Paul: The False Apostle - Religion - Nairaland
Nairaland Forum / Nairaland / General / Religion / Paul: The False Apostle (4578 Views)
Certificate Saga: Apostle Suleiman's 2015 Prophecies: See No 47- / Myles Munroe The False Teacher Dies / Benny Hinn & Pat Robertson, The False Prophets Of The U.S 2012 Election (2) (3) (4)
(1) (2) (3) (4) (Reply) (Go Down)
| Paul: The False Apostle by deScifa(m): 3:26pm On Aug 19, 2014 |
Paul: The False Apostle His apostleship was unrecognized by others. Of the 22 times in the Bible where Paul is referred to as an "apostle", only twice is he referred to as an apostle by someone other than himself! These two instances came from the same person. Not from Jesus, or any of the original apostles, but from Paul's close traveling companion and personal press secretary Luke. Both accounts are found in Luke's record of the Acts of the Apostles, (chapter 14:4,14). Here Paul is referred to as an apostle along with Barnabas. By this time in the story, Luke would have been very accustomed to Paul calling himself an apostle, and he would no doubt have been in agreement with Paul's assessment of himself. By these statistics alone, it is evident that Paul is by far his own biggest fan... and his side kick Luke was his number two fan. This leaves no one else anywhere in the Bible going on record recognizing his apostleship! "I wanna talk about me!" No other epistle author in the Bible wrote like Paul. This would be true on a number of levels, but one aspect is of particular interest when we are considering how Paul views himself. He had a way of drawing attention to himself with his usage of personal pronouns. When it comes to how often he uses words like, "I", "me", "my", or "mine", the overall rate in his epistles is almost three times that of his next closest rival. There are a number of reasons why many scholars today believe Paul was not the author of the book of Hebrews. One obvious reason is, in the other epistles credited to him, Paul doesn't hesitate to identify himself along with his supposed credentials. The author of Hebrews is strangely silent on these matters. Many scholars believe Barnabas was the author of Hebrews, but I think Apollos is a far better candidate... but that's a different subject. The point is, no one knows for sure. But Paul certainly couldn't be in the running as the author of Hebrews when one also considers the statistical rate of the personal pronoun usage. The author of Hebrews refers to himself only 9 times, which is approximately 1.3 personal pronouns per thousand words. To help put this in perspective, let's compare the book of Hebrews to the book of Romans. They are both relatively large books of similar length, divided into 13 and 16 chapters respectively. Yet in only the first half of the first chapter of Romans, which is 16 verses worth, Paul uses twice as many personal pronouns as the author of Hebrews uses in his entire book! In the book of Romans, Paul refers to himself 103 times, which is rate of about 18.2 per thousand! That is 13x greater than Hebrews. In 1 Corinthians, Paul refers to himself 175 times, in 2Corinthians 103 times again, and in the relatively short book of Galatians, he refers to himself 69 times which is a rate of 25 personal pronouns per 1000 words! It should be evident that Paul is at least as concerned with making a statement about himself as he is in communicating what he believes to be the truth about God. His claim of apostleship stands alone. Other than the twelve apostles who spent three and a half years with Jesus, no one other than Paul can be identified as having claimed for themselves the title of "apostle". Barnabas was referred to as an apostle along with Paul by Luke in Acts 14:14, but there is no record of Barnabas claiming the title for himself. Our view of early church is polarized. When we take a survey of the New Testament, we notice that Paul is the single greatest contributor to it. When we read the book of Acts, we can't help but get the impression that the great bulk of what God was doing in the early church was happening through Paul. But it is misleading, because the book of Acts was written from only one man's perspective... Luke's. Luke traveled with Paul on his missionary journeys and the bulk of the book of Acts is the account of those travels. What we have in Acts is only one man's point of view, and from Luke's perspective, Paul's story would no doubt have appeared to be front and center stage. There is a likely reason why Luke chose to follow Paul and record his story in the first place. Paul branded himself the apostle to the Gentiles, and Luke, being a Gentile, would have seen Paul as where things were happening for him. When we consider Paul taught that there is no difference in God’s eyes between Jew and Gentile, but all believers in Jesus now constitute "the true Israel of God", what Gentile who desired to get close to the God of Israel wouldn’t be absolutely thrilled with Paul? But even though the view from the book of Acts is polarized and biased, it is still very important in helping us understand what was happening at that time. Without it we wouldn't have much of an idea at all. What was done and said as recorded by Luke is priceless, and we have no good reason to question what he saw and heard. Luke's own personal thoughts that he interjected occasionally may be questioned, but they are few and far between. I see no good reason to accuse Luke of malicious intent. The important thing to remember is that the book of Acts was written from a very singular point of view. No doubt, God was doing other things at that same time. We don't have a detailed record of it, but we do have some clues. God was certainly working through the original apostles, and some of those things are recorded in the beginning of Acts. The apostle John was hard at work for his Lord, but we hear very little from him until we get to his epistles and the book of the Revelation at the end of the New Testament. 1 Like |
