Should Paul be removed from the NT?

JJM said:
Ok obviously we don't know that this isn't just made up.



How do we know this? In my understanding of Christianity, it doesn't matter whether Jesus actually said any of the things attributed to him.

And, like I said before, it makes a lot more sense to me now than the traditional, "faith as in God became flesh died for our sins, those who believe the literal truth of that go to heaven the rest go to hell" approach.
 
Abogado del Diablo said:
[/color][/font][/color]


How do we know this? In my understanding of Christianity, it doesn't matter whether Jesus actually said any of the things attributed to him.
How do we know what? It does matter if Christ ever actually said any of the things attributed to him because if he didn't then why on earth would we believe he ever even existed. There is no other reference to him in history except in Josephus but that was after his resurrection. The point is that if they where just making stuff up then there are no reason to believe any of it.

Abogado del Diablo said:
And, like I said before, it makes a lot more sense to me now than the traditional, "faith as in God became flesh died for our sins, those who believe the literal truth of that go to heaven the rest go to hell" approach.
I don't believe this I never said I did. You seem to think that I do. This is the biggest flaw that Protestants ever came up with. Humanity is saved by Grace. Because we have all sinned and none of us deserve Heaven. However that grace isn't withheld form those who don’t know that he is God nor is it given to all who believe he is God. This is what I've been trying to get across to you the whole time. God wishes to give his Grace to everyone and will to all those who accept it. That is why I said men put them selves in Hell. God doesn't condemn people there people choose to put themselves there by rejecting God. TO those who more is given more is expecting. That line is important. Because I will tell you right now it is much harder for a Christian to get into heaven than someone who has never been told about God. Because a Christian knows what he should do and if he chooses not to he is Rejecting Christ. However the non-Christian doesn't know all and thus can't be held accountable for his sins out of ignorance. The only way that someone can go to hell for not being Christian is if they truly know that Christ is God. If that has been revealed to they and they reject it. However only God knows if this is the case and no human on earth can know if someone has truly rejected God. You are only required to Do what you know is right. So if a Muslim truly doesn't understand Christianity and he attempts to worship God in the Muslim matter and follows God the way the Koran, which is his only source of knowledge of God, tells him then he will go to heaven because he has never rejected God. Only if this man was told about Christianity and began to see that his religion was wrong but held onto it anyway would he go to hell because of it. One is only required to follow how he knows best. If he attempts that he will be saved regardless if he's Christian or not. A Christian is not only required to believe that Christ is God but actually live by Christ’s principles if not he is rejecting God’s word and Christ is the Word.
 
JJM said:
How do we know what? It does matter if Christ ever actually said any of the things attributed to him because if he didn't then why on earth would we believe he ever even existed. There is no other reference to him in history except in Josephus but that was after his resurrection. The point is that if they where just making stuff up then there are no reason to believe any of it.


Oh, but absolutely there is a reason to believe it. The tricky part is what are we to believe. That's what we are talking about. There's a difference between "believing" in the authority of scripture and "knowing" its meaning. Ask, seek and knock if you want to. Nobody can force you to though.

JJM said:
I don't believe this I never said I did. You seem to think that I do. This is the biggest flaw that Protestants ever came up with. Humanity is saved by Grace. Because we have all sinned and none of us deserve Heaven. However that grace isn't withheld form those who don’t know that he is God nor is it given to all who believe he is God. This is what I've been trying to get across to you the whole time. God wishes to give his Grace to everyone and will to all those who accept it.

That would be a work. Faith is a gift so that no man can boast, however.

JJM said:
That is why I said men put them selves in Hell. God doesn't condemn people there people choose to put themselves there by rejecting God.

Sure he does in that theology. Faith is a gift of god's grace.

JJM said:
Because a Christian knows what he should do and if he chooses not to he is Rejecting Christ.


What does Paul say about rejecting Christ?

JJM said:
However the non-Christian doesn't know all and thus can't be held accountable for his sins out of ignorance. The only way that someone can go to hell for not being Christian is if they truly know that Christ is God.

Truly "know" it or truly "believe" it?

JJM said:
If that has been revealed to they and they reject it. However only God knows if this is the case and no human on earth can know if someone has truly rejected God. You are only required to Do what you know is right. So if a Muslim truly doesn't understand Christianity and he attempts to worship God in the Muslim matter and follows God the way the Koran, which is his only source of knowledge of God, tells him then he will go to heaven because he has never rejected God. Only if this man was told about Christianity and began to see that his religion was wrong but held onto it anyway would he go to hell because of it. One is only required to follow how he knows best. If he attempts that he will be saved regardless if he's Christian or not. A Christian is not only required to believe that Christ is God but actually live by Christ’s principles if not he is rejecting God’s word and Christ is the Word.
A christian isn't required to do anything.
 
Abogado [/color said:
del Diablo]
Abogado [/color said:
[/color]

Oh, but I absolutely do. It makes more sense to me now than when I "believed" in heaven and hell and "sin" and whatnot. You just have to be able to hear it. He, who has ears to hear, let him hear.



May I ask what it is you have to go on then?

Abogado [/color said:
del Diablo]

Circular logic. You can't justify the credibility of a source by quoting from the source. For example, how do we know scripture is the word of god? Because it says "all scripture is God breathed?" Yeah, but's that in the very scripture we're talking about. Get it?







I would think "god" can do whatever "god" wants to do.





Your conclusion doesn't follow from your premises.







Ok how am I using Scripture to prove scripture? I'm using scripture to prove that God doesn't lie not that scripture is valid. And you’re the one who asked for citation. Secondly Ok I should have said doesn't sin obviously he can. However it doesn't make sense for God to say something is evil and then do it. If he wanted to do it he could have just decided that it isn't evil.



Abogado [/color said:
del Diablo]

I'm really sorry, but this still makes no sense to me.



