Was Paul Really A False Apostle?

[BradC]

Brad's post reminded me of this..


Luke 7:36-50


Complete Jewish Bible (CJB)

[SUP]36 [/SUP]One of the P’rushim invited Yeshua to eat with him, and he went into the home of the Parush and took his place at the table. [SUP]37 [/SUP]A woman who lived in that town, a sinner, who was aware that he was eating in the home of the Parush, brought an alabaster box of very expensive perfume, [SUP]38 [/SUP]stood behind Yeshua at his feet and wept until her tears began to wet his feet. Then she wiped his feet with her own hair, kissed his feet and poured the perfume on them.
[SUP]39 [/SUP]When the Parush who had invited him saw what was going on, he said to himself, “If this man were really a prophet, he would have known who is touching him and what sort of woman she is, that she is a sinner.” [SUP]40 [/SUP]Yeshua answered, “Shim‘on, I have something to say to you.” “Say it, Rabbi,” he replied. [SUP]41 [/SUP]“A certain creditor had two debtors; the one owed ten times as much as the other. [SUP]42 [/SUP]When they were unable to pay him back, he canceled both their debts. Now which of them will love him more?” [SUP]43 [/SUP]Shim‘on answered, “I suppose the one for whom he canceled the larger debt.” “Your judgment is right,” Yeshua said to him.

You think this way because of your frame of reference. I could tell you that I love you and lay my life down and you would be suspicious of my motive because of your frame of reference. Many of the Christains feared Paul because of their frame of reference and it took time with the approval and right hand of fellowship by the other apostles and elders to subside that fear. JaumeJ and probably many others do not want to fully trust his teachings because of their frame of reference concerning his apostleship and the revelation he claims he received of the Lord.

 

[Karraster]

You think this way because of your frame of reference. I could tell you that I love you and lay my life down and you would be suspicious of my motive because of your frame of reference. Many of the Christains feared Paul because of their frame of reference and it took time with the approval and right hand of fellowship by the other apostles and elders to subside that fear. JaumeJ and probably many others do not want to fully trust his teachings because of their frame of reference concerning his apostleship and the revelation he claims he received of the Lord.

I have no idea what you are talking about. I was referencing that Paul had great remorse for his sin in persecuting the followers of Messiah. Likewise the woman who wiped Messiah's feet with her hair, had great remorse.

With all due respect, you stink at mind reading

 

[chubbena]

I respect that you found truth in Paul's writings.

How do you handle Messiah's warning against following the teachings of the Pharisees, and the fact that Paul is a Pharisee?

In your post #32 you said

Not "was" - "is". Reread Acts 23:6 - εἰμι (eimi, "I am") is in the Greek present indicative, which indicates that Paul was claiming to be, that that point in time, "I am currently a Pharisee". Again, this claim was made well into his "Christian ministry".

Yet Yeshua said in Matt 23

The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. So you must be careful to do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach.

Didn't He say to be careful to do everything they tell you when they're in Moses' seat, which I take it as according to the law?
I don't see anything wrong with following Paul's teachings if they are according to the law.
Is there anything in his teachings that are not according to the law? If so please point out one by one and see if there's any misunderstanding, or follow the thread "the letter to the Romans" and let's study together.

Didn't Yeshua say not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach? In other words if what Paul did was out of line then simply don't follow.
This principle should apply to whoever goes to church or has someone to look up to - one should listen and do what the pastor (or the one to look up to) teaches if it's in line with the teachings in the bible and should not do what the pastor (or the one to look up to) does if his action is not in line with the teachings in the bible.
Bear in mind so far there's only one person who never sinned in His whole life, the rest are sinners saved by grace through faith in that person.

 

[The_highwayman]

Why all the nonsense over the Apostle Paul!?!?!

He is confusing to the Jews because he was not called to the Jews, he was called to the gentiles and to usher in the covenant of Grace. Paul preached the new covenant and often time compared the new covenant of grace with the covenants of the Jews.