| Re: Paul: The False Apostle by deScifa(m): 3:27pm On Aug 19, 2014 |
Paul's claims of apostleship Paul was not at all shy about calling himself an apostle. In fact, in nine out of thirteen of his books, he introduces himself as an apostle of Jesus, and in each case states in some way that his apostleship is by heavenly decree. Here is the question. Should we automatically believe the testimony of a person who makes grandiose claims about themselves when all we have for confirmation of their claim is little more than their word and maybe a statement or two from their best friend? If so, then we should likewise confirm those like Jim Jones and David Koresh. Unless there is obvious corroborative evidence to support such claims, all of them should be taken with a very large grain of salt. Unlike Paul, a true prophet or apostle does not have to go to such extraordinary lengths to convince the world they are who they say they are. Even Jesus said that if he alone bore witness of himself, his witness was invalid. John 5:31 And of all the people who shouldn't need to have others testify on their behalf, Jesus was that person. Yet he had Moses, the prophets, the Psalms, John the Baptist, the Fathers voice from heaven saying, "You are My beloved Son..." and hundreds of those who witnessed his resurrection. Paul had none of these. Though in his conceit, he considered himself to be God's special gift to the Gentiles, and claimed for himself a prophecy that was given exclusively to Isaiah in Isaiah 49:6. "For so the Lord has commanded us: 'I have set you to be a light to the Gentiles that you should be for salvation to the ends of the earth." Acts 13:47 Paul, the greatest apostle! Paul's view of himself as an apostle didn't stop at only claiming to be an apostle. He also did what he could to communicate to his followers that he topped them all. He even had the nerve to belittle the very apostles that Jesus had called and trained for three and a half years to be his witnesses! Among this braggadocio's self-flattering quotes are the following. "For I consider that I am not at all inferior to the most eminent apostles". ...."As the truth of Christ is in me, no one shall stop me from this boasting in the regions of Achaia." 2 Corinthians 11:5,10 Sometimes, as though he knew he should be ashamed of challenging the stature of Jesus's 12, he would preface his boast with a statement of unworthiness. No doubt he hoped people would embrace him as the greatest of apostles because he was so humble. "For I am the least of the apostles, who am not worthy to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. But by the grace of God I am what I am, and His grace toward me was not in vain; but I labored more abundantly than they all...". 1Corinthians 15:9,10 Aside from the fact that it was a lie to suggest the ministry had been split up between Jews and Gentiles ...as though he had exclusive rights to the Gentiles and the 12 were to stay with the Jews..., Paul even had the gall to condescend specifically on Peter, James, and John when he belittled them to the Galatians. "But from those who seemed to be something - whatever they were, it makes no difference to me; God shows personal favoritism to no man- for those who seemed to be something added nothing to me. But on the contrary, when they saw that the gospel for the uncircumcised had been committed to me, as the gospel for the circumcised was to Peter (for He who worked effectively in Peter for the apostleship to the circumcised also worked effectively in me toward the Gentiles), and when James, Cephas (Peter), and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that had been given to me, they gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised." Galatians 2:6,7,9 This is nothing but an arrogant lie. A couple verses later, Paul takes another cheap-shot at Peter. With Peter nowhere around to defend himself, Paul brags to the Galatians how he had determined Peter was a hypocrite, and how he had put him down before the entire church of Antioch. "But when Peter had come to Antioch, I withstood him to his face, because he was to be blamed; for before certain men came from James, he would eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing those who were of the circumcision. And the rest of the Jews played the hypocrite with him so that even Barnabas was carried away with their hypocrisy. But when I saw that they were not straight forward about the truth of the gospel, I said to Peter before them all, "if you being a Jew, live in the manner of Gentiles and not as the Jews, why do you compel Gentiles to live