Was Paul Really A False Apostle?

[posthuman]

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.

And ye shall know that I am in the midst of Israel,
and that I am the Lord your God, and none else:
and my people shall never be ashamed.
(Joel 2:27)

if God has forsaken Israel, and forgotten all His promises to her, what makes us think that He will keep His promises to us, mere gentiles?

was the olive tree hewn down and a new tree planted, or was a branch grafted in?

 

[GodIsSalvation]

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.

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?

1. Paul was still Saul of Tarsus during Jesus time, but he did witness Jesus directly, though as Saul of Tarsus he was still an official Pharisee, he would have seen everything go down but from the perspective of the pharisees.

2. Lol you can have your associates write you letters, but then that means you have to prove to me your associates are Apostles themselves Just likes Paul's associates, Peters, John, etc. were Apostles.

3. You have to show your teachings are in harmony with Jesus and the other Apostles. By denying our brother Paul as an Apostle, you have all ready shown that thus far your teachings are not in line with the Apostles. Since Jesus himself made Paul an apostle, therefore your teaching is not in line with Jesus. That's okay though, Jesus is patient, he was certainly patient with Saul of Tarsus until he was ready to become the Apostle Paul.

4. Suffering under persecution proves you really believe in what you witnessed. Just like Paul, when he converted he was persecuted greatly by his old pharisee comrades, the roman empire, and all manners of people for his belief in Jesus, and as tradition states took his conviction in Jesus all the way to execution block. You don't nessecarily have to be executed, but I'd imagine you'd at least suffer some real persecution if you were an apostle, like all the others did. John as far as we know wasn't executed, but he was persecuted by being exiled to the island of Patmos for instance.

To address your buddhist concerns, remember you have to meet those four criterion all at once (if you want to really be a stickler you gotta go the extra mile and say the Holy Spirit named you an apostle too, but we don't even need to go that far.) 1 out of 4 or 3 out of 4 just don't cut it in my opinion (and others have even more rigorous criterion than even I have which Paul still meets the standard of.) Therefore the poor person following the error of buddhism may have suffered persecution, but that does not make you an Apostle in my own eyes, much less the much more rigorous test of others and God. Furthermore if you know Buddhism, you know buddhism denies Jesus. Like Paul using the Pharisee's own standards to prove they did not even follow God, we can prove buddhism is pagan, and possibly darker than that by the rules of buddhism itself. What spoke to Siddartha Gautama under the lotus tree by Siddartha's own account and taught him buddhism? Gautama himself claims it was a demon named Mara. Therefore if you follow the way of buddhism you follow the way of Mara. Thus you have all ready rendered yourself unable to fulfill any of my own personal first 3 criteria for Apostlehood, much less going the extra mile and having been chosen by the Holy Spirit of God.

Now you say Paul was a Pharisee, and what is a Pharisee? The Pharisees believed they followed the Law of Moses and the True Prophets, furthermore they believed in the Resurrection as opposed to their rival jewish temple sect, the Sadduccees whom simply followed the Law of Moses (or thought they followed it but in fact broke it constantly.) Saul of Tarsus was indeed one of them. From this, Paul, when he repent and came to Jesus all ready knew how the Pharisees thought and excellently showed the flaws in Pharisee logic by using the standard of their own logic to show them that they themselves did not follow Moses nor their own Prophets. Seems they didn't like that too much which probably explains why they persecute him.

Then you say for what purpose did Jesus let Paul become an Apostle when there was all ready 12. Well whoever told you there were only 12 Apostles? Seems to me the text is clear there are well more than just 12 apostles after Jesus death and resurrection. Whereupon more people came to know Jesus and become apostles. People such as Matthias, Barnabas, Silas, and of course, Paul. Keep reading Acts, all of these are called apostles. All of which meet my 4 personal criteria, plus the extra criteria of the 12 original Apostles' additional criteria of having the Holy Spirit of God name them as apostles.

 

[2Thewaters]

Was Paul an apostle?

The word of God is true and every man a liar...

(Rom 1:1 KJV) Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, separated unto the gospel of God,


(Rom 11:13 KJV) For I speak to you Gentiles, inasmuch as I am the apostle of the Gentiles, I magnify mine office:


(1 Cor 1:1 KJV) Paul, called to be an apostle of Jesus Christ through the will of God, and Sosthenes our brother,


(1 Cor 9:1 KJV) Am I not an apostle? am I not free? have I not seen Jesus Christ our Lord? are not ye my work in the Lord?