Alright then I'll try to make it clearer. This is assuming that Christ actually said this because if he didn't then obviously it doesn't matter but we have no way of truly knowing if he did or not. Christ says and upon this rock I will build my church now he can't build a church if he didn't found one therefore I concluded that Christ founded a church. Secondly and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. This shows 2 things one that this church must still exist because if it didn't Hell has prevailed because Hell still exists and the church doesn't. The second is that this church must be infallible because Satan is a corruptor and obviously prevails if he corrupts the church. Does that make sense now?

Abogado [/color said:
del Diablo]

Unless he didn't make the statement, of course. And, of course, god can lie unless he isn't omnipotent.





But it doesn't say anything about heaven or hell, which was the original inquiry. Where do you get the idea that "saved" means going to heaven v. eternal damnation in hell?



I say that saved means going to heaven because that is its meaning. What other meaning is there? Besides the other two which I mentioned. But If it is saying God wants everyone to be baptized thus gaining the capacity to go to heaven then why would he then withhold it from some. If it is the third well that is an Idea that was invented by Luther and wouldn't be the meaning of Salvation in this verse. So is there another meaning of salvation?



Abogado [/color said:
del Diablo]

You say "tom-ae-tow" and I say "taw-maw-tow". Same thing.



[/font]



Do you sin?





Please excuse me yes of course I do. This was a bad statement. I'll say a little more at your next do you sin.



Abogado [/font said:
del Diablo]

Turning your back on God is turning your back on the sacrifice made by Jesus. Yes?



It is accepting the sin in your life.



Abogado [/font said:
del Diablo]

That doesn't say what Paul thinks sin is. It's also horribly out of context. I suggest you carefully read the entire book of Romans. You may find that passage does NOT mean what you've been taught it means.





I know it doesn't say what sin is I said that. What do you think it means? Obviously original sin is the cause of our human death. Our acceptance of sin a.k.a. Blasphemy against eh Holy spirit is the only unforgivable sin and causes our eternal death.

Abogado [/font said:
del Diablo]

Do you sin?

Well of course I do I meant those who accept their sin knowing that it is sin. God knows Most will never stop sinning but if we don't attempt not to sin then we are not accepting the word of God which is Christ.



Abogado [/font said:
del Diablo]

I am telling you. I am quite serious that if your goal is to find ways to keep your faith, you can't hear what I have to say.




Well here's the way I see it. If you show me a good point then I'll be glad to loose my faith. Now of course I want to keep it but that doesn’t mean I'm going to turn my back on obvious evidence that I'm wrong. Right now though you are telling me that you have something about my religion that you wish to share but before you do you want me to promise I will conform to your views before you've said anything because you don't want to waste your time. I see that as very absurd. This is what I'm going to tell you I want to keep my faith and if your views are primarily in line with my faith or lack any reason then I'm going to tell you. If I think that yours does have some reason to it but is still wrong I'm going to tell you and maybe you can clarify and I'll understand or we will have to agree to disagree and If what you say makes sense then I will either take your views or leave Christianity all together. However you are helping no one trying to get me to conform to your views before you have told me what they are.
 
Abogado del Diablo said:
It is absolutely NOT saying that. Nobody would think that "Grace" would come from one's self. The clause "not of yourselves" would be nonsense if it referred to "grace." It refers to the noun that precedes it - "Faith". Which in turn is a gift of God's grace. Be careful to look objectively at this. The predisposition is to twist simple language into difficult language to make it fit with a theological preference. But it says what it says.


Of course not But they would assume that they could earn salvation and salvation would come from them.


For by grace you are saved this seems very simple His grace is a gift of salvation.


through faith We receive this gift through Faith.



and that not of yourselves, we can’t earn the salvation.



For it is the gift of God. Just what it says.



This verse is saying that salvation is a gift of Grace a grace we receive through faith not that God gives us the faith. Notice I said his gift was his saving Grace. It is also saying that no matter how hard we work we can't earn salvation it is always a gift not that certain works aren’t necessary to achieve that gift. For We need true faith and faith without works is dead.
 
Abogado [/color said:
del Diablo]
Abogado [/color said:


Oh, but absolutely there is a reason to believe it. The tricky part is what are we to believe. That's what we are talking about. There's a difference between "believing" in the authority of scripture and "knowing" its meaning. Ask, seek and knock if you want to. Nobody can force you to though.




I realize that but if you honestly think that Christ didn't say any of this then the meaning doesn't matter and I don't understand why you believe. I believe he did say this but my point is if you don't think he said any of it then your belief is completely irrational.

Abogado [/color said:
del Diablo]

That would be a work. Faith is a gift so that no man can boast, however.

Sure he does in that theology. Faith is a gift of god's grace.




Once again Saving Grace is a gift of God a gift we receive through having faith and living that faith because faith without works is dead. The Idea that It is by simply having faith one is saved was an invention of Luther’s and the Idea that God's gift is faith instead of Saving Grace sound very much like Calvin.



Abogado [/color said:
del Diablo]

What does Paul say about rejecting Christ?


Paul says that we must have true faith. James says true faith is following the laws of Christ. Christ says what the laws are and that we are only binned by those which we truly know of. There for by rejecting Christ we go to hell. Not to mention God wants all to go to heaven so he would only not give it to those who don't accept it.



Abogado [/color said:
del Diablo]



Truly "know" it or truly "believe" it?





I'd say kind of a mix between the two. In the End it's God's call.

Abogado [/color said:
del Diablo]



A christian isn't required to do anything.




A Christian is required to do two things have faith and live that faith.
 
JJM said:
May I ask what it is you have to go on then?


I don't understand your question.


JJM said:
Ok how am I using Scripture to prove scripture? I'm using scripture to prove that God doesn't lie not that scripture is valid. And you’re the one who asked for citation. Secondly Ok I should have said doesn't sin obviously he can. However it doesn't make sense for God to say something is evil and then do it. If he wanted to do it he could have just decided that it isn't evil.


Why doesn't that make sense that god would do evil? What is evil?