as Jews?" Galatians 2:11-14 Earlier, in Galatians 1:8,9, Paul commanded his followers to consider "accursed" anyone who preaches a different gospel than his. There is little doubt that Paul wanted the Galatians to think this way toward Peter, if not James, and John as well. It is obvious to anyone reading the book of Galatians that Paul was demanding the Galatian church follow no one but him, not even the original apostles back in Jerusalem. Aside from Paul's incredible arrogance, I also need to point out that Paul himself was the ultimate hypocrite for condemning Peter for accommodating Gentiles when he was around Gentiles and acting like a Jew around Jews. Here is what he claimed to do, and commanded the Corinthians to do as well. "For though I am free from all men, I have made myself a servant to all, that I might win the more; and to the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might win Jews; to those who are under the law, as under the law, that I might win those who are under the law; to those who are without the law as without law... that I might win those who are without law; to the weak I became weak, that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all men, that I might by all means save some." 1Corinthians 9:19-22 "Therefore, whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God. Give no offense, either to the Jews or to the Greeks or to the church of God, just as I also please all men in all things, not seeking my own profit, but the profit of many, that they may be saved. Imitate me, just as I also imitate Christ." 1Corinthians 10:31-33 When Paul says, "Imitate me, just as I also imitate Christ" we should do as he says... because in no way did he imitate Jesus! Can anyone imagine Jesus playing chameleon and saying anything like "I have become all things to all men" or "I please all men in all things"? So here we have Paul, claiming to be greater than any other apostle, belittling Peter, James, and John by saying they only "seemed" to be pillars of the church, and that they "added nothing" to him. Then he brags about how he told off Peter... calling him a hypocrite, and he subtly curses the apostles by telling the Galatians to consider accursed anyone who differs with him. All this, while in fact, he was being the greatest hypocrite of all! The superstitious belief that Paul's words are infallible is so thick that people can't see the forest for all the trees that are in the way! If anyone else had even begun to do and say the things that Paul did, we would have recognized their incredible conceit and rejected them a long time ago. Here is something relevant that Solomon said. "Let another man praise you, and not your own mouth; A stranger, and not your own lips." Proverbs 27:2 The book of Revelation Back when I still believed Paul was a legitimate apostle, I was puzzled by one thing. If he was the greatest apostle who ever lived, as Christianity made him out to be, why didn't God give him the greatest prophecy since Jesus... the book of Revelation? There are some interesting facts surrounding the book of Revelation, and things Jesus said recorded in it that answer the question why Paul was not given the "Revelation". In other words, there is good reason why Jesus did not give such an obviously high endorsement of Paul to the world. John was not given the Revelation because Paul was just a lesser apostle compared to him. The implications are far worse for Paul. Paul wasn't given the Revelation because part of the message of Revelation was given for the very purpose of exposing him as a false apostle! There is good reason why Jesus used John the beloved apostle. He was one of the 12 Jesus had been with for three and a half years training to be his witness, and he said that John's testimony would remain till he returned. (More on this in the chapter 10, Jesus’s prophecy concerning Peter) When was it written? The first thing we notice about the book of the Revelation is that it has been given to the beloved apostle John. The second thing we need to understand is that the Revelation was most likely given to John during the Neronian persecution around 65 A.D. This was about the same time we hear the last from Paul who was in prison in Rome when he wrote his second epistle to Timothy. We'll come back to 2 Timothy in a moment. Many Scholars (but by no means all of them) believe that Revelation was written later during the Domitian persecution of A.D.81-96. This theory has its origin in the testimony of the historian Irenaeus who wrote around the year 180 A.D. some 100 years or more later. Irenaeus held Paul in the highest esteem and lived to emulate him. He was also instrumental in pulling together the many splintering factions of Christianity at that time. There is no other reason to assume a later date than A.D. 65 for the writing of Revelation than his say so. But there is significant evidence to contradict him. It is my belief that he saw the devastating impact on Paul’s credibility that an earlier date for Revelation would bring. Fighting division, and wanting union (especially in favor of Paul), he settled on the later date in an attempt to give Paul a little breathing room. This only helps Paul a little. Even in the unlikely case that the Revelation was written later, it continues to