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
I don't perceive myself to be in any corner."