(1 Cor 9:2 KJV) If I be not an apostle unto others, yet doubtless I am to you: for the seal of mine apostleship are ye in the Lord.


(1 Cor 15:9 KJV) For I am the least of the apostles, that am not meet to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God.


(2 Cor 1:1 KJV) Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, and Timothy our brother, unto the church of God which is at Corinth, with all the saints which are in all Achaia:


(2 Cor 12:12 KJV) Truly the signs of an apostle were wrought among you in all patience, in signs, and wonders, and mighty deeds.


(Gal 1:1 KJV) Paul, an apostle, (not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead


(Eph 1:1 KJV) Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, to the saints which are at Ephesus, and to the faithful in Christ Jesus:


(Col 1:1 KJV) Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, and Timotheus our brother,


(1 Tim 1:1 KJV) Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the commandment of God our Saviour, and Lord Jesus Christ, which is our hope;


(1 Tim 2:7 KJV) Whereunto I am ordained a preacher, and an apostle, (I speak the truth in Christ, and lie not a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and verity.


(2 Tim 1:1 KJV) Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, according to the promise of life which is in Christ Jesus,


(2 Tim 1:11 KJV) Whereunto I am appointed a preacher, and an apostle, and a teacher of the Gentiles.


(Titus 1:1 KJV) Paul, a servant of God, and an apostle of Jesus Christ, according to the faith of God's elect, and the acknowledging of the truth which is after godliness;


(Heb 3:1 KJV) Wherefore, holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly calling, consider the Apostle and High Priest of our profession, Christ Jesus;

Now PETER is an APOSTLE
and he told us to READ PAULS WRITINGS
which have many sentances CALLING PAUL AN APOSTLE
PEeter therefore backs Paul as being an apostle too

2 Pet 3:15 And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;
2 Pet 3:16 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.




(1 Pet 1:1 KJV) Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia,


(2 Pet 1:1 KJV) Simon Peter, a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ, to them that have obtained like precious faith with us through the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ:

Paul is an apostle of Jesus christ

 

[aMessianic]

1. Paul was still Saul of Tarsus during Jesus time, but he did witness Jesus directly, though as Saul of Tarsus he was still an official Pharisee, he would have seen everything go down but from the perspective of the pharisees.

No, you originally claimed that Paul witnessed Messiah's life. Here it seems you are saying that Paul only witnessed Messiah? Which are you claiming?

2. Lol you can have your associates write you letters, but then that means you have to prove to me your associates are Apostles themselves Just likes Paul's associates, Peters, John, etc. were Apostles.

So, was Luke an apostle?

3. You have to show your teachings are in harmony with Jesus and the other Apostles. By denying our brother Paul as an Apostle, you have all ready shown that thus far your teachings are not in line with the Apostles. Since Jesus himself made Paul an apostle, therefore your teaching is not in line with Jesus. That's okay though, Jesus is patient, he was certainly patient with Saul of Tarsus until he was ready to become the Apostle Paul.

You are assuming here that Paul is an apostle, and based on that preconception, concluding that I am false. Have you read the works of the apostle Joseph Smith lately? You know, "by denying our brother Joseph as an Apostle, you will show that your teachings are not in line with the Apostles" ... right?

4. Suffering under persecution proves you really believe in what you witnessed. Just like Paul, when he converted he was persecuted greatly by his old pharisee comrades, the roman empire, and all manners of people for his belief in Jesus, and as tradition states took his conviction in Jesus all the way to execution block. You don't nessecarily have to be executed, but I'd imagine you'd at least suffer some real persecution if you were an apostle, like all the others did. John as far as we know wasn't executed, but he was persecuted by being exiled to the island of Patmos for instance.

