by their own words, we must judge the True Apostles True by their own account and how it lines up with the Truth in Jesus and just secular Truth that is pretty hard confirmable fact. So this is actually fair game right here, and we can bth actually make some progress here and maybe even both of us learn something new and goodly. Allow me to break down each point in subsection.

a: Can we be saved by faith alone in Jesus Christ? The answer is yes. Not just by Paul's account. Jesus show many times that the Mosaic Law can't save you (heck I think Moses himself showed you that when he smashed the tablets of the Law because the ancient Israelites were worshipping a Golden Calf thus breaking all the Laws before they even received them.) Therefore if he is to judge us all based on that then every human in history is going to the burning lake of fire, the trash heap of souls, gehenna, hell, whatever you call it. Obviously God is not a God of Death, God is a God of Life. So only by faith in God is Salvation and God is With Us might we be saved. And guess what not only do all the other Apostles profess you can only be saved by faith in God, but Jesus himself show this to be true. I mean think about it Jesus = God is Salvation. Therefore God alone can save you if you have faith in God is Salvation. You can only be saved by God if you have faith in Immanuel which means God is With Us. This be actually great proofs for Paul being at apostle status since it align with Jesus and the other Apostle's teachings (though like I said, Paul is Least of Apostles by his own words.)

b: Lol this could be fair game that I can't really give a full answer or opinion to I suppose. Depends what the Cretans living on Crete were like back in those days. As far as I know they had bull cults, the greek-roman messed up culture, plus some of the near east paganism of messed-upness, etc. (from my understanding of secular history Paul's criticism of them might have been a little toned down, but if you have any supporting proofs on 1st Century AD Crete I'm down to check it out, love me some history.)

c & d: since these are both answered in the brief chapter 2 of the First Epistle to Timothy I will combine the answer:

Paul is saying that a woman should be modest and learn silently if she be a woman professing godliness. (Keep in mind too Paul is writing this for Timothy for the church in Ephesus. Lol, the ancient women of that area and time could probably give some of the jerry springer gals of today a run for their money. And this is again IF that woman claim to be godly, which IF she doesn't claim to be godly then your Law all ready means nothing to her because she ain't even trying to begin with.)
Paul does indeed then go on to say he will not suffer a woman to teach or assume authority over a man in church drawing the parallel to Adam and Eve and how Eve was taken out of Adam's rib and how Eve was the first one to be beguiled by that old serpent, thus she would be better off to learn in silence. Furthermore, just as Eve transgressed first upon being beguiled by Satan, so too is woman's greatest hope for saving herself and humanity in clinging to her husband and in childbirth just like Eve whom God himself said the seed of the woman shall stomp upon Satan's head (cool enough the earliest Messianic prophecy thus we got a lil literal and metaphorical weight behind this claim.) Furthermore it says on this subject its not the childbirth and raising her children itself that saves a woman, but puts the emphasis moreso on THEY (her and her man as a couple) continuing together in faith, holiness, charity, sobreity, and basically just being good parents and good spouses. So it would seem this ain't even just a message to women, but also to men also on how they need to be with their wives (Paul backs this up in other letters along with Peter in his first letter. Lol men ain't exempt like people think they are, people just don't seem to ever read about all the things the apostles, not just Paul, expect from men and how men need to be real men to their women.)

e. Sinners handed over to Satan. Think about it, if you choose to just love sin instead of loving God does anyone even have to hand you over to Satan or have you handed yourself over all ready?

f. You refer to 1 Corinthians 5. Read the whole short chapter for context. Paul is writing to the church in Corinth. The chapter start with how he hears about there's "fornicators" amongst them (that's probably a polite way to put it if you know anything about the Roman and Greek view of sexuality and how their over-sexualised culture makes our modern culture which itself is pretty over lustful look PG-13 in comparison.) Paul even points out in the Gentiles own standard their lust has gone awry, that's a pretty tall order for the Greek-Roman culture. Lol you know you got some issues if you are lustful even by their standard. And the chapter goes on talking about how the people from the Corinthian church are "puffed" up over this and angry instead of sad and repenting. So his advice is kick the people making their church into a sex cult out and stop eating with them if it makes ya so upset. Whew don't common sense even today just tell you this makes sense? Is Paul's words even nessecary?