The theology that the Israel and the present day gentile church are together and share the same covenant is nonsense and foolish teaching.

The covenants between God and Israel and the Jewish people are for Israel, not the modern day gentile church.

The Covenant of Grace is for anyone who believes.

Things get sideways real quick when Born again gentiles start believing they are entitled to or must adhere to certain covenants in the Bible that are strictly for Israel and the Jewish people, just because they have converted to Judaism or worse, they stay gentiles Christians and interpret the Bible completely incorrectly.

 

[BradC]

So, anyone who wonders, the jury is still out. Some of the quotes are from Paul's own writing, while others from the Old Testament are rather general, having nothing to do with Paul's status.

Although Paul may seem a ball of confusion at times, I do like his teachings, one in particular is when he teaches, "Consider your calling............etc." He is the first to say we do not belong to Paul, for Paul did not suffer and shed his blood for the salvation of all who come to the cross. Yeshua is our Salvation, and Paul is sent out by Him, according to Paul's writings...

The gospel that Paul preaches does not include the law, it is all grace and truth and that is difficult for you. The law that came by Moses has no bearing upon the cross of Christ nor upon the faith that has come to all men through that cross. Paul's gospel that was preached to the Gentiles excluded the law. The law had to be excluded or righteousness would have been according to the law. That is why circumcision was not a condition for salvation any more than keeping the Sabbath. If some Jews had their way they would have made any abrogation of the law a means to disqualifying the believer.

For Peter not to eat with Gentile believers was a sentimental attachment that Peter was seduced into by those whose hearts were not established in grace but were oriented to the law and to circumcision. Barnabas was also carried away with that dissimulation and hypocrisy. The law offers nothing to the benefit of the believer in Christ and to believe otherwise is putting trust in the law unto righteousness and doing despite to the Spirit of grace. You can't double talk your way out of it. It is all grace without the works of the law or it is works and if it is works of the law then it is no more grace. That pertains to imputed and imparted righteousness because you can't have imparted righteousness without the imputed righteousness of Christ.

 

[BradC]

I have no idea what you are talking about. I was referencing that Paul had great remorse for his sin in persecuting the followers of Messiah. Likewise the woman who wiped Messiah's feet with her hair, had great remorse.

With all due respect, you stink at mind reading

Not my calling, yours?

 

[aMessianic]

Sure you can claim it and many people both false and true have claimed it.

Lol and if you fit the four criterion in my other post (1. direct witness to Jesus life, 2. work with the other Apostles, 3. teachings are in harmony with Jesus and God and the True Apostles 4. and suffer much persecution and execution for your belief in Jesus) then I will call you an Apostle too.

If Paul fulfilled point #1, then why was he not among the group in Acts 1:21-23? As for #2, I'll have my associate write up a couple of letters to show that I did. #3 I can do that too. #4 suffering and persecution does not prove anything. Buddhist monks have suffered persecution in the name of Buddha.

Also on a note of Saul of Tarsus and Paul. Remember Saul of Tarsus was a murderer, a pharisee, held the coats of the sadducees as they stoned Stephen. So you attack him on that basis. You forgot one thing. After Jesus spoke to him he was born again as The Apostle Paul, the self-described Least of the Apostles. Think about it like this since thou have the jewish flag and identity to it. Moses was a murderer according to Moses own words! Moses was raised in the royal court of the Egyptians of all people. By adoption, Moses was related to Pharoah. Heck the Pharoah's daughter gave him the name Moses, according to Moses. Yet something happened to Moses one day on Mount Sinai and he spoke to Jesus and it changed Moses' life forever. The same is with Paul.

It seems to me that you are ignoring the fact that Paul, well into his "Christian ministry," admits that he still continued to be a Pharisee, my friend.

For what purpose did Messiah appoint Paul, if he already appointed the twelve?

 

[aMessianic]

To that I add, he understood Torah so well, and the Message of Messiah. He stayed within the framework of those.