JJM said:
Alright then I'll try to make it clearer. This is assuming that Christ actually said this because if he didn't then obviously it doesn't matter but we have no way of truly knowing if he did or not. Christ says and upon this rock I will build my church now he can't build a church if he didn't found one

What is a church? What did christ mean when he said it? Who wrote that passage?

JJM said:
and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.


Which side are you on? How do you know?

JJM said:
This shows 2 things one that this church must still exist because if it didn't Hell has prevailed because Hell still exists and the church doesn't.

You've been to Hell?

JJM said:
The second is that this church must be infallible because Satan is a corruptor and obviously prevails if he corrupts the church. Does that make sense now?

That's better. What if the church is absolutely nothing like what you think it is? What if the "church" has been staring you in the fact your whole life and you haven't really seen it?


JJM said:
I say that saved means going to heaven because that is its meaning.

According to what/whom?

JJM said:
What other meaning is there?

You can save a kitten from a tree. You can save save a friend from embarassment. You can save a man from sacrificing the joy of life to pursue empty promises. It could mean lots of other things.

JJM said:
But If it is saying God wants everyone to be baptized thus gaining the capacity to go to heaven then why would he then withhold it from some.

Good question. Why do you think?

JJM said:
So is there another meaning of salvation?

Yes. Lots of them

JJM said:
I know it doesn't say what sin is I said that. What do you think it means? Obviously original sin is the cause of our human death. Our acceptance of sin a.k.a. Blasphemy against eh Holy spirit is the only unforgivable sin and causes our eternal death.

What is "original sin"? How do you know? Where is "blasphemy against the Holy Spirit" defined as you indicate here? What is "eternal death?"

JJM said:
Well of course I do I meant those who accept their sin knowing that it is sin.

You mean you don't sin when you know it's a sin?

JJM said:
God knows Most will never stop sinning but if we don't attempt not to sin then we are not accepting the word of God which is Christ.

Is that what Paul says about rejecting christ? He has a very sophisticaete and nuanced philosophy on this issue. And if attempting not to sin is the meaning of "accepting the word of god" for purposes of salvation, then that would be salvation through "works." Read Paul's writings on this subject carefully and thoroughly and for yourself. Try not to have any pre-conceived notions about what he is trying to say when you read it. You might be surprised.

JJM said:
Well here's the way I see it. If you show me a good point then I'll be glad to loose my faith. Now of course I want to keep it but that doesn’t mean I'm going to turn my back on obvious evidence that I'm wrong.

It's not about evidence. It's about knowing the truth.

JJM said:
Right now though you are telling me that you have something about my religion that you wish to share but before you do you want me to promise I will conform to your views before you've said anything because you don't want to waste your time.

No. I haven't said anything like that. First, I don't have anything to say about your religion. What I have to say has nothing to do with your religion. Second, I didn't say you have to conform. In fact, I don't want to challenge your religion. I'm suggesting that you challenge it. You don't have to if you don't want to, though. And in the end, I can't make you. And I'm fine with that. But my telling you things isn't going to mean anything to you. You have to be the one to ask.
 
JJM said:
I realize that but if you honestly think that Christ didn't say any of this then the meaning doesn't matter and I don't understand why you believe. I believe he did say this but my point is if you don't think he said any of it then your belief is completely irrational.


It's not "belief" for starters. And it certainly isn't irrational. When you can understand how it's possible, you will know the voice of God.


JJM said:
Once again Saving Grace is a gift of God a gift we receive through having faith and living that faith because faith without works is dead.

That's not what Paul said. Salvation is by God's grace through faith - which faith is not of our selves -- not through works.

JJM said:
The Idea that It is by simply having faith one is saved was an invention of Luther’s and the Idea that God's gift is faith instead of Saving Grace sound very much like Calvin.

Actually, Calvin got it from Paul. And he completely misunderstood it, too.


JJM said:
Paul says that we must have true faith. James says true faith is following the laws of Christ.

Which laws are those? What does Paul say about having to follow the "law"?

JJM said:
Christ says what the laws are and that we are only binned by those which we truly know of. There for by rejecting Christ we go to hell. Not to mention God wants all to go to heaven so he would only not give it to those who don't accept it.

What is "original sin" then? Is that a sin we knew of when we committed it? Again, what does Paul say about rejecting Christ?


JJM said:
A Christian is required to do two things have faith and live that faith.
Nope. A christian isn't required to do anything.
 
JJM said:
Of course not But they would assume that they could earn salvation and salvation would come from them.


For by grace you are saved this seems very simple His grace is a gift of salvation.


through faith We receive this gift through Faith.



and that not of yourselves, we can’t earn the salvation.



For it is the gift of God. Just what it says.



This verse is saying that salvation is a gift of Grace a grace we receive through faith not that God gives us the faith. Notice I said his gift was his saving Grace. It is also saying that no matter how hard we work we can't earn salvation it is always a gift not that certain works aren’t necessary to achieve that gift. For We need true faith and faith without works is dead.
"Faith" is set off in the sentence against "works." Salvation is by "faith" - which is not of yourselves" not by works - which is of yourself. If salvation were through faith which is of yourself, then it would be through a "work", i.e. having faith.
 
Should Paul be removed from the NT?

There is much controversy over his self proclaimed authority.

In Acts 9, Paul heard a voice from heaven saying, “’Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me?’ …And the lord said, ‘I am Yeshua whom you are persecuting. ‘Arise, and go into the city, and you will be told what to do,’” (Acts 9:4-6). This is the same revelation of which Paul speaks in Galatians 1:11-12, where he states, “But I declare to you, brethren, that the gospel that I preach, is not from men. For I did not receive it nor was I taught it from man, but by the revelation of Yeshua the Messiah.”
According to Luke, Yeshua identified himself from a voice from heaven, and tells Paul to go “into the city” to receive the rest of the revelation. That’s it. There was no other further information or specific message. Paul would be “told what to do.” By contrast, Paul claims (in Galatians) that Yeshua taught him the gospel and that no one else taught him. These are two completely opposite accounts of what occurred.