g. Concerning food offered to idols. Now I tried to scope around to see where you got the idea that Paul commands you to eat food offered to idols. The closest I could find on this was 1 Corinthians chapter 8. He pretty much says food offered to idols means nothing since the idols mean nothing. Furthermore it interestingly seems that Paul actually makes a pretty sensible case for NOT eating food offered to idols because if you are weak or your brethren around you are weak that of course might make them fall into idolatry. So of course Paul gives a pretty good case, in language a Gentile can understand on why not to eat meat offered to idols. In fact Paul goes so far as saying it be better not to eat any meat at all in the presence of others if it would cause people around you to start worshipping the worthless idols.

h. As for the Sabbath. We don't even got to bring Paul into this. Jesus showed clearly that you are not damned for not keeping the Sabbath. The Sabbath is meant as a gift for men. It's essentially you got a day off work for at least one guranteed day of the week if YOU want that day off. God gave the Sabbath, the day of rest, as a gift to man. It's no sin not to keep the Sabbath. Lol that's a pharisee argument that you are forced to keep the sabbath (which ironically would go against the whole point of the sabbath as a day of rest if you literally had to work to keep the sabbath). After all the pharisees tried to kill Jesus for healing people on the Sabbath. Sabbath is a gift for men not a commandment that if you do not keep the Sabbath you will be stoned to death. So do you accept the gift of the Sabbath or not, that's your own personal gift from God to man for you to choose to use.

(Before moving on I just wanted to say the portion above I genuinely enjoyed the most and I think this is where the debate really have its greatest bearings at because it is realyl the meat of it being about Paul's words and their relation to things. So this also is fun cause like we can look up stuff and come to greater understanding, plus it is more intellectually honest in terms of the debate than playing the Joseph Smith vs Buddha vs Paul game lol, though I admit that's kinda funny in it's own right lol.)

4. Interesting bit about Revelations indeed! So the 12 apostles names shall be written on the stones of New Jerusalem. Do you think this is the 12 original apostles (for which include Judas Iscariot) or do you think Iscariot's name is struck out and Matthias' name will be there instead? I personally think upon seeing this it would refer to the 12 greater apostles (in my opinion substituting Matthias for Iscariot) However remember this don't change the fact that the other apostles called the other earlier follwoers liek Paul, Silas, Barnabas, etc. apostles too. They just weren't the Twelve.

4a. Now who told you Luke wrote Acts? For that matter, considerring Acts is about that activities a wide range of the apostles both the original 12 and the other apostles, I personally always thought it was kind of a group effort. Even if we suppose Luke did write it. Who told Luke? Wouldn't Luke have witnessed some things and asked others about other things? Wouldn't Luke have had help and confirmations and approval of the other apostles, namedly the original 12, and the Holy Spirit of God? Remember all the Apostles and early followers were based out of Judaea at first and in frequent touch with eachother until Herod martyred the Apostle James, John's brother, and they had to scatter throughout the world.


Not sure if I will get back to any responses on this much more for today unless they are brief but I will certainly have to keep up with this. Don't take me the wrong way just cause I enjoy the debate. It's good for learning indeed, I found much fun in it and it provides a good basis to study the scripture more in depth indeed! Good points brought up and brought down for sure. And even some fresh perspectives such as the Revelations prophecy, demystifying some of Paul's teachings in awesome ways that give him more credibility as being a true follower in Jesus that even I didn't realize at first (whether ye call him apostle, least of the apostles, or even just testifier to Christ I guess we'll leave Paul's Official Title open for a further round of future debate). Very cool stuff either way and definantly you give forth some good questions worthy of ponderance for sure.