To address your buddhist concerns, remember you have to meet those four criterion all at once (if you want to really be a stickler you gotta go the extra mile and say the Holy Spirit named you an apostle too, but we don't even need to go that far.) 1 out of 4 or 3 out of 4 just don't cut it in my opinion (and others have even more rigorous criterion than even I have which Paul still meets the standard of.) Therefore the poor person following the error of buddhism may have suffered persecution, but that does not make you an Apostle in my own eyes, much less the much more rigorous test of others and God. Furthermore if you know Buddhism, you know buddhism denies Jesus. Like Paul, we can prove buddhism is pagan, and possibly darker than that by the rules of buddhism itself. What spoke to Siddartha Gautama under the lotus tree by Siddartha's own account and taught him buddhism? Gautama himself claims it was a demon named Mara. Therefore if you follow the way of buddhism you follow the way of Mara. Thus you have all ready rendered yourself unable to fulfill any of my own personal first 3 criteria for Apostlehood, much less going the extra mile and having been chosen by the Holy Spirit of God.

Yes, I have read the Buddhist Nikayas of the oldest Pali canon texts. I do not see evidence where Buddha, in the suttas, would deny Jesus. Buddha would probably claim that Jesus is a Mahabrahma deva from the rupaloka (not what I believe, but this is what I understand Buddha would likely claim).

Back to the point though ... Paul was not a witness of Messiah's whole life, if we are to believe Acts 1:21-23.

Now you say Paul was a Pharisee, and what is a Pharisee? The Pharisees believed they followed the Law of Moses and the True Prophets, furthermore they believed in the Resurrection as opposed to their rival jewish temple sect, the Sadduccees whom simply followed the Law of Moses (or thought they followed it but in fact broke it constantly.) Saul of Tarsus was indeed one of them. From this, Paul, when he repent and came to Jesus all ready knew how the Pharisees thought and excellently showed the flaws in Pharisee logic by using the standard of their own logic to show them that they themselves did not follow Moses nor their own Prophets. Seems they didn't like that too much which probably explains why they persecute him.

Yes, the Pharisees believed that they followed the Law of YHVH perfectly, but in reality (as Messiah pointed out to them), they were in actuality following their own man-made traditions which they allowed to replace YHVH's Law in their lives. Messiah said that they were _not_ following YHVH's Laws, and Paul's teachings are evident of such as well.

Then you say for what purpose did Jesus let Paul become an Apostle when there was all ready 12. Well whoever told you there were only 12 Apostles? Seems to me the text is clear there are well more than just 12 apostles after Jesus death and resurrection. Whereupon more people came to know Jesus and become apostles. People such as Matthias, Barnabas, Silas, and of course, Paul. Keep reading Acts, all of these are called apostles. All of which meet my 4 personal criteria, plus the extra criteria of the 12 original Apostles' additional criteria of having the Holy Spirit of God name them as apostles.

The Apostle John, in Revelation, recognizes only 12 apostles.

 

[aMessianic]

Now PETER is an APOSTLE
and he told us to READ PAULS WRITINGS
which have many sentances CALLING PAUL AN APOSTLE
PEeter therefore backs Paul as being an apostle too

2 Pet 3:15 And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;
2 Pet 3:16 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.

Where, in 2Pet 3, did Peter call Paul an "apostle" (as you claim)? I see "brother", but not "apostle". Thank you.

 

[secularhermit]

I do too, having said that, if you can't trust the man/men who wrote the books of the bible, then by default how can you trust what they wrote in those books? Just saying that is...ALL THE BOOKS THAT IS!

Jes said that "those who are from GOD would listen to HIS voice..." That is John gospel. Moses spoke about Jesus, as well. I came to believe by "default" and by my fault, not for Paul's, not for Mary's witnessing... not for any other's human will.

 

[dcontroversal]

Jes said that "those who are from GOD would listen to HIS voice..." That is John gospel. Moses spoke about Jesus, as well. I came to believe by "default" and by my fault, not for Paul's, not for Mary's witnessing... not for any other's human will.

I like what you said, but is mute to my point which is, If you say that you do not trust the man, then how can you trust what the man wrote....it is obvious that you cannot trust the writings of a man if you cannot trust the man himself.

 

[GodIsSalvation]

No, you originally claimed that Paul witnessed Messiah's life. Here it seems you are saying that Paul only witnessed Messiah? Which are you claiming?

So, was Luke an apostle?

You are assuming here that Paul is an apostle, and based on that preconception, concluding that I am false. Have you read the works of the apostle Joseph Smith lately? You know, "by denying our brother Joseph as an Apostle, you will show that your teachings are not in line with the Apostles" ... right?