If we go with Luke’s account, we have some logical deductions. First, Paul must have known the gospel already because of his previous encounters with Messianics. Any fervent persecutor typically learns about their “enemy:” their beliefs, practices, hangouts, etc. Thus, when a heavenly voice rebuked him, he would have naturally reversed his prior opinion on the gospel. Secondly, Acts declares that Paul fasted for three days in Jerusalem until Ananias healed and supped with him. From Jerusalem, he went to Damascus and fellowshipped with the disciples, where he caused quite an uproar amongst the Jews (Acts 9:19). According to Paul, “I did not immediately consult with flesh and blood” (Galatians 1:16), yet Luke declares otherwise. Paul did immediately consult with the flesh and blood prophet Ananias, and when he arrived in Damascus, he did immediately associate with the disciples that lived there (Acts 9:19). As seen by his enthusiastic and vocal acceptance of Yeshua, logic dictates that he would have engaged Ananias and the Damascus disciples in many long and involved discussions about this faith. Paul so was eager to speak about nothing except Yeshua (see 1 Corinthians 2:2; 2 Corinthians 4:10-11; Philippians 1:21); it is illogical to think that he kept his thoughts and studies to himself.

In Acts 9:25-28 Luke declares that when Paul returned to Jerusalem, the disciples were initially hesitant to associate with him. Barnabus befriended him, however, and introduced him to the apostles. Luke then states (Acts 9:28), “And he was with them moving freely around Jerusalem,” indicating a working (albeit possibly strained) relationship between the apostles and Paul. By contrast, Paul declares, “Then after three years I returned to Jerusalem to see Peter, and lived with him fifteen days. I didn’t see any of the other apostles, except James the Lord’s brother,” (Galatians 1:19).

So why are these contrasting accounts important to our study? As far as we are aware, Luke had no agenda except to present the facts (as he knew them) regarding Paul’s experiences. By contrast, Paul considered his version of the “facts” vital to justifying his questionable authority. His “apostolic” claims rested upon something he could not prove: that he had “walked” with Yeshua and been taught directly by Yeshua (a prerequisite to being called an apostle). Since he could not prove these things, he had to point back to his initial revelation … and then claim that his subsequent interpretations and applications of scripture were authoritative because of that one-time encounter (cf. Romans 1:2-6). Lest anyone doubt his authority, he frequently mentioned the insights he received from the Spirit – the same Spirit that indwelt Yeshua.http://tmgp.net/Articles/Midrash/Messianic/Letters/paul-doubt.htm#_edn1 By sharing the same Spirit, he could speak as one who had walked with Yeshua – making him equal with the apostles (Jude 8); making him worthy of emulating.[ii] In Philippians 3:17, Paul goes so far as to tell them, “be followers of me.”

Being a “follower of Paul” became problematic for him. In 1 Corinthians 1:11-13, he addresses the conflict. “I have been told … that there are arguments among you. …each of you are saying, ‘I am of Paul,’ and ‘I of Apollos,’ and ‘I of Cephas,’ and ‘I of Messiah.’” When this was probably written (50’s CE), schisms were forming based on the various men. What makes this schism particularly noteworthy, however, is that the Corinthian believers considered Paul, Apollos, and Cephas to be rabbi’s of equal merit with Yeshua. Evidently, each group had rival theologies (hence the arguments); and each man’s followers considered his theological position to be superior to the others.[iii] Though Paul was “preaching Messiah,” his followers considered themselves to be followers of Paul, as opposed to being followers of Yeshua. This is very revealing. Paul’s theology must have been considered different than that of Yeshua, and of Cephas (Peter), and of Apollos; but these were not the only ones.

When Paul arrived in Jerusalem, Luke states that “the brethren received us gladly,” but those “brethren” evidently did not include James and the “elders” of the Jerusalem congregation. Paul met with them the following day, where Paul felt he had to explain himself and his ministry. Although they rejoiced in his Gentile ministry, they were not pleased with the effect his message was having on the Jewish believers. The Jewish believers had heard wide-spread rumors that Paul was teaching Jews to forsake the Torah (Acts 21:21, 28). To clear his name and reputation of these charges, Paul had to prove himself: he needed to undergo a Nazarite vow. This, in itself, shows the wide-spread controversies caused within the believing community by Paul’s message. His message was not the same as James’ or those of the Jerusalem council (cf. Galatians 2:12). It distinguished between the obligations of the Gentiles and Jews. He taught that Gentiles – because they were wholly ignorant of Scripture and righteousness – had minimal requirements for entry into the faith (Acts 21:25).[iv] By contrast, the apostles to the Jews – those who had been trained in Scripture from childhood – taught a more strict observance (Acts 21:21) of it.

continued...........
 
A quick review of Paul’s letters shows that all his readers questioned or heard questions about his authority/apostleship. Keep in mind that when a person’s authority is accepted (i.e. the president, senators, governors, etc.), they do not feel the need to repeatedly remind their listeners, “I am the president and I can prove it,” or “I am the governor, and here are my credential to back it up.” Only people whose positions are questionable and fragile exhibit this type of behavior. They constantly remind others of their “credentials” to bolster their authority. They might even “name, names” of highly esteemed individuals whom they publicly rebuked/corrected. This, too, would buttress their reputation by eroding the reputation of others. This list does not include the introductory claims to apostleship typically found in the first sentence or two.

continued................
 
Romans 15:15-16, 19 – he felt compelled to back up his authority to reprimand and teach the Roman congregation by reminding his readers, “of the grace God gave me to be a minister of Messiah Yeshua to the Gentiles with the priestly duty of proclaiming the gospel of God …” and reminding them that he could prove he had been commissioned by God, “by the power of signs and miracles, through the power of the Spirit” (v. 19).

