Was Paul a false apostle according to you ?

[JDecree]

If they doubt Paul, they have to trash the book of Acts and Luke(because Luke was close with Paul and he wrote both books). You start throwing out books of the bible and soon you have the book of revelation tossed. Who knows what else...maybe add some books while you are at it...dangerous game.

RedTent above makes a good point though, I had a friend who became very troubled by the anti-Paul movement for a time and it wasnt pretty but she needed to know.

 

[JaumeJ]

Everyone could take a lesson from Mary. When she did not understand something right away, she would always keep it in her heart. I believe she came to understand all in her time, but that is neither here nor there regarding this discussion.

When reading Paul, if something sounds off, wait on it, go back and look for what the Master teaches on the subject. I have always found that practicing this my apprehensions have always been alleviated by our Master, and Paul would come out innocent, yep. It seems by doing this the agreement comes to the surface.

Never worry if you think you disagree with Paul, as long as you agree with Yeshua. Again this attitude usually comes to the aid of Paul's reputation also. I pray this be understood as simple and nothing complex. It is what it says. Thank you Red Tent for your confidence in my previous post, I am not worthy, but thank you. We both pray before posting, so I like to think we have Help always.

 

[loveme1]

That is NOT what Peter said and you know it.

καὶ ἀστήρικτοι στρεβλοῦσιν ὡς καὶ τὰς λοιπὰς γραφὰς πρὸς τὴν ἰδίαν αὐτῶν ἀπώλειαν
And distort also as the OTHER scriptures to the own of them destruction.

i'm free to share my understanding and will not get in to the i'm right and your wrong with each who disagree.

But please do not tell me i know something if i have offered something different to you.

 

[oldhermit]

i'm free to share my understanding and will not get in to the i'm right and your wrong with each who disagree.

Does this extend to you the right to blatantly misrepresent scripture and expect not to be challenged on it? Rest assured, when you treat scripture in this manor, I WILL call you on it.

 

[loveme1]

Does this extend to you the right to blatantly misrepresent scripture and expect not to be challenged on it? Rest assured, when you treat scripture in this manor, I WILL call you on it.

Really? How so?

Be sure you have not misunderstood or assumed something before you call me on it.

 

[Hizikyah]

IMO this Scripture proves Shaul was legit and shows the reason for the accusations.

2 Kepha 3:15-16, "And recognize that the longsuffering of our Savior is salvation; just as our beloved brother Shaul, in
accordance with the wisdom given to him, has written to you, As also in all his letters, speaking in them about these things, in which are some things hard to be understood, which those who are unlearned and unstable twist, as they also do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction."

Shaul was educated by the Pharisiee and roman schools, if I remember correctly the school of Tiberius, so his worldly education was beyond any of the other writers of the Scroptures. He writes in a way that is hard to understand, I think all can agree when first read Shaul's writings they must be read over and over to grasp what he is saying, and looked at as not changing anything but supporting what Yahshua said and did. I think to try to understand his words outside that context is certian error. Yahweh inspired Kepha to write this passage about Shaul's words being easily misunderstood, I think this has to be taken into consideration when studying. I do want to add that IMO most churches these days almost exclusively read Shaul and ignore the rest, which creates fertile ground to twist his words, and what happens is people carry these false interpretations on and then others know these are false but then point to Shaul being false insted of correctly putting the blame on misunderstanding.

 

[oldhermit]

Really? How so?

Be sure you have not misunderstood or assumed something before you call me on it.

Here is what you said.

loveme1
"beware" "destruction" "error of the wicked"

i believe Peter is warning and reminding us and i have shared this.

Why it makes you uncomfortable i know not.

The Bible records people using the Writings of Paul and other scripture to their own destruction what more needs to be said?

Paul's epistles are specifically mentioned.

What you said in this is that Peter is warning people against using Paul's writings and that using Paul's writings brings their own destruction.

What Peter actually said was that people distort Paul's writings as they do the REST OF SCRIPTURE and they do so to their own destruction. Peter place the writings of Paul on the same par with all the other scripture and warns against those who would distort or twist what Paul has said.

Now, If you did not mean what you wrote then you need to clarify. If you did mean what you said, my challenge stands.

 

[loveme1]

Here is what you said.



What you said in this is that Peter is warning people against using Paul's writings and that using Paul's writings brings their own destruction.

What Peter actually said was that people distort Paul's writings as they do the REST OF SCRIPTURE and they do so to their own destruction. Peter place the writings of Paul on the same par with all the other scripture and warns against those who would distort or twist what Paul has said.

Now, If you did not mean what you wrote then you need to clarify. If you did mean what you said, my challenge stands.

No i did not say such a thing and you have falsely accused me.

I have other posts prior to the above.

The Words "using to their own destruction" are in my post.