reflect badly on Paul as you will see. The other early historians who also render the later date, Victorinus (c. 270), Eusebius (c.328), and Jerome (c. 370) were simply following Irenaeus’ lead. There is evidence that can be deduced from the book of Revelation itself that calls for an earlier date for it's writing. In chapter 11, John is told to measure the temple. That temple was destroyed in 70 A.D. It is nonsensical to imagine that John was told to measure the temple after it was gone. Also, when one adds up the numerical value of the consonantal letters in the name "N’ron Kahsar" (which is the way all Greek speaking people pronounced the name "Caesar Nero"  , the sum totals 666. The churches of Asia would have believed Nero was the beast of which Revelation prophesied... even though he was only a type, a sort of preview of things to come in the distant future, much the way Solomon, David's son, was a preview of Jesus's coming kingdom. There is also the consideration of the age of John. Being a contemporary of Jesus, it is safe to assume that he would have been close to the same age as Jesus. If John had been as much as 10 years younger than Jesus, he would have been only 20 when Jesus called him to follow him. It would seem doubtful that Jesus would have called someone so young, but for the sake of a conservative estimate, if John was only 20 when he was called by Jesus, he would have been in his late fifties at the youngest in the year 65. If he had been the same age as Jesus, he would have been in his late sixties. By first century standards, a person in age from late 50s to late 60s was considered a significantly old person. If the book of Revelation was written in the year 95 as some suggest, at the youngest, John would have been in his late 80s. This was virtually unheard of in the first century. If he had been the same age as Jesus or older, (not at all out of the question), he would have been in his late 90s to over 100 years old. This is highly improbable. As long as one isn’t trying to salvage Paul’s reputation, the earlier date of 65 A.D. for the writing of Revelation, during the Neronian persecution, fits the data best. To whom was it written? One haunting fact from Revelation Christianity has to deal with, is that in spite of Paul's supposed notoriety, Jesus didn't call him by name, nor did he give any recognition of his work among the Gentiles. Of the seven churches in Asia to whom the book is originally addressed, one of them we definitely know had significant dealings with Paul. It is Ephesus, the first on the list of the seven. Also, keep in the back of your mind that these seven churches are located in what is called "Asia". We will be coming back to this as well. Here is John's record of Jesus's command. "I was in the Spirit on the Lord's Day, and I heard behind me a loud voice, as of a trumpet, saying, "I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last," and, "What you see, write in a book and send it to the seven churches which are in Asia: to Ephesus, to Smyrna, to Pergamos, to Thyatira, to Sardis, to Philadelphia, and to Laodicea." Revelation 1:10,11 Jesus goes on to tell John what to say to each church. The general flow of what he said to each church went like this. First, he would tell them what they were doing right and commend them for it. Next he would point out to them where they going wrong and reprimand them for it. Then he would exhort them to repent and change what they were doing wrong, or they would suffer the consequences. Then he would give them a promise of reward if they did repent and overcome their problems. Then, and this is important, at the end of each and every message to a church, he would speak to the whole world and say that what was true and good for this and all seven churches was good for anybody who cared to listen. "He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches". Revelation 2:7,11,17,29 and 3:6,13,22 Paul and the Ephesians Now, look at what was said to the church that we know Paul had been involved in... Ephesus. Among the things that Jesus commended the Ephesian church for doing right, is this quote: "I know your works, your labor, and your patience, and that you cannot bear those who are evil. And you have tested those who say they are apostles and are not, and have found them liars." Rev. 2:2 Yes. I have no doubts Jesus was referring to Paul and his companions, and that his claim of apostleship, as well as his doctrine, were false! Hang in there and consider all the facts with me for a minute. Here are four of them... with the silver bullet coming shortly after. 1. Paul's doctrine on the foreknowledge of God is not only groundless (because he had to abuse Scripture to support it), it is blasphemous, because it outright accuses God of unrighteousness. (See previous chapters) 2. We have record of Paul claiming to be an apostle to the Ephesians. "Paul, an apostle of Jesus by the will of God, To the saints who are in Ephesus," Ephesians 1:1 3. We have no record of anyone else claiming to be an apostle to anyone anywhere, not even to the Ephesians. 