· 1 Corinthians 9:1-2– Paul’s authority has been seriously undermined in Corinth, and he reminds his listeners, “Am I not an apostle? Have I not seen Yeshua our Lord? Are you not the result of my work in the Lord? Even though I may not be an apostle to others, surely I am to you!” Paul acknowledges that his apostleship is not universally accepted. He then claims that his “proof” of apostleship is the Corinthian’s conversions. “For you are the seal of my apostleship…” (v.2).

· 2 Corinthians 11:5-6, 11:22-12:12 – Evidently, Paul’s authority/apostleship was still under attack in Corinth at the time of his second letter. He spends three chapters defending himself and his authority. One of the most revealing comments, however, occurs in v. 5-6. “But I do not think I am in the least inferior to the most eminent apostles.” I may not be a trained speaker, but I do have knowledge.” Evidently people were calling him an “inferior apostle.” He then uses his “foolish” boasting to remind his listeners that he was qualified in every way to be an apostle because of his lineage, background, education, and present-day sufferings.

· Galatians 1:11-2:2; 6:17 – Paul knew that he couldn’t prove his apostolic claims. To be an apostle, he would have needed to be trained under Yeshua and he was not. Therefore, he had to prove that he at least “saw” Yeshua – but Luke clearly states Paul only heard a voice identifying himself as Yeshua and nothing else. So Paul then claims that Yeshua directly taught him – but this, too, is contrary to the events recorded by Luke. Paul was sent to Ananias, and then lived amongst the disciples in Damascus. There is no record of Paul ever receiving any further “enlightenment” directly from Yeshua. To the contrary, his writings repeatedly reference receiving enlightenment through the study of the sacred texts. These claims were solely designed to bolster his fragile reputation and authority amongst the Galatians. He would not have needed to make these claims if the Galatians didn’t doubt his apostleship.

“Now in what I am writing to you, I assure you before God that I am not lying.” Evidently, people were accusing him of lying about his conversion experience. In Galatians 2:9, Paul makes a snide remark about James, Peter, and John. He states, “James and Peter and John, who were reputed to be pillars, gave to me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship.” To use modern day slang, this would read, “the so-called pillars.” This antagonistic comment, when combined with an earlier one, “But from those who were of high reputation (what they were makes no difference to me; God shows no partiality) – well, those who were of reputation contributed nothing to me” (cf. Peter – Acts 15:7-11; James – Acts 15:13-21) from Galatians 2:6, indicates that Paul harbored bitter feelings towards at least these three apostles. This reveals that a very strained relationship existed between these men.

Lastly, in Galatians 2:12 Paul claims that the disciples of James led Peter astray. Paul then talks about how he had openly rebuked Peter (and, by insinuation, James) – indicating a desire to “bring down” Peter and James’ reputation/authority over the Galatian community, while elevating his own reputation/authority over them. The remainder of the letter appears to an extensive diatribe against the teachings of James and Peter.

· Ephesians 3:1-6; 4:1 – Again Paul reminds his readers that he received a “revelation” (referring back to the Damascus road experience) that commissioned him. He then uses that experience to justify his unique interpretation of sacred texts. He also frequently refers to his imprisonment, “for the sake of you Gentiles” almost as a manipulative tool: to make them feel obligated because of his sufferings, to heed his words. As mentioned below (in Colossians), this is an effective combination of ideas.

· Philippians 3:4-6 – Again, Paul uses “foolish” boasting to bolster his reputation amongst the Philippians (as he had done with the Corinthians). He reminds them of his lineage, background, education, and righteousness, as a tool for diminishing the reputation of those who were disputing his authority (“beware of …”).

· Colossians 1:23-26 – as with Ephesians, Paul reminds his readers of his special commission from God. He also reminds them that he is suffering for their sake (1:24). This is an effective combination: claiming that God commissioned him, and (as proof that one was ordained by God and not man) willingness to suffer in carrying out that commission.

· 1 Thessalonians 2:4-10– Paul talks about his rights as an apostle to exert authority over the Thessalonian congregation (e.g., receive pay). He reminds them that he did not exercise his rights, but preferred to labor and serve amongst them “working day and night so as not to be a burden on you, as we proclaimed the gospel of God” (v. 9). Once again, this is an effective combination for creating a sense of obligation in the readers. Surely God called him to be an apostle since he worked so hard for free amongst them.

· 1 Timothy 1:12-14; 2:7. As before, Paul reminds his readers in Ephesus that Yeshua called him to serve. “For this I was appointed a preacher and an apostle (I am telling the truth, I am not lying) as a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and truth.” Here, as with the Galatian congregation, Paul’s declares that he is not lying – indicating that people were accusing him of doing so.

· 2 Timothy 1:11-12 – Though considered his “dear son,” Paul still reminds Timothy that, “I was appointed a preacher and an apostle and a teacher. For this reason I also suffer these things …” Again, Paul combines his commission with suffering, and then tells Timothy to guard the “sound words which you have heard from me” (v. 13). He also mentions that a large number of people in Asia have deserted him (v. 15). Because these ideas are all combined into one long thought, it suggests that many people doubted his apostleship, authority, and message. He also sharply condemns others who left him alone in prison or disagreed with him (2 Timothy 4:10, 15).

· Titus 1:3 – Paul reminds Titus that he was “entrusted” with his message by the commandment of God through Yeshua.



Philemon 1:1, 13 – this is the only letter where Paul does not appeal to his apostleship, but only to his sufferings in prison, as the reason for Philemon to do as Paul requests.

continued..................
 
Paul repeatedly introduced himself in his letters by affirming his apostolic status, and referring to his experiences, insights, power, etc. as further proof that he was an apostle. He also frequently combined references of his commission with his sufferings. In these passages, we see him openly acknowledging that many denied his apostleship, or considered him an inferior apostle, or even a liar. He made spiteful remarks about the leadership of the Jerusalem Council (specifically, James, Peter, and John), and revealed residual hostility and antagonism towards their authority/reputation. Many people deserted him, probably due to his controversial conversion and message. He and Barnabus even separated because of Paul’s inability to forgiven Mark (Acts 15:37-39).