EDIT: Just caught your later post on using scripture to show that Paul be least in heaven. Hey I'd agree to that by Paul's own words and the Gospel's words. But remember, even the least in heaven is still in heaven just like even the least of the apostles is still an apostle :)
 
Last edited:
P

phil112

Guest
Originally Posted by aMessianic
I don't perceive myself to be in any corner.

Have you beaten your wife/girlfriend/child/friend lately? Yes or no
I wouldn't dignify that accusation with a response..

Have
you read the books of the prophets Sirach and Enoch lately? Yes or no.
No
Answer my questions, and I'll then gladly answer yours
There are your answers
Still waiting.....
in a corner.jpg
 
B

BradC

Guest
I don't believe his self-proclaimed status as an "apostle", but yes, I believe he taught against righteousness by obedience and taught a new message of grace- and faith- alone.
Is Christ the end of the law unto those who believe or not (Rom 10:4). This is not a box but a straight question based on the aforementioned scripture.
 
Aug 17, 2013
96
0
0
1. I never said Paul was one of the original 12 apostles nor that he was there from the moment Jesus was Baptised by John the Baptist. Nor were any of the 12 since the first of them were called by Jesus after his Temptation by Satan (whom he rebuked awesomely fulfilling a lil more prophecy in the process), which was after his baptism by John the Baptist. However, Saul of Tarsus (again before he convert to The Apostle Paul) would have been a Pharisee and would have been witness to parts of Jesus life or episodes of the Gospels if you will, but from another perspective, that of Saul of Tarsus.
And that is my point exactly ... if Pharisee Paul was a witness of Messiah's whole life, then he should have been included in the eleven's selection of the replacement for Judas. But ... he wasn't, which stands to reason that Paul was not a witness of Messiah's whole life. This was a requirement for the replacement twelveth apostle, but not for the "thirteenth apostle" who wrote thirteen letters?

2. It's not written that Luke is an apostle, nor Matthew or Mark. However it is held that they wrote their Gospels in accordance to Jesus teachings and under guidance of the other Apostles. Since we know John was an Apostle we know that their stories align with his, plus he probably talked to them firsthand until they were scattered due to Herod's persecution after he kill John's bro (of the 4 gospel-writers I like John best cause he had first hand witnessed most the stuff and obviously have connections to Mary, was supposedly the last apostle to stay by Jesus side while he on the cross, and hey apparantly he was cool enough to be shown one of the most mind blowing books and prophecies of all time; Revelations.) So like I said there is a high degree of probability that Luke being a witness to Jesus, being in accordance to Jesus teachings, and being approved by the other Apostles may have been acclaimed an Apostle himself by the other Apostles and The Holy Spirit of Jesus.
Probability is not fact. Your list of "apostles" you've appointed is growing, my friend! :)

3. Oh Joseph Smith, I think maybe like Buddha this be better off for another topic, but since that old ruffian be before us let's just go over it again. Yet again like Buddha parallel, Joseph Smith don't claim that Jesus told him anything. Joseph Smith claims a being called Maroni told him a story that is highly contradictory to the teachings of Jesus and the teachings of the Apostles. Maroni claimed to tell Smith about his "Jesus" but Jesus himself never talked to Smith, not even by Smith's account. All that Smith claims he received from this Maroni being, and the Maroni being claimed Jesus flew over to America and did all that stuff. Thus Joseph Smith is not an apostle, Joseph Smith is a false prophet. Especially considerring Smith's background in hogwarts school of witchcraft and wizardry (freemasonry) and his highly occult rituals, and the fact some being called Maroni told him all these things. Among many other things that just proves Smith to be at the very least a fraud and at the most a victim of demons (due to smith being into witchcraft) or satan (pretending to be an angel again maybe?). Just like with Buddha and Mara.
Look into Joseph Smith's first vision of his encounter with "Jesus".