4. Paul and his doctrine had troubles being accepted in Ephesus. "And he went into the synagogue and spoke boldly for three months, reasoning and persuading concerning the things of the kingdom of God. But when some were hardened and did not believe, but spoke evil of the way before the multitude..." Acts 19:8,9 Remember, this is recorded from Luke’s point of view and he believed Paul's doctrine was "the Way". Notice that those who rejected Paul are men of the synagogue and not atheists or pagans. If these men had stood up in front of the synagogue and said, "Paul's doctrine is flawed. He is a false apostle, and a liar", Luke would no doubt have seen this as "speaking evil of the Way". If these four reasons are not enough to seriously call into question Paul's status as an apostle there is one more. It is a most interesting quote from Paul's own pen that finally seals the fate of his supposed apostleship. It comes from his second letter to Timothy, written during the same Neronian persecution in which John was given the Revelation. This letter is believed by many scholars to contain the last recorded words of Paul. Here he makes a short statement of lament that seems to have gone unnoticed... the implications of which are devastating to Paul if one is able to hear everything that is being said. Paul makes this statement to Timothy. "This you know, that all those in Asia have turned away from me." 2Timothy 1:15 Asia! All of them! Rejecting Paul! And when he says, "This you know", it sounds like this must have been relatively common knowledge at that time. Asia! The very place that Jesus told John to write, where his seven churches were! And they were alive, and obviously had been established for some time. Paul did not say that Asia had rejected Jesus. Obviously they hadn't rejected Jesus if there were thriving churches there that Jesus wanted to address through John. Instead Paul said that all Asia had rejected him personally! This is also corroborated in the book of Acts where men from Asia accuse Paul of teaching against the Law, and bringing an Ephesian friend into the temple. And when the seven days were almost ended, the Jews from Asia, seeing him in the temple, stirred up the whole crowd and laid hands on him. crying out, "Men of Israel, help! This is the man who teaches all men everywhere against the people, the Law, and this place: and furthermore he also brought Greeks into the temple and has defiled this holy place." (For they had previously seen Trophimus the Ephesian with him in the city, whom they supposed that Paul had brought into the temple.) Acts 21:27-29 Try to grasp the profound significance of all this. Here we have in the book of Revelation the words of Jesus commending the Ephesian church for rejecting someone who claimed to be his apostle, while Paul is the only person other than the twelve original apostles to have claimed to be an apostle... and we know he has made this very claim to this same Ephesian church. At the same time, Paul laments himself of the fact that he has been rejected by them! How could it NOT be Paul and his associates that Jesus had commended the Ephesian church for rejecting? Could it be much more obvious? Here are the facts, paraphrased, one more time. Paul to the Ephesians: "I am an apostle of Jesus" The Ephesians to Paul: "No you're not." Jesus to the Ephesians: "Well done!" http://www.judaismvschristianity.com/paulthe.htm 1 Like |
| Re: Paul: The False Apostle by Lilimax(f): 3:38pm On Aug 19, 2014 |
deScifa: Paul: The False Apostle  Paul was not part of the early Apostles of Christ rather he was busy persecuting the early Christians until he met with the Lord on his way to Damascus. He only became a Christian after the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. What's your stress if he claims to be an Apostle of Jesus Christ ?  He is the least Apostle and the greatest of them  |
| Re: Paul: The False Apostle by SalC: 3:43pm On Aug 19, 2014 |
Is that all Oya next topic!1 Like |
| Re: Paul: The False Apostle by eph12(m): 4:05pm On Aug 19, 2014 |
You have some reasonable points o |
| Re: Paul: The False Apostle by truthman2012(m): 4:17pm On Aug 19, 2014 |
The devil is always striving to discredit Paul because of the feat he achieved through the grace of God upon his life. Anyone that is against Paul is an anti-christ. 3 Likes |
| Re: Paul: The False Apostle by deScifa(m): 4:29pm On Aug 19, 2014 |
truthman2012: The devil is always striving to discredit Paul because of the feat he achieved through the grace of God upon his life. Anyone that is against Paul is an anti-christ. Take a chill pill and stop branding everything beyond your delusion as "Anti Christ".....do u have any fact against what i have presented? Bring it forward and lets deliberate on it. "And you have tested those who say they are apostles and are not, and have found them liars." Revelation 2:2 2 Likes |
| Re: Paul: The False Apostle by deScifa(m): 4:49pm On Aug 19, 2014 |