It is readily evident that Paul’s authority was widely questioned, and repeatedly under attack (“even though I am not an apostle to others” – 1 Corinthians 9:2). Under such a strong cloud of doubt, it is understandable that he needed to add weight to his letters (“padding his resume” per se) before issuing his commands, charges, and dictates. His constant reminders about "suffering" and being "persecuted," were designed to silence anyone who would disagree with him. "Let no one make trouble for me, because I bear on my body the brand marks of Yeshua," Galatians 6:17. In the Galatians examples, he not only padded his own reputation, he directly disputed (and discounted) the authority and reputation of the two greatest voices in the Jerusalem Council – two men who had walked with Yeshua for years, as well as his friend Barnabus.

Is it any wonder, then, that in Romans 2:16, 16:25 and 2 Timothy 2:8; Paul calls the gospel, “my gospel,” not “the gospel of Yeshua the Messiah,” and in 2 Corinthians 4:3, 1 Thessalonians 1:4, and 2 Thessalonians 2:14, he calls it, “our gospel?” He had personalized the message and now “owned” it. It belonged to him. He could teach it as he understood it. He had found the “secret” and “hidden” messages in the Tanakh regarding Yeshua: “according to the revelation of the mystery hidden for long ages past, but now revealed and made known through the prophetic writings by the command of the eternal God…” (Romans 16:25b-26, NIV). He believed – even if it was contrary to all the apostles – that he was privy to these insights because he possessed the same spirit and mind as Yeshua. 1 Corinthians 2:7-10, 16: “No, we speak of God’s mysterious wisdom, a hidden wisdom, which God predestined for our glory before the ages: … As it is written, ‘The eye has not seen, nor ear heard, neither has it entered into the heart of man, the things that God has prepared for them that love him. But God has revealed them unto us by his spirit: for the spirit searches all things; even the deep things of God…. But we have the mind of Messiah.” Notice that Paul is claiming direct revelation from God – seemingly an audible experience; but it was not. As seen in Ephesians 3:4-6, 9; Romans 16:25-26, 2 Timothy 3:15-16; et al, his “gospel” and his “wisdom” came from studying the existing sacred texts. It was so powerful that he felt as though God spoke/revealed it to him personally. He could claim to speak with God’s authority and God’s wisdom even though God had not audibly spoken to him, because God had spoken already … through the prophets before him. It may have been Yeshua’s gospel, but now it was his gospel. It may have been God’s wisdom, but now it was his wisdom. It may have been God’s authority, but now it was his authority. He had been delegated/commissioned with a task and was therefore endowed with all the rights and responsibilities thereof – including demanding the same obedience to his own words as they would give to God Himself.

“I charge you …;” “I command you …;” “we instructed you …;” “See to it …;” “Submit …;” “Obey …;” “Do …;” “Do not …;” “Be …;” “Give …;” “Serve …;” “Imitate me …;” “Be followers of me;” “Teach …;” “Expel …;” “Receive …;” were all words issued by one man. This same man told others to “command and teach,” as well. He used his own commission, to commission others. He considered his own words to be the same as God’s words. He considered his own authority to be the same as God’s authority. In every way, one could say that he was “equal” with God because he claimed all the things generally ascribed to God. He called the gospel, “my gospel,” he commanded people, “imitate me.” He claimed the authority to reinterpret sacred texts and he saw mysteries and hidden messages in the text that no one else had seen. He claimed to have God’s spirit within him, and the mind of Yeshua. He commanded people to be his followers. He said, "I, Paul, tell you ..." and "and I testify again ..." and, "but I say ..." -- in every case, Paul demanded obedience based upon his own authority, even if it directly contradicted the teachings of the apostles.

Whether a zealot for the Pharisees or a zealot for Messiah, Paul demanded authority and respect from his listeners, and vehemently condemned anyone who disagreed with him. He neither wanted nor respected the Jerusalem Council’s approval. As he explained it, “But from those who were of high reputation (what they were makes no difference to me; God shows no partiality) – well, those who were of reputation contributed nothing to me” (Galatians 2:6). His message was all that mattered. He had had a vision … and that was all the incentive he needed. It was his gospel. They were his followers. He was their apostle. Heaven itself was dared to contradict him. “But even if we, or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed!” (Galatians 1:8).


http://tmgp.net/Articles/Midrash/Messianic/Letters/paul-doubt.htm#_ednref1 See 1 Corinthians 2:6ff; Colossians 1:28-29; 2:2-3; 1 Thessalonians 1:4; et al.


[ii] Philippians 3:17; 4:9; 2 Thessalonians 1:6; 2 Thessalonians 3:7


[iii] In the first century, sects splintered the Jewish community, each sect purporting to have the truth. These groups (and their respective beliefs) were identified according to their rabbis: disciples of Hillel, Shammai, Akiva, Bar Kochba, Joshua, etc.

[iv] Although Paul taught that the entry-level requirements for salvation did not require conversion to Judaism, he did stand in agreement with the Jerusalem Council. They believed that as the Gentiles attended weekly Synagogue, they would gradually learn (and apply) Torah to their lives (see Acts 15:21). This was in contrast to the idea that they had to first become Jews (i.e. learn and apply Torah) before attaining the rank of "Messianic."



cosmo
 
cosmo said:
A quick review of Paul’s letters shows that all his readers questioned or heard questions about his authority/apostleship. Keep in mind that when a person’s authority is accepted (i.e. the president, senators, governors, etc.), they do not feel the need to repeatedly remind their listeners, “I am the president and I can prove it,” or “I am the governor, and here are my credential to back it up.” Only people whose positions are questionable and fragile exhibit this type of behavior.

Interesting, then, that God himself repeatedly-- even continuously-- states throughout the entire OT that he is the LORD.
 