Yes, I have read the Buddhist Nikayas of the oldest Pali canon texts. I do not see evidence where Buddha, in the suttas, would deny Jesus. Buddha would probably claim that Jesus is a Mahabrahma deva from the rupaloka (not what I believe, but this is what I understand Buddha would likely claim).

Back to the point though ... Paul was not a witness of Messiah's whole life, if we are to believe Acts 1:21-23.

Yes, the Pharisees believed that they followed the Law of YHVH perfectly, but in reality (as Messiah pointed out to them), they were in actuality following their own man-made traditions which they allowed to replace YHVH's Law in their lives. Messiah said that they were _not_ following YHVH's Laws, and Paul's teachings are evident of such as well.

The Apostle John, in Revelation, recognizes only 12 apostles.

1. I claim both. Paul witnessed Jesus life and witnessed Messiah.

2. Was Luke an apostle, maybe. All we know is the other Apostles certainly approved of Luke and his writings. And Luke was in accordance with Jesus teaching. So it stands in good probability that Luke also was an apostle.

3. I am quite familiar with mormonism and Joseph Smith being an American and all. This goes along with our buddhism example. Who told Joseph Smith the things which he recorded in the 1800s? A being which Joseph Smith called Maroni (according to Joseph Smith.) Maroni told Joseph Smith many things which contradict Jesus teaching and life. Therefore Joseph Smith is not an apostle because he followed after the teachings of Maroni just like Gautama followed after Mara. Thus meaning he did not fulfill the first 3 criteria.

4. Going back to Buddha, if Buddha denies what Jesus himself taught he has thus denied the real Jesus and His teachings, just like Joseph Smith. Buddha would call Jesus an avatar or whatever fancy word they have for the Buddha, but that's not what Jesus taught. Just like Joseph Smith saying his fictional Jesus is brothers with Satan running around planets having celestial wives and children all over the cosmos is also against the real Jesus. These are what we call False Prophets. Furthermore by their own standard, they possibly followed the commands of either demons or Satan, or maybe were just fictional writers whose fictional books went past what they intended if we give them the benefit of the doubt.

5. You say Paul followed man made teachings after he converted. Wherefore is evidence of that? Seems to me Paul followed the teachings of God all the way despite great persecution and eventually execution.

6. You say John in his Prophecy named 12 apostles (didn't say if John said there were only 12 apostles, or if there were 12 original apostles though.) This interests me as I can find this no where in Revelations. I'd be happy to analyze it though if you can point this out in Revelations as I enjoy Revelations quite a bit. Maybe that would help add onto making sense of that Prophecy. And mind you that you have just here recognized John as an Apostle, which is goodly indeed. Seems that by reading Acts we know that John knew Paul and recognized him for who he is thus more proof for you that Paul was an Apostle

 

[secularhermit]

I like what you said, but is mute to my point which is, If you say that you do not trust the man, then how can you trust what the man wrote....it is obvious that you cannot trust the writings of a man if you cannot trust the man himself.

By "default" you cannot blieve the Mormon's Books, Catholics Books or the Islam's... I cannot believe I'm wrting to those who "venered" so much Paul's (or Luke's) writtngs... Once I dubted teo whole Bible, God dealt with me, so I am here for m faults (by default).

As many here and outside here!

Machabeus books are trust wothy? Are they real history an accurate?

Do you need them TO BELIEVE I GOD?

I believed my experience, my conviction of SINs, not Paul's. I see Paul as a historic means to led us to Catholicsim.

I see Mary as the mother of Jesus. But her veneation is close to the apostolic worship system many has set on Paul's teachings and, not kowing WHO Mary was, I belive God could have used another woman (an other men) for the same purpose.

Paul is not above Jesus teachings. He him (or me) the way you like.

GOD's will is above, even above His Son's, Jesus Christ. (Don't trust me! I don't deserve your attention either)

My zeal i for GOD's seal, not men's approval, becuse we are equals.

 

[crossnote]

Those who claim Paul to be false are charging God in His providence to be weak and/or misguided.
In other words how would Paul's writings get incorporated into God's Word if they in fact are not God's Word?
How could the Church be led over the centuries into such gross error without Divine intervention in preserving His Word?