I haven't denied you the right to judge anything for yourself. Observe you are judging True Apostles and Fake Apostles for yourself in many posts all ready. Have I banned thee from doing this? No, I merely am arguing with you usign a combo of your own words, my own words, and scripture to support my side of the debate. Just a friendly debate brother, I'm not meaning any harm or ill will towards ya. I can see you are a keen speaker/typer yourself and I like that.
My claim of denial was rhetorical ;) I appreciate your mature debating skills as well.

... a: Can we be saved by faith alone in Jesus Christ? The answer is yes. Not just by Paul's account. Jesus show many times that the Mosaic Law can't save you ...
Forgive me in advance for shortening your statements. Rest assured I've read it all, and I am focusing on what I perceive to be the main points.

As for this point ... have you read the Greek texts of the gospels? The words commonly translated "faith", such as πίστις (pistis) in Lk 7:50, or "belief", such as πιστεύων (pisteuon) in Jn 3:16, actually encompasses the range of meanings found in the English words "trust", "faithfulness", and "compliance/obedience". This is emphasised in Jn 3:36 by the contrast between the pisteuon on the Son which gives eternal life vs the ἀπειθῶν (apeitheon, "anti-compliance" or "anti-obedience") which leads to not seeing life eternal.

It is my opinion that most translators heap burning coals upon their own heads by not clearly communicating this fact, and instead choose to continue with tradition and hide the implication of the full range of meanings behind the original words.

So, no, I do not believe faith alone saves. Faith must be accompanied with obedience to YHVH's Law (not Moses' Law).

b: Lol this could be fair game that I can't really give a full answer or opinion to I suppose. Depends what the Cretans living on Crete were like back in those days. As far as I know they had bull cults, the greek-roman messed up culture, plus some of the near east paganism of messed-upness, etc. (from my understanding of secular history Paul's criticism of them might have been a little toned down, but if you have any supporting proofs on 1st Century AD Crete I'm down to check it out, love me some history.)
"Cretans are always liars" - no time limitations.

c & d: since these are both answered in the brief chapter 2 of the First Epistle to Timothy I will combine the answer: Paul is saying that a woman should be modest and learn silently if she be a woman professing godliness. (Keep in mind too Paul is writing this for Timothy for the church in Ephesus. Lol, the ancient women of that area and time could probably give some of the jerry springer gals of today a run for their money. And this is again IF that woman claim to be godly, which IF she doesn't claim to be godly then your Law all ready means nothing to her because she ain't even trying to begin with.)
Paul does indeed then go on to say he will not suffer a woman to teach or assume authority over a man in church drawing the parallel to Adam and Eve ... Furthermore it says on this subject its not the childbirth and raising her children itself that saves a woman, but puts the emphasis moreso on THEY (her and her man as a couple) continuing together in faith, holiness, charity, sobreity, and basically just being good parents and good spouses. So it would seem this ain't even just a message to women, but also to men also on how they need to be with their wives (Paul backs this up in other letters along with Peter in his first letter. Lol men ain't exempt like people think they are, people just don't seem to ever read about all the things the apostles, not just Paul, expect from men and how men need to be real men to their women.)
If these teachings are "Scripture" and thus authoritative, can I get a second witness to these unique doctrines Paul taught (cf Jn 5:31)? Otherwise, they are merely commentary on Scripture from one Pharisee's perspective.

e. Sinners handed over to Satan. Think about it, if you choose to just love sin instead of loving God does anyone even have to hand you over to Satan or have you handed yourself over all ready?
How can Pharisee Paul hand Hymenaeus and Alexander over to Satan for correction? Why will Satan teach them to not blaspheme? I imagine he would do the opposite. Did Messiah ever turn someone over to Satan, or did He tell us to pray "deliver us from evil"?