I see him disobeying Torah.

 

[aMessianic]

[SIZE=+1]16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.


( Speaking of these things Peter just prior taught himself, in " all of his epistles " . Peter gives credence to all of Paul's letters.
There is also the serious warning, to understand Paul's letters too. Those who are unlearned and unstable wrest. In 2 Timothy 2:15 ,it tells us to study to show our self approved before God. And that there was a warning, of shame, if we did not study. And Peter takes it farther, saying there would be destruction. Paul in his own letters said in 2 Thess 2, that if people wanted to believe a lie, that even God, would send them strong delusion. )


17 Ye therefore, beloved, seeing ye know these things before, beware lest ye also, being led away with the error of the wicked, fall from your own stedfastness.

( We have to stay away from the error of the wicked, and not fall from our steadfastness in our faith. Those tenets are written in all the Bible. ) [/SIZE]

I suggest re-reading it in the Greek. The unlearned and unstable fall from their own stedfastness by using Paul's writings as support for the delusional error of the lawless.

 

[aMessianic]

In your post #32 you said
Yet Yeshua said in Matt 23

Didn't He say to be careful to do everything they tell you when they're in Moses' seat, which I take it as according to the law?
I don't see anything wrong with following Paul's teachings if they are according to the law.
Is there anything in his teachings that are not according to the law? If so please point out one by one and see if there's any misunderstanding, or follow the thread "the letter to the Romans" and let's study together.

Didn't Yeshua say not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach? In other words if what Paul did was out of line then simply don't follow.
This principle should apply to whoever goes to church or has someone to look up to - one should listen and do what the pastor (or the one to look up to) teaches if it's in line with the teachings in the bible and should not do what the pastor (or the one to look up to) does if his action is not in line with the teachings in the bible.
Bear in mind so far there's only one person who never sinned in His whole life, the rest are sinners saved by grace through faith in that person.

You are correct.

As I wrote in my first post you quoted, we are not to follow the teachings of the Pharisees, according to Messiah. I take this to mean that we are not to follow the unique teachings of this sect, of which their greatest error are their anti-YHVH's-Law/Torah traditions.

I believe Messiah is stating in Mt 23 that we should follow them as long as they teach from Moses' seat - that is, as long as they teach in harmony with Torah (and the Prophets) - see Isa 8:20, Deu 13, Deu 18. I have no problem with this.

So, yes, some of Pharisee Paul's words are worthy to listen to if and when he agrees with Torah/Messiah and the Prophets. His unique teachings, which are unwitnessed to by two or more other credible writers and are against Torah/Messiah and the Prophets, are not worthy of consideration.

 

[aMessianic]

Why all the nonsense over the Apostle Paul!?!?!

He is confusing to the Jews because he was not called to the Jews, he was called to the gentiles and to usher in the covenant of Grace. Paul preached the new covenant and often time compared the new covenant of grace with the covenants of the Jews.

The theology that the Israel and the present day gentile church are together and share the same covenant is nonsense and foolish teaching.

The covenants between God and Israel and the Jewish people are for Israel, not the modern day gentile church.

The Covenant of Grace is for anyone who believes.

Things get sideways real quick when Born again gentiles start believing they are entitled to or must adhere to certain covenants in the Bible that are strictly for Israel and the Jewish people, just because they have converted to Judaism or worse, they stay gentiles Christians and interpret the Bible completely incorrectly.

I disagree.

Ethnic Gentiles - faithful believers - left Egypt along with the biological children of Israel. They were there together at the foot of Mount Sinai when Moses received the Law. Throughout the Law itself (and the Prophets), YHVH commanded that His Law applied equally to both Jew and Gentile (cf Num 15:3, 15:14-16, Lev 24:22, Lev 19:33,34, Num 9:14, Ex 12:48,4,9; Num 15:29, Ex 20:10, Lev 25:6, Deu 5:14, Isa 56:6, Deu 29:11,14, Deu 26:11, etc.). As Moses was dying, he commended YHVH's Law to both groups again (Deu 29:10,11).

Finally, Messiah Himself - after His resurrection - commanded His twelve Jewish apostles to spread His message to the Gentile nations, and to teach them to observe(obey) everything He commanded them to observe (Mt 28:18-20)! This verse is overlooked in mainstream Christianity. Again, the message and Path was the same for both Jew and Gentile.

I don't see how all this can be reconciled to Paul's alleged claim that he alone was to bring a different message to the Gentiles. Paul's message is the odd one out.

 

[posthuman]

This is what the LORD Almighty says:
"In those days ten people from all languages and nations will take firm hold of one Jew by the hem of his robe and say,
'Let us go with you, because we have heard that God is with you.'"

(Zechariah 8:23)

 

[starfield]

Why all the nonsense over the Apostle Paul!?!?!

He is confusing to the Jews because he was not called to the Jews, he was called to the gentiles and to usher in the covenant of Grace. Paul preached the new covenant and often time compared the new covenant of grace with the covenants of the Jews.

The theology that the Israel and the present day gentile church are together and share the same covenant is nonsense and foolish teaching.
The covenants between God and Israel and the Jewish people are for Israel, not the modern day gentile church.

The Covenant of Grace is for anyone who believes.

Things get sideways real quick when Born again gentiles start believing they are entitled to or must adhere to certain covenants in the Bible that are strictly for Israel and the Jewish people, just because they have converted to Judaism or worse, they stay gentiles Christians and interpret the Bible completely incorrectly.

The theology that God has two separate plans and two distinct people is foolish teaching and contrary to scripture. God only has one people. This is the church - the true Israel of God.

 

[The_highwayman]

The gospel that Paul preaches does not include the law, it is all grace and truth and that is difficult for you. The law that came by Moses has no bearing upon the cross of Christ nor upon the faith that has come to all men through that cross. Paul's gospel that was preached to the Gentiles excluded the law. The law had to be excluded or righteousness would have been according to the law. That is why circumcision was not a condition for salvation any more than keeping the Sabbath. If some Jews had their way they would have made any abrogation of the law a means to disqualifying the believer.

For Peter not to eat with Gentile believers was a sentimental attachment that Peter was seduced into by those whose hearts were not established in grace but were oriented to the law and to circumcision. Barnabas was also carried away with that dissimulation and hypocrisy. The law offers nothing to the benefit of the believer in Christ and to believe otherwise is putting trust in the law unto righteousness and doing despite to the Spirit of grace. You can't double talk your way out of it. It is all grace without the works of the law or it is works and if it is works of the law then it is no more grace. That pertains to imputed and imparted righteousness because you can't have imparted righteousness without the imputed righteousness of Christ.

I totally agree with you here Brad. Many Gentile Christians have been taught or preached to, that they are under the Mosaic Covenant and that is simply not true.

The Mosaic Covenant was between God and Israel only. The Gentiles were not included and the Church was not even established yet.

There are so many gentile Christians that have been under poor teaching on the subject of the covenants

 

[The_highwayman]

The theology that God has two separate plans and two distinct people is foolish teaching and contrary to scripture. God only has one people. This is the church - the true Israel of God.

I do not have the time of day to explain things to a devout preterist. We see differently and that's fine.
Have a good day

 

[The_highwayman]

I disagree.

Ethnic Gentiles - faithful believers - left Egypt along with the biological children of Israel. They were there together at the foot of Mount Sinai when Moses received the Law. Throughout the Law itself (and the Prophets), YHVH commanded that His Law applied equally to both Jew and Gentile (cf Num 15:3, 15:14-16, Lev 24:22, Lev 19:33,34, Num 9:14, Ex 12:48,4,9; Num 15:29, Ex 20:10, Lev 25:6, Deu 5:14, Isa 56:6, Deu 29:11,14, Deu 26:11, etc.). As Moses was dying, he commended YHVH's Law to both groups again (Deu 29:10,11).

Finally, Messiah Himself - after His resurrection - commanded His twelve Jewish apostles to spread His message to the Gentile nations, and to teach them to observe(obey) everything He commanded them to observe (Mt 28:18-20)! This verse is overlooked in mainstream Christianity. Again, the message and Path was the same for both Jew and Gentile.

I don't see how all this can be reconciled to Paul's alleged claim that he alone was to bring a different message to the Gentiles. Paul's message is the odd one out.

Its fine we disagree brother...Have a good day

 

[crossnote]

Are Nazis a race unto their own ? It's non sense.This thread is not about Germans. It is about correcting the misinformation, that gullible people buy, that Paul was not an Apostle or false in some way.

Also Paul is recorded as being from the Tribe of Benjamin.

There is no scripture stating he was from the Tribe of Judah. He maybe could identify with them because those in control of the temple at the time where "Jewish" and because Gamaliel who Paul studied under, was Jewish himself.

But Paul was a Benjamite , of that tribe ( Romans 11:1 ). Not a Jew.

Any Christian, and Christian Germans, would know this. That is of course , if they are familiar with God's words. Which many Christians are not, they like to listen to false info on the internet instead.

No nazi is not a race although they exalted the Aryan race.

Yes Paul was a Jew...
Acts 22:3 I am verily a man which am a Jew, born in Tarsus, a city in Cilicia, yet brought up in this city at the feet of Gamaliel, and taught according to the perfect manner of the law of the fathers, and was zealous toward God, as ye all are this day.

Or

Acts 22:3 “I am a Jew, born in Tarsus in Cilicia, but brought up in this city, educated with strictness under Gamaliel according to the law of our ancestors, and was zealous for God just as all of you are today.

 

[aMessianic]

Its fine we disagree brother...Have a good day

Have a good day, brother.

 

[crossnote]

Were you prudent in your critique, you would see I read Paul for instruction, however because some of the proof is not valid in a court of law because it is penned by Paul, it disqualifies iteself as being a pure conflict of interest in determining his status as an apostle. He is not one of the twelve, so he is defintely not going to have his name on one of the foundations of the New Jerusalem. The other scriptural references could be to anyone, you, me, anyone. Strictly speaking, it is not truly coherent. As for Paul preaching the gospel of Jesus Christ, yes, he does, but he also throws in his personal opinions, especially when it comes to women teaching, covering the head, and other traditions of man, just as do many today. Also were his teaching concise there would not be so much debate within the ranks of true believers on his stance on the law, grace and obedience. I believe he is in line with our Lord, Yeshua, however when something he has purported is not clear, I get the straight dope from our Savior. If there is error in my approach, it is certain Yeshua will not hold it against me since I always go to Him.

Yes or no. When it comes to matters of salvation, both here and eternal are Paul's writings fully inspired by the Holy Spirit...truly reflecting God's will?

 

[BradC]

So, anyone who wonders, the jury is still out. Some of the quotes are from Paul's own writing, while others from the Old Testament are rather general, having nothing to do with Paul's status.

Although Paul may seem a ball of confusion at times, I do like his teachings, one in particular is when he teaches, "Consider your calling............etc." He is the first to say we do not belong to Paul, for Paul did not suffer and shed his blood for the salvation of all who come to the cross. Yeshua is our Salvation, and Paul is sent out by Him, according to Paul's writings...

Why not bring up one of those 'balls of confusion' and see if the body of Christ can help you with the confusion. Maybe you don't want to understand because you have accepted something that Christ has said in the gospel so it doesn't matter what Paul meant and you go on and just skip over it. Jesus revealed many things to Paul that he never discussed with his disciples that we have record of. Is that being a student of the word and are you telling us that Paul was not inspired by the Spirit in what he wrote? Is it not good enough for you to labor over and get input from other members of the body who have been taught well in these matters of doctrine? What makes you think that you will not be held accountable for those 'balls of confusion' areas of truth that you lay aside with frivolity?