Lilimax: Yes Paul was never part of the early Apostles, When we read the epistles attributed to Paul or even the book of Acts many red flags seem to appear. For starters, Paul began by arresting/persecuting Christians. In the book of Acts we are told Paul was present at the murder of a Stephen who was a known Christian. Acts goes on to tell us Paul experienced a conversion on his way to Damascus to further persecute Christians. This account is mentioned in 9:1-31, 22: 1-22, and 26: 9-24. This whole story is suspicious for a number of reasons. First, the way Jesus appears to Paul in the story is not biblical. Jesus always appeared in the flesh, not as a light as specified in Paul's supposed account. Second, the account given is contradictory. Verse 9:7 tells us the individuals traveling with Paul heard Jesus' voice but saw no one. Verse 22:9 tells us instead the individuals with Paul saw a light but did not hear Jesus' voice. Third, is the improbable claim that Paul was on his way to Damascus to round up Christians. This is very unlikely considering Damsacus was a predominantly pagan territory at the time under Nabataean control. Paul would have had no authority to round any one up. Fourth, where are those individuals that were with Paul to verify this incident? It surely would make it more believeable if there were witnesses. In the New Testament Paul is referred to as an apostle 22 times. Only twice is this done by someone other than Paul himself. It is not from Jesus, or any of the original apostles(disciples), but from Paul's friend and personal press secretary Luke. It is obvious from reading the accounts of Paul, Acts for instance, that the disciples did not believe him to be one of them. There was obviously no love loss between the disciples and Paul. 1 Like |
| Re: Paul: The False Apostle by Lilimax(f): 5:50pm On Aug 19, 2014 |
deScifa:You may think you've read the Bible in and out but NOT. I want to tell you that you're just reading the letter but have not contacted the Spirit behind the Word of God.  The letter kills but the spirit gives life (2 Corinthians 3:6) 4 Likes |
| Re: Paul: The False Apostle by Kei144(m): 6:10pm On Aug 19, 2014 |
[size=13pt]2Pe. 3:15 Bear in mind that our Lord’s patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote to you with the wisdom that God gave him. 2Pe. 3:16 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. 2Pe. 3:17 Therefore, dear friends, since you already know this, be on your guard so that you may not be carried away by the error of lawless men and fall from your secure position.[/size] 1 Like |
| Re: Paul: The False Apostle by oaroloye(m): 6:12pm On Aug 19, 2014 |
You analysis exposing Paul is brilliant. Many of your points identify things which I completely missed in all my years of Bible study. I find the Historical Knowledge quite illuminating. The Gemetria on Nero's name, identifying him as "666" I have never heard before. Oral Roberts once prayed to know: "How can I know Jesus?" He was answered: "READ MATTHEW, MARK, LUKE, JOHN, and The Book of ACTS- THREE TIMES IN THIRTY DAYS!" He did it on his knees. At the end of the thirty days, he testified that he now knew Jesus "better than he knew any man on the Face of The Earth!" -Kenneth Copeland. </color>[/quote] False Christianity has to divert attention away from Jesus' Teachings, because if we follow Jesus for any length of time, we become more and more free, until we escape Satan's grip completely. . JOHN 8:31-32. 31. Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, "If ye continue in my word, then are ye my Disciples indeed; 32. "And ye shall know The Truth, and The Truth shall make you free." 1 Like |
| Re: Paul: The False Apostle by Horus(m): 6:20pm On Aug 19, 2014 |
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nC8avNUiRfk [size=17pt]Paul Disciple or Deceiver (Paa Nabab Yaanuwn)[/size] |
| Re: Paul: The False Apostle by truthman2012(m): 6:36pm On Aug 19, 2014 |
deScifa: Who appointed you a judge over Paul? Your judgement amounts to nothing in the sight of God. Who told you Rev 2:2 was referring to Paul? ''THOSE who say THEY are apostles'' does not connote a single man. Your conclusion that it is referring to Paul is erroneous. Many apostles were raised after Jesus had left and some of them the Spirit found to be false. Paul played his part in this world and left indelible marks. Great signs and wonders characterized his ministry with the backing of his caller, God. With all the accusations against him and hatred for him by the people who know not the true God, the truth remains that he had evidences to show that the hand of God was upon him. He did what no man can do without the approval of God. Since God approved of him, who are you to condemn him. What have you achieved for God? Paul was a human like you, what impact have you made in the world? How many people will talk about you after you are gone? Nobody with the Spirit of God can talk ill of Paul and that shows the type of spirit that dwells in you. It is a satanic device to discredit the writings of Paul. Those used by satan to criticize him only know the letters and not the spirit of his writings. They by so doing think they can pull down Christianity. Not possible. It is an excercise in futility. Keep trying, you own your time to waste. Smh! 2 Likes |
| Re: Paul: The False Apostle by thorpido(m): 6:40pm On Aug 19, 2014 |
Jesus said,'ye err not knowing the scriptures'. People who are ignorant of scriptures always try to discredit what they don't understand. In 2 Peter 3:15-16,Peter said,'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;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'.Peter was a disciple and not just a disciple but a close one to Jesus.He spoke of Paul and called him a BELOVED BROTHER and AGREED with his doctrines.Why in your ignorance did you