f. You refer to 1 Corinthians 5. Read the whole short chapter for context. Paul is writing to the church in Corinth. The chapter start with how he hears about there's "fornicators" amongst them (that's probably a polite way to put it if you know anything about the Roman and Greek view of sexuality and how their over-sexualised culture makes our modern culture which itself is pretty over lustful look PG-13 in comparison.) Paul even points out in the Gentiles own standard their lust has gone awry, that's a pretty tall order for the Greek-Roman culture. Lol you know you got some issues if you are lustful even by their standard. And the chapter goes on talking about how the people from the Corinthian church are "puffed" up over this and angry instead of sad and repenting. So his advice is kick the people making their church into a sex cult out and stop eating with them if it makes ya so upset. Whew don't common sense even today just tell you this makes sense? Is Paul's words even nessecary?
So ... this is "advice" and not "Scripture"?

g. Concerning food offered to idols. Now I tried to scope around to see where you got the idea that Paul commands you to eat food offered to idols. The closest I could find on this was 1 Corinthians chapter 8. He pretty much says food offered to idols means nothing since the idols mean nothing. Furthermore it interestingly seems that Paul actually makes a pretty sensible case for NOT eating food offered to idols because if you are weak or your brethren around you are weak that of course might make them fall into idolatry. So of course Paul gives a pretty good case, in language a Gentile can understand on why not to eat meat offered to idols. In fact Paul goes so far as saying it be better not to eat any meat at all in the presence of others if it would cause people around you to start worshipping the worthless idols.
I did not write that Paul commands one to eat foods offered to idols. I wrote that he allowed them to be eaten.

I'm sorry but I have to disagree - Foods offered to idols are not nothing. See Messiah's statement in Rev 2:14,20, and the Jerusalem Council's verdict in Acts 15:20,29.

h. As for the Sabbath. We don't even got to bring Paul into this. Jesus showed clearly that you are not damned for not keeping the Sabbath. The Sabbath is meant as a gift for men. It's essentially you got a day off work for at least one guranteed day of the week if YOU want that day off. God gave the Sabbath, the day of rest, as a gift to man. It's no sin not to keep the Sabbath. Lol that's a pharisee argument that you are forced to keep the sabbath (which ironically would go against the whole point of the sabbath as a day of rest if you literally had to work to keep the sabbath). After all the pharisees tried to kill Jesus for healing people on the Sabbath. Sabbath is a gift for men not a commandment that if you do not keep the Sabbath you will be stoned to death. So do you accept the gift of the Sabbath or not, that's your own personal gift from God to man for you to choose to use.
I disagree. I see Messiah as showing the proper way of keeping the Sabbath. He did not overthrow the Sabbath ... He only overthrew the Pharisaical interpretation of the Sabbath.

(Before moving on I just wanted to say the portion above I genuinely enjoyed the most and I think this is where the debate really have its greatest bearings at because it is realyl the meat of it being about Paul's words and their relation to things. So this also is fun cause like we can look up stuff and come to greater understanding, plus it is more intellectually honest in terms of the debate than playing the Joseph Smith vs Buddha vs Paul game lol, though I admit that's kinda funny in it's own right lol.)
:D

4. Interesting bit about Revelations indeed! So the 12 apostles names shall be written on the stones of New Jerusalem. Do you think this is the 12 original apostles (for which include Judas Iscariot) or do you think Iscariot's name is struck out and Matthias' name will be there instead? I personally think upon seeing this it would refer to the 12 greater apostles (in my opinion substituting Matthias for Iscariot) However remember this don't change the fact that the other apostles called the other earlier follwoers liek Paul, Silas, Barnabas, etc. apostles too. They just weren't the Twelve.
I believe Matthias was always meant to be the 12th apostle.

4a. Now who told you Luke wrote Acts? For that matter, considerring Acts is about that activities a wide range of the apostles both the original 12 and the other apostles, I personally always thought it was kind of a group effort. Even if we suppose Luke did write it. Who told Luke? Wouldn't Luke have witnessed some things and asked others about other things? Wouldn't Luke have had help and confirmations and approval of the other apostles, namedly the original 12, and the Holy Spirit of God? Remember all the Apostles and early followers were based out of Judaea at first and in frequent touch with eachother until Herod martyred the Apostle James, John's brother, and they had to scatter throughout the world.