Peter does not discredit Paul's writings, i stated he warns us and also reminds us to grow in Grace and Knowledge of our Lord and Saviour.

The words contained in my post were highlighted to show the warning e.g "beware".

 

[megaman125]

I am beginning to think the same thing. LOL

Well, you were asking someone else this question:

Why do you think Paul never saw Jesus alive?

To which I asked you this question, which you didn't answer.

So did Paul just encounter a dead Jesus in Acts 9 or what?

I was asking that becuase the question you were asking made it look like you didn't believe what Paul wrote.

And speaking of misunderstandings, if you don't mind me interjecting...

What Peter actually said was that people distort Paul's writings as they do the REST OF SCRIPTURE and they do so to their own destruction. Peter place the writings of Paul on the same par with all the other scripture and warns against those who would distort or twist what Paul has said.

Now, If you did not mean what you wrote then you need to clarify. If you did mean what you said, my challenge stands.

This is a prime example of what I meant on the first page, you're both in agreement and don't realize it because you're arguing over semantics and specific words. In this case, the word is distort. Did loveme1 use the word distort? No. Does it mean loveme1 is saying something that has a completely different effect? No. loveme1 didn't say "distort" but did say "using to their own destruction," and people who distort the scripture are using it to their own destruction. So you see, you're actually in agreement but you're too busy fighting over word specifics and how something is or isn't phrased to realize it.

 

[oldhermit]

This is a prime example of what I meant on the first page, you're both in agreement and don't realize it because you're arguing over semantics and specific words. In this case, the word is distort. Did loveme1 use the word distort? No. Does it mean loveme1 is saying something that has a completely different effect? No. loveme1 didn't say "distort" but did say "using to their own destruction," and people who distort the scripture are using it to their own destruction. So you see, you're actually in agreement but you're too busy fighting over word specifics and how something is or isn't phrased to realize it.

That may have been what he meant but, that was not what he said. I can only respond to what he said and what he said was a challenge to the apostleship of Paul and to the integrity of his writings.

 

[danschance]

i'm free to share my understanding and will not get in to the i'm right and your wrong with each who disagree.

But please do not tell me i know something if i have offered something different to you.

I am all for creative discussions of the bible. However, to claim Paul is a false apostle (whatever that means) you are claiming the other apostles are false as they all seem to approve of him. It also means the story in acts is false, so the entire book must be false. All of Paul's writings must be false. So you leave all of Christianity in a smoldering ruin if Paul is false.

I assume you have a problem with one of his teachings so rather than deal with his teaching you disparage him altogether. Honestly, this concept of Paul being a false apostle(whatever that means), is nuttier than squirrel barf, IMHO. I hope you will reconsider your stance on Paul.

 

[p_rehbein]

Ok, just looked at the poll results, and they are:

Yes: 1
No : 25

I have also read through the three pages of comments, and for the life of me, I can not see WHY anyone would take this question seriously................Must be missing something.........dunno.

 

[danschance]

IMO this Scripture proves Shaul was legit and shows the reason for the accusations.

2 Kepha 3:15-16, "And recognize that the longsuffering of our Savior is salvation; just as our beloved brother Shaul, in
accordance with the wisdom given to him, has written to you, As also in all his letters, speaking in them about these things, in which are some things hard to be understood, which those who are unlearned and unstable twist, as they also do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction."

Shaul was educated by the Pharisiee and roman schools, if I remember correctly the school of Tiberius, so his worldly education was beyond any of the other writers of the Scroptures. He writes in a way that is hard to understand, I think all can agree when first read Shaul's writings they must be read over and over to grasp what he is saying, and looked at as not changing anything but supporting what Yahshua said and did. I think to try to understand his words outside that context is certian error. Yahweh inspired Kepha to write this passage about Shaul's words being easily misunderstood, I think this has to be taken into consideration when studying. I do want to add that IMO most churches these days almost exclusively read Shaul and ignore the rest, which creates fertile ground to twist his words, and what happens is people carry these false interpretations on and then others know these are false but then point to Shaul being false insted of correctly putting the blame on misunderstanding.

Personally, I would appreciate if you used the common names found in the English bible for people, places and things to avoid confusion. I have no idea what kepha is. I can assume shaul is Paul. I don't speak Greek or Hebrew or even Aramaic. After all this site does restrict language to English for a reason.

 

[truth1]

Paul was a genuine apostle. You may be a false Christian, however.

Hope you'll never regret calling me a false Christian

 

[GreenNnice]

Who said Paul was a false apostle

 

[thewordwatcher]

I If he is not to be considered an apostle by some, they may at least consider him a disciple, but according to his own writing, he was commissioned by Yeshua, Himself.

Your previous post was also AWESOME.

Firstly, you are right there. Secondly, in the first century his letter we unknown and existed only 8 pieces of NT.