WolfgangvonUSA said:
Jesus may have encouraged new disciples to become involved in His teachings, but He never said anything about new apostles, except to say that people would falsely claim to be new apostles:

Rev 2:2 I know thy works, and thy labour, and thy patience, and how thou canst not bear them which are evil: and thou hast tried them which say they are apostles, and are not, and hast found them liars:

This verse was directed to the Ephesians, an area Paul had visited.

And I should also mention that an apostleship was an office, whereas a disciple is simply a follower.

Wasn't Paul a founder of the church at Ephesus? How can a church reject false apostles before they have been founded? Seems a little strange that a false apostle would spend his time founding churches, anyways. I thought that sort of thing was left up to actual apostles.

As far as the semantics concerning the word "apostle" goes, maybe the cause of our differing opinions stems from a differing use of the word. I am not referring to a legalistic office, but to a spiritual identity. I care very little for any title that people might give or be given, because Jesus never sought a title.

I put Paul into the same category as Stephen, who was stoned to death for his testimony of Jesus Christ. Really, what is the difference between Stephen and Peter? Both of them believed in Jesus, both of them testified, and both of them didn't shrink from death to maintain that testimony. Call a rose by any name in any language and it's still a rose.

We don't know what vernacular vocabulary was in use during the first century after Jesus died. Any definition we impose on a single word in a foreign language in a historical setting is just that: imposed. Paul preached the testimony of Jesus Christ, and he was killed for it. To me that puts him in the same category as anybody who has picked up their cross and followed Jesus-- including Peter et. al.

And as for logic, I thought we were talking of spiritual things, not of worldly things. The doctrine of logic is a human doctrine, and while it works well in this world, I think there is little place for it in a spiritual discussion. And remember: this discussion began because you were trying to prove that Paul was not an apostle. How can you begin a debate and then put the burden of proof on someone else?
 
Abogado [/color said:
del Diablo]
Abogado [/color said:
I don't understand your question.





You said that you accept neither Scripture nor tradition so if you accept neither writings nor something that has been told to you by others then what do you possibly have to know what Christ’s teachings are.

Abogado [/color said:
del Diablo]
Abogado [/color said:
Why doesn't that make sense that god would do evil? What is evil?



Evil is the opposite of the opinion of God. So if God thought that one thing should be done then why would he do the other?

Abogado [/color said:
del Diablo]

What is a church? What did christ mean when he said it? Who wrote that passage?

[/b]





Christ meant that Peter would be the leader of the religious institution that he was founding. The Church is that movement and that institution. I am assuming that Matthew wrote this of course it is possible that it was written by another but you have to trust Christ said it.

Abogado [/color said:
del Diablo]

Which side are you on? How do you know?



That is the purpose of my study of Christianity however if I'm on the wrong side then there is a good chance Christianity is completely false.



Abogado [/color said:
del Diablo]

You've been to Hell?



Well Hell is a state the place is simply where people who have died go when they die in this state. SO yes I have been in this state.



Abogado [/color said:
del Diablo]

That's better. What if the church is absolutely nothing like what you think it is? What if the "church" has been staring you in the fact your whole life and you haven't really seen it?





Well maybe it has but if it has I'm probably goona need someone to show it to me but I really doubt it is because I don't think God would make it that hard.

Abogado [/color said:
del Diablo]

According to what/whom?



You can save a kitten from a tree. You can save a friend from embarrassment. You can save a man from sacrificing the joy of life to pursue empty promises. It could mean lots of other things.


Well the meaning of salvation in this case is being saved from death because that was Christ’s goal. And being saved from death puts you in heaven


Abogado [color=black said:
Abogado [color=black said:
Diablo]
Good question. Why do you think?



Yes. Lots of them



The point of the question was to show that it isn't logical. I don't think God would.


Abogado [/color said:
del Diablo]



What is "original sin"? How do you know? Where is "blasphemy against the Holy Spirit" defined as you indicate here? What is "eternal death?"


Original sin is the original sin. The one that was committed by Adam and Eve that caused us to be in a fallen state. Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is accepting the sin in you. Because the Holy Spirit is in all Christians. We are meant to be a perfect dwelling place for him but by accepting our sin we make God that is inside of us uncomfortable because God doesn't wish to be around sin. So, by accepting our sin we are saying we are more important than the Holy Spirit this is blasphemy so this is the one thing God won't forgive us upon our death. Those in heaven are experiencing new life and those in hell can never come to new life so they are dead eternally.





Abogado [/color said:
del Diablo]





You mean you don't sin when you know it's a sin?





I attempt not to. But I’m far from achieving it. like I said it is all about intentions.





Abogado [/font said:
del Diablo]

Is that what Paul says about rejecting Christ? He has a very sophisticaete and nuanced philosophy on this issue. And if attempting not to sin is the meaning of "accepting the word of god" for purposes of salvation, then that would be salvation through "works." Read Paul's writings on this subject carefully and thoroughly and for yourself. Try not to have any pre-conceived notions about what he is trying to say when you read it. You might be surprised.



May I ask why you insist this is what Paul teaches. You yourself said you have no interest in the teachings of Paul and know little on the subject but you seem to constantly argue with me about what he is saying. Why would a man with no knowledge of this message do this? Now I promise you that I will attempt to read the writings of Paul without preconceived notions but for the moment we are getting nowhere on the subject. So I suggest we drop all things that involve Paul’s writings.



Abogado [/font said:
del Diablo]

It's not about evidence. It's about knowing the truth.



No. I haven't said anything like that. First, I don't have anything to say about your religion. What I have to say has nothing to do with your religion. Second, I didn't say you have to conform. In fact, I don't want to challenge your religion. I'm suggesting that you challenge it. You don't have to if you don't want to, though. And in the end, I can't make you. And I'm fine with that. But my telling you things isn't going to mean anything to you. You have to be the one to ask.