Not sure if I will get back to any responses on this much more for today unless they are brief but I will certainly have to keep up with this. Don't take me the wrong way just cause I enjoy the debate. It's good for learning indeed, I found much fun in it and it provides a good basis to study the scripture more in depth indeed! Good points brought up and brought down for sure. And even some fresh perspectives such as the Revelations prophecy, demystifying some of Paul's teachings in awesome ways that give him more credibility as being a true follower in Jesus that even I didn't realize at first (whether ye call him apostle, least of the apostles, or even just testifier to Christ I guess we'll leave Paul's Official Title open for a further round of future debate). Very cool stuff either way and definantly you give forth some good questions worthy of ponderance for sure.

EDIT: Just caught your later post on using scripture to show that Paul be least in heaven. Hey I'd agree to that by Paul's own words and the Gospel's words. But remember, even the least in heaven is still in heaven just like even the least of the apostles is still an apostle :)
Mt 5:19, to me, is saying "Those who break the least of YHVH's commands, and teaches men so, shall be called least, by those in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does and teaches them, he shall be called great, by those in the kingdom of heaven." This interpretation harmonizes with Messiah's next statement in v20.

Have a good day or night, I am learning from and enjoying this debate as well, brother. ;)
 
May 3, 2013
8,719
75
0
You follow Christ? But freely cast aspersions on Paul? Wasn't it Christ who said...

Acts 9:11-16 Then the Lord told him, “Get up and go to the street called ‘Straight,’ and at Judas’ house look for a man from Tarsus named Saul. For he is praying,
and he has seen in a vision a man named Ananias come in and place his hands on him so that he may see again.”
But Ananias replied, “Lord, I have heard from many people about this man, how much harm he has done to your saints in Jerusalem,
and here he has authority from the chief priests to imprison all who call on your name!”
But the Lord said to him, “Go, because this man is my chosen instrument to carry my name before Gentiles and kings and the people of Israel.
For I will show him how much he must suffer for the sake of my name.”

You follow your own picking and choosing...not our Lord's!
I wish I exactly knew if ACTS was a collective work of Luke and Paul (or Paul´s alone) but your point is quite important, but supporting Paul´s name above the chosen apostles Jesus chose for years. I don´t say he is not HIS disciple, but I have some wrong ideas.
 
Last edited:
May 3, 2013
8,719
75
0
Here is what "Paul" probably said:

"Co 1:12 What I mean is that each one of you says, "I follow Paul," or "I follow Apollos," or "I follow Cephas," or
"I follow Christ."

Hi Secularhermit,

An interesting highlight above..do you know why Paul used he 4 illustrations above including the 'I follow Christ'?


I dare say it hardly matters to you as it probably may or have not been said by Paul in that case by anyone in particular.. and of course if this is true why believe anything in scripture including the gospels..
Well! Here some are defending Paul´s apostleship. No wonder others defend Mary´s, as a queen as the Heaven and "mother" of God, as I hear Catholic saying their prayers.

That zeal many show IN HERE, shows the same FANATISM many believers had during the first century for Apollos, Cephas and Paul... Instead of Jesus.

I´m happy Paul witnessed that to HISTORY, and for me.

What got me lost (in here) is why the rest of the apostles did not write as much as your apostle.

Why I don´t have anything WRITTEN about APOLLOS? At least he was a disciple who did his part, his life time (too). And somehow I see Paul being jelous... (as I am saying it matter Jesus´ teachings above Paul´s protagonism)
 
P

phil112

Guest
Well! Here some are defending Paul´s apostleship. No wonder others defend Mary´s, as a queen as the Heaven and "mother" of God, as I hear Catholic saying their prayers.