 

[GodIsSalvation]

By "default" you cannot blieve the Mormon's Books, Catholics Books or the Islam's... I cannot believe I'm wrting to those who "venered" so much Paul's (or Luke's) writtngs... Once I dubted teo whole Bible, God dealt with me, so I am here for m faults (by default).

As many here and outside here!

Machabeus books are trust wothy? Are they real history an accurate?

Do you need them TO BELIEVE I GOD?

I believed my experience, my conviction of SINs, not Paul's. I see Paul as a historic means to led us to Catholicsim.

I see Mary as the mother of Jesus. But her veneation is close to the apostolic worship system many has set on Paul's teachings and, not kowing WHO Mary was, I belive God could have used another woman (an other men) for the same purpose.

Paul is not above Jesus teachings. He him (or me) the way you like.

GOD's will is above, even above His Son's, Jesus Christ. (Don't trust me! I don't deserve your attention either)

My zeal i for GOD's seal, not men's approval, becuse we are equals.

Hey I like this statement and you're right the focus should be on Jesus no doubt brother. You have good outlooks my hermit friend! This is why I enjoy talking with you much on CC and reading your writings indeed.

I agree, though I consider Paul and Apostles and so do the other Apostles, we must remember not to fall into the extreme side of it and end up worshipping the Apostles (which I am pretty sure by the teachings of the Apostles they would have not wanted us to do themselves.) Any of my arguments here is simply for the fact that Paul was an Apostles (and I even would call him Least of the Apostles, which is the standard he set for himself.) Why call Paul an apostle? Well beyond just the other Apostles calling him apostle, so did Jesus/Holy Spirit/God the Father.

Lol Paul is a rough speaker, I can see where some people might not like him so much. Thus I think that's why they try to deny him being an apostle. I personally always liked Paul as a human writer because his writing style and explanation of God talks in a language easy for me to understand. Paul speaks in a mindset very close to my own. Paul is very logical and plays by the rules of an unbelievers' logic to show you how you cannot possibly by your own unbelieving standards believe in non-belief. Thus you must by conclusion convert to Truth and God.

I give him some props because he was at least brutally honest about himself even his own shortcomings. Much like the other writers of the Bible going all the way back to Moses. Thus is why I give the many writers of the Bible credibility that they are in fact talking about the One True God, human civilization, and everything they witnessed to both good and bad in this world. I have read over religions, I have read over "secular" history. Bible is the only collection of ancient writers whom are brutally honest and give you the full truth no matter how embarassing or brutal or hopeful it might be. Thus I believe Paul deserves his place in the Bible and his place as the Least of the Apostles.


Excellent comment though I really did enjoy it. You make good points as always!

 

[chubbena]

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.

I have already said in my post #183

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.

Your post #188

I see him disobeying Torah.

Please state where he disobeyed Torah.

Your post #189

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.

By misusing, instead of using, Paul's writings as support.
2 Peter 3 reads:

So then, dear friends, since you are looking forward to this, make every effort to be found spotless, blameless and at peace with him. 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. He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.

What Peter was saying is, Paul in his writings also urge believers to make every effort to be found spotless, blameless and at peace with God.

 

[secularhermit]

@ God is salvation

You got it, friend!

Here there is a "war" of opinions against the very same people Jesus came to serve and save, Jewish and Pagans. The disgusting thing (for me) is seeking that protagonism Paul promoted, his teachings above Christ´s, their zeal above God´s seal of approval on Jesus (solely) although Jesus acknowledged His chosen ones (including Paul as a jew, a GOOD teacher and, perhaps, an apostel). I am nothing to JUDGE he was chosen or not (perhaps) but, pitifully, those we consider his writings, have led us to Catholicisms, sectarian bias and, as HE ALSO SAID: "Some were from APOLLOS and others were "his" followers (This issue is in his reknown writings).

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."

1Co 1:13 Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?

1Co 1:14 I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius,
1Co 1:15 so that no one may say that you were baptized in my name.
1Co 1:16 (I did baptize also the household of Stephanas. Beyond that, I do not know whether I baptized anyone else.)
1Co 1:17 For Christ did not send me to baptize but to preach the gospel, and not with words of eloquent wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power. "

 

[secularhermit]

I hope APOLLOS be an APOSTLE, too.