That was enough!

And thirdly, Paul was rejected by congregation in Ephesus, he admitted it himself. Our brothers didn't reject the TRUTH, they did reject Paul's teachings.

Luke was Paul disciple and he wrote Acts and the Gospel as well.

Paul was a false prophet. He didn't know, that the Temple will be destroyed and his prophecies were about Antichrist sitting in the temple during his life time.

It didn't happened. That's evidence of lack of Holy Spirit in his letters.

One is certain. Not believing in Paul is not a sin. I don't believe in Paul and that is not a sin because I don't brake God's Law.

Nowhere in the Bible is written that we should be obedient to Paul's teachings.

We should be obedient to Gospel of Christ, not Gospel of Paul. They are not the same.

Teachings of Paul has caused more than 3000 different Christian churches on this planet. All based on Paul's teachings, including Catholic Church.

Jesus is our savior and we should listen only to His voice.

 

[GreenNnice]

Your previous post was also AWESOME.

Firstly, you are right there. Secondly, in the first century his letter we unknown and existed only 8 pieces of NT.

That was enough!

And thirdly, Paul was rejected by congregation in Ephesus, he admitted it himself. Our brothers didn't reject the TRUTH, they did reject Paul's teachings.

Luke was Paul disciple and he wrote Acts and the Gospel as well.

Paul was a false prophet. He didn't know, that the Temple will be destroyed and his prophecies were about Antichrist sitting in the temple during his life time.

It didn't happened. That's evidence of lack of Holy Spirit in his letters.

One is certain. Not believing in Paul is not a sin. I don't believe in Paul and that is not a sin because I don't brake God's Law.

Nowhere in the Bible is written that we should be obedient to Paul's teachings.

We should be obedient to Gospel of Christ, not Gospel of Paul. They are not the same.

Teachings of Paul has caused more than 3000 different Christian churches on this planet. All based on Paul's teachings, including Catholic Church.

Jesus is our savior and we should listen only to His voice.

Hmmm, what is your denomination ?

 

[Praus]

Oh, you're so terribly wrong.. Paul controversies would make it for a 7 parts thread, at least.

It's very simple: if the Holy Spirit is in you then you understand that Jesus and Paul were saying the same thing and there's no controversy.

 

[unclefester]

i don't believe so but may none of us overlook 2 Peter 3 14-18

While it may be validation for some, it should also warn and remind us to grow in grace and in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Yahshua the Messiah ... not Paul.

Well, by the same token of Paul being inspired.. was Peter not, to speak such?

@ unclefester.

2 Peter 3

"beware" "destruction" "error of the wicked"

i believe Peter is warning and reminding us and i have shared this.

Why it makes you uncomfortable i know not.

The Bible records people using the Writings of Paul and other scripture to their own destruction ... what more needs to be said?

Paul's epistles are specifically mentioned.

What more needs to be said ? Just this. If you've been in agreement with oldhermit and I all along, why not just say so from the get go ? In your 1st post above, you specifically mention ... not Paul. Nothing said in reference to the other inspired writers of the N.T. Just Paul. In your 2nd post, you bring into play the certainty that Peter was inspired of God as well ... the inference being that Peter's words were in contrast to Paul's ... which they were not. And if this wasn't your intent, why even initiate the comparison between the two ? Thirdly, your last of the three posts above ends yet again with a mention of Paul's writings as being "specifically mentioned" ... by Peter, no less. If none of what you contributed to this thread was intended as it was perhaps viewed by myself and oldhermit .... i.e... ("contention to Paul's inspired writings"), can you at least see and understand now why it might have been ?

 

[Angela53510]

From the title, another heretic, gone already.

As someone said, to doubt Paul is to pull apart all of Christianity. I have read the New Testament in Greek. Paul's writings are hard, because he is so well educated, and uses a lot of hapax legomena, (a word used only ONCE in the whole New Testament) and lots of fancy words that writers like John and Peter do not use. That is one confirmation that Paul was indeed who he said he was - and that he was educated in Greek, and did not merely use the linga franca (common language) of the fishermen and carpenters. But it does not mean he was any better than the other apostles, just chosen for a very different reason - and part of that reason was not just to go to the Gentiles, but to leave us with the best theology the New Testament offers.

We have lots of study aids, and scholars who study the writings of Paul at a level most of us will never come near. They understand those hard words, in context, and they do not come up with any kind of conflict. I use numerous tools for studying the Greek, and NEVER have I seen anyone even hint that Paul might be a "false" apostle. Pure garbage!

For future reference, an easy but scholarly book on Paul is:

Introducing Paul: The Man, His Mission and His Message, by Michael F. Bird, IVP Press, 2008.

It might help someone with obviously false doctrine understand the New Testament and Paul a bit better.