That zeal many show IN HERE, shows the same FANATISM many believers had during the first century for Apollos, Cephas and Paul... Instead of Jesus.

I´m happy Paul witnessed that to HISTORY, and for me.

What got me lost (in here) is why the rest of the apostles did not write as much as your apostle.

Why I don´t have anything WRITTEN about APOLLOS? At least he was a disciple who did his part, his life time (too). And somehow I see Paul being jelous... (as I am saying it matter Jesus´ teachings above Paul´s protagonism)
Except for one major point you seem to have conveniently overlooked: The bible itself, God's own word, testifies to Paul's veracity. The doctrine of praying to mary is man made with no biblical support.
 
May 3, 2013
8,719
75
0
Except for one major point you seem to have conveniently overlooked: The bible itself, God's own word, testifies to Paul's veracity. The doctrine of praying to mary is man made with no biblical support.
Peter said too little about Paul´s apostleship... And Paul´s witnessing for himself and Luke´s.

I hope he had his place as the other apostle would have.
 
P

phil112

Guest
Peter said too little about Paul´s apostleship... And Paul´s witnessing for himself and Luke´s.

I hope he had his place as the other apostle would have.
You lost me there. What are you saying?
 

crossnote

Senior Member
Nov 24, 2012
30,742
3,670
113
I wish I exactly knew if ACTS was a collective work of Luke and Paul (or Paul´s alone) but your point is quite important, but supporting Paul´s name above the chosen apostles Jesus chose for years. I don´t say he is not HIS disciple, but I have some wrong ideas.
Hmm, well the same Luke who wrote a synoptic Gospel about Jesus also wrote about Paul, he didn't seem to be bothered.

Luke 1:1-4 Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us,
Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word;
It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus,
That thou mightest know the certainty of those things, wherein thou hast been instructed.

Acts 1:1-2 The former treatise have I made, O Theophilus, of all that Jesus began both to do and teach,
Until the day in which he was taken up, after that he through the Holy Ghost had given commandments unto the apostles whom he had chosen:
 
Dec 16, 2012
1,483
114
63
Paul defends both his own leadership and the original mission he declared. He takes a stand. He determines to help the Galatians walk by faith. Paul argues against the idea that people must work to earn their salvation. He wants Galatians to live free. Paul would have benefited from this as a leader who won them to Christ. Instead he calls them to grace, where they cannot be manipulated by anyone. He has enough integrity to keep a clear conscience and to build trust with others.

God speaks through Paul and call the Galatians back to the original gospel. It seems Paul constnatly had to defend his leadership with some churches. He felt compelled to proclaim his trustworthiness with the churches in both Corinth and Galatia.

Paul's absolute focus gave him an absolute willingness to let go of nice things that didn't matter. Note some of the things that he discarded:

1) His hertiage - a hebrew of the hebrews
2) His pure lineage - from the tribe of benjamin
3) HIs former legalism - a strict Pharisee
4) His past zeal - a persecutor of the church
5) His self righteousness - a blameless life
 
C

chubbena

Guest
In Gal 2:1 - one clear example - Pharisee Paul admits that he stayed away from Jerusalem for fourteen years. Torah commands that all males must appear before Him in Jerusalem three times a year (Ex 23:14-17, Ex 34:18-23, Deu 16, etc.).

If Paul stayed away, he disobeyed the commandment. "By their fruits ye shall know them ..."
It's a good example. I'd say, do not do what he did. This applies to our pastors or anyone we look up to if they don't go by the Word.
On the other hand, does this law apply to believers now? And what was/is the meaning of appearing before Him in Jerusalem 3 times a year?
You forgot to quote 2Pet 3:17, my friend, which I believe is the key to understanding the previous two verses. 3:17 warns against falling from our stedfastness as a result of being carried away by the ἀθέσμων πλάνῃ ... the error of the athesmon (lawless ones, those who break away from the Law to satisfy their own lusts).