Well I am challenging my religion. That is what I originally said. That I look for fault in my religion but have yet to find it you where suggesting that I completely step out of my religion and look at it from a different perspective. I assumed you had a prospective in mind.
 
Abogado del Diablo said:
[/color]

It's not "belief" for starters. And it certainly isn't irrational. When you can understand how it's possible, you will know the voice of God.




That's not what Paul said. Salvation is by God's grace through faith - which faith is not of our selves -- not through works.



Actually, Calvin got it from Paul. And he completely misunderstood it, too.




Which laws are those? What does Paul say about having to follow the "law"?



What is "original sin" then? Is that a sin we knew of when we committed it? Again, what does Paul say about rejecting Christ?



Nope. A christian isn't required to do anything.

With all of these things once again it is differing opinions about what Paul means. But I wish to ask about the Calvin thing. If you think Calvin misunderstood what Paul was saying. And that is what you are saying then why do you even say it if you thing it is a misunderstanding. Secondly Calvin corrupted allot of source especially the writings of Augustine. That leads me to another Question earlier you said you read the writings of early Christians which ones would those be?
 
JJM said:
With all of these things once again it is differing opinions about what Paul means. But I wish to ask about the Calvin thing. If you think Calvin misunderstood what Paul was saying. And that is what you are saying then why do you even say it if you thing it is a misunderstanding. Secondly Calvin corrupted allot of source especially the writings of Augustine. That leads me to another Question earlier you said you read the writings of early Christians which ones would those be?
I am definitely not saying what Calvin said. Though he correctly reads the plain language of Eph. 2:8, he goes on to fit it into a theology of nonsense. He correctly read what Paul wrote. He didn't understand what it meant.

Early christian writings I've read: Justin Martyr, Eusebius, Tertullian, Clement, Iranaeus, Origen.
 
JJM said:
You said that you accept neither Scripture nor tradition so if you accept neither writings nor something that has been told to you by others then what do you possibly have to know what Christ’s teachings are.


I said no such thing. I don't accept "scripture" based on its presumed authority. I accept what I know to be true. It doesn't matter whose teachings they are if they are true.


JJM said:
Evil is the opposite of the opinion of God. So if God thought that one thing should be done then why would he do the other?

Give me some examples of "evil."


JJM said:
Christ meant that Peter would be the leader of the religious institution that he was founding.


Where did he explain that?

JJM said:
The Church is that movement and that institution. I am assuming that Matthew wrote this of course it is possible that it was written by another but you have to trust Christ said it.

No. I don't have to trust christ said it. I have no reason whatsoever to believe that a literal, historical Jesus said anything of the sort.


JJM said:
That is the purpose of my study of Christianity however if I'm on the wrong side then there is a good chance Christianity is completely false.

It's not false. It's just misunderstood. And there is no wrong side. There's knowing and not knowing. But neither is "wrong."

JJM said:
Well Hell is a state the place is simply where people who have died go when they die in this state. SO yes I have been in this state.

You've died?! I must be misunderstanding you.

JJM said:
Well maybe it has but if it has I'm probably goona need someone to show it to me but I really doubt it is because I don't think God would make it that hard.

It's actually quite easy once it is revealed to you. Ask. Seek. Knock.

JJM said:
Well the meaning of salvation in this case is being saved from death because that was Christ’s goal. And being saved from death puts you in heaven

How do you know this? Where does that idea come from?

JJM said:
Original sin is the original sin. The one that was committed by Adam and Eve that caused us to be in a fallen state.

Okay, so we are committing sin even if we don't know it. In fact, we are being prosecuted for sins we didn't even commit ourselves, right? By the way, what precisely was Adam and Eve's original sin?

JJM said:
Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is accepting the sin in you.


According to?


JJM said:
We are meant to be a perfect dwelling place for him but by accepting our sin we make God that is inside of us uncomfortable because God doesn't wish to be around sin.


So you've stopped sinning? What's the reasoning here? It's not sin if you feel guilty about it? Read Paul on rejecting the sacrifice of christ.


JJM said:
So, by accepting our sin we are saying we are more important than the Holy Spirit this is blasphemy so this is the one thing God won't forgive us upon our death. Those in heaven are experiencing new life and those in hell can never come to new life so they are dead eternally.


Please forgive me, but I wanted a source on this. I'm quite aware of the basic scare tactics invovled. I was raised catholic.

JJM said:
I attempt not to. But I’m far from achieving it. like I said it is all about intentions.


So you can save yourself from the wages of sin by your intentions? Interesting. What does Paul have to say about that idea?


JJM said:
May I ask why you insist this is what Paul teaches.


I haven't told you anything about what Paul teaches. I asked you to look for yourself.


JJM said:
You yourself said you have no interest in the teachings of Paul


No. I said nothing like that. I said I have no interest in pointless discourse on issues of theology in which each side twists a scripture and makes a meaningless argument based on the logical fallacy of "appeal to authority." I am very interested in what is true, regardless of who wrote it.


JJM said:
you seem to constantly argue with me about what he is saying.


The only thing we've argued about is the simple sentence structure of one passage. Other than that, I haven't represented anything about what Paul is saying. I've just asked you to read it carefully for yourself without any preconceived notions about its meaning.


JJM said:
Why would a man with no knowledge of this message do this?


I have knowledge of the message.


JJM said:
Now I promise you that I will attempt to read the writings of Paul without preconceived notions but for the moment we are getting nowhere on the subject.


Try it, and see where we get. Maybe you're right. But give it a chance.


JJM said:
Well I am challenging my religion. That is what I originally said. That I look for fault in my religion but have yet to find it you where suggesting that I completely step out of my religion and look at it from a different perspective. I assumed you had a prospective [sic] in mind.
I do. Your perspective.

BTW, I love your sig line. ;)
 
Hi AdD,

Well, I really have no idea what you are talking about, but I'm intrigued and looking forward to reading Paul again.

Hang in there JJM!

Happy Thanksgiving,
lunamoth
 
Back
Top