Paul´s writtings witnessed him as a good Jew fellow...

 

[aMessianic]

1. I claim both. Paul witnessed Jesus life and witnessed Messiah.

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!

2. Was Luke an apostle, maybe. All we know is the other Apostles certainly approved of Luke and his writings. And Luke was in accordance with Jesus teaching. So it stands in good probability that Luke also was an apostle.

Where is it written than Luke is an apostle?

3. I am quite familiar with mormonism and Joseph Smith being an American and all. This goes along with our buddhism example. Who told Joseph Smith the things which he recorded in the 1800s? A being which Joseph Smith called Maroni (according to Joseph Smith.) Maroni told Joseph Smith many things which contradict Jesus teaching and life. Therefore Joseph Smith is not an apostle because he followed after the teachings of Maroni just like Gautama followed after Mara. Thus meaning he did not fulfill the first 3 criteria.

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?

4. Going back to Buddha, if Buddha denies what Jesus himself taught he has thus denied the real Jesus and His teachings, just like Joseph Smith. Buddha would call Jesus an avatar or whatever fancy word they have for the Buddha, but that's not what Jesus taught. Just like Joseph Smith saying his fictional Jesus is brothers with Satan running around planets having celestial wives and children all over the cosmos is also against the real Jesus. These are what we call False Prophets. Furthermore by their own standard, they possibly followed the commands of either demons or Satan, or maybe were just fictional writers whose fictional books went past what they intended if we give them the benefit of the doubt.

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

5. You say Paul followed man made teachings after he converted. Wherefore is evidence of that? Seems to me Paul followed the teachings of God all the way despite great persecution and eventually execution.

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.

6. You say John in his Prophecy named 12 apostles (didn't say if John said there were only 12 apostles, or if there were 12 original apostles though.) This interests me as I can find this no where in Revelations. I'd be happy to analyze it though if you can point this out in Revelations as I enjoy Revelations quite a bit. Maybe that would help add onto making sense of that Prophecy. And mind you that you have just here recognized John as an Apostle, which is goodly indeed. Seems that by reading Acts we know that John knew Paul and recognized him for who he is thus more proof for you that Paul was an Apostle

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.

 

[aMessianic]

Please state where he disobeyed Torah.

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 ..."

By misusing, instead of using, Paul's writings as support. 2 Peter 3 reads: What Peter was saying is, Paul in his writings also urge believers to make every effort to be found spotless, blameless and at peace with God.

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!"

 

[crossnote]

@ God is salvation

You got it, friend!

Here there is a "war" of opinions against the very same people Jesus came to serve and save, Jewish and Pagans. The disgusting thing (for me) is seeking that protagonism Paul promoted, his teachings above Christ´s, their zeal above God´s seal of approval on Jesus (solely) although Jesus acknowledged His chosen ones (including Paul as a jew, a GOOD teacher and, perhaps, an apostel). I am nothing to JUDGE he was chosen or not (perhaps) but, pitifully, those we consider his writings, have led us to Catholicisms, sectarian bias and, as HE ALSO SAID: "Some were from APOLLOS and others were "his" followers (This issue is in his reknown writings).

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."

1Co 1:13 Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?

1Co 1:14 I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius,
1Co 1:15 so that no one may say that you were baptized in my name.
1Co 1:16 (I did baptize also the household of Stephanas. Beyond that, I do not know whether I baptized anyone else.)
1Co 1:17 For Christ did not send me to baptize but to preach the gospel, and not with words of eloquent wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power. "

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!

 

[aMessianic]

... Paul was an Apostles (and I even would call him Least of the Apostles, which is the standard he set for himself.) ...

Food for thought, my friend ...

"Whoever therefore may loose one of these commands -- the least -- and may teach men so, least (ἐλάχιστος, elachistos) he shall be called in the reign of the heavens ..." Mt 5:19

"For I am the least (ἐλάχιστος, elachistos) ... " - 1Cor 15:9

 

[phil36]

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..

 

[phil112]

Sarcasm is the most base form of humor. The content of what I state is true. Are you here to stir the pot? Is this your exhibition of courtesy?

Oh..please forgive me, I didn't realize I posted that on the "display your courtesy" thread.