How do I know that v17 is related to the previous two verses? Because v17 begins with the conjunctive particle οὖν, which joins the previous and the following thoughts together as indicative of the same train of thought.

Peter was saying: "Now that you are aware of these things (regarding those who twist the Scriptures & use Paul's words to support their anti-Law ideas), don't you do the same and be led to destruction by following the teachings of the lawless!"
Makes sense if Peter didn't say "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." in verse 15 which confirmed
a. Paul is a brother in Christ.
b. God gave Paul wisdom to write.
In fact, there's much wisdom in his teachings that is hidden from the world c.f. 1 Cor 2:6-16.

Now to his teachings, the obvious one that doesn't go well with the law is circumcision, if we don't believe that the OT has already taught circumcision in the heart. So what do you say?
 
N

nathan3

Guest
The twisting of scripture here is unbelievable. Its really confusion.
 
Aug 17, 2013
96
0
0
Paul defends both his own leadership and the original mission he declared. He takes a stand. He determines to help the Galatians walk by faith. Paul argues against the idea that people must work to earn their salvation. He wants Galatians to live free. Paul would have benefited from this as a leader who won them to Christ. Instead he calls them to grace, where they cannot be manipulated by anyone. He has enough integrity to keep a clear conscience and to build trust with others.

God speaks through Paul and call the Galatians back to the original gospel. It seems Paul constnatly had to defend his leadership with some churches. He felt compelled to proclaim his trustworthiness with the churches in both Corinth and Galatia.

Paul's absolute focus gave him an absolute willingness to let go of nice things that didn't matter. Note some of the things that he discarded:

1) His hertiage - a hebrew of the hebrews
2) His pure lineage - from the tribe of benjamin
3) HIs former legalism - a strict Pharisee
4) His past zeal - a persecutor of the church
5) His self righteousness - a blameless life
I will address the points I highlighted.

1. Please show, through the use of two or three additional Scriptural witnesses - outside of Paul's writings - that defend a "faith & grace only" salvation, since you claim that this is the "original gospel".
2. If you've read through my posts on this thread, you'll understand that he did not discard his status as a Pharisee. In fact, he claimed that he continued to be a Pharisee - well into the period of his "Christian ministry".

Thank you! :)
 
C

cfultz3

Guest
My faith in Messiah has grown much stronger since I became non-Pauline.
In other words: My faith in Messiah has grown much stronger since I took half of the New Testament Scripture out.......
 
C

cfultz3

Guest
Hmm?

Is Paul above Christ and above God's former prophets?

I trust GOD, not a man (not even me).
In other words: I trust only half of the Spirit inspired New Testament.
 
C

cfultz3

Guest
It's easy for Protestants (or those with a Protestant canon) to dismiss non-Paulines as 'dingalings' ... yet how would you feel if others called you the same for, say, rejecting the prophets Sirach, or Enoch?

It's no different.
In other words: how would you feel if others called you the same for, say, adding to Scripture.
 
C

cfultz3

Guest
Most don't realize that there were two major divisions of the early church - pro-Pauline and anti-Paulines. The pro-Paulines gained ascendancy and is what the mainstream church reflects today. The 27% of the Protestant's NT canon consists of Paul's writings, and his books, among the pro-Paulines, weren't canonized in any official manner until the 2nd century beginning with Marcion. The anti-Paulines of the 1st century had already rejected Paul's writings.
In other words: the Apostle to the Gentiles have his enemies.
 
N

nathan3

Guest
Christ is our Passover : 1 Corinthians 5:7


Christ is our Sabbath : Mark 2:28



To kill an animal as a sacrifice to God, is an insult, and God is against it; after Christ was given for the world who believe upon Him.

Also, Paul was not teaching the hypocrisy and old covenant of the Pharisees after his conversion. That is a fact. The same people that killed Christ, also tried many times to kill Paul.

Paul taught Christ, not the traditions of the Pharisees, that is obvious from his letters, which God approved .
 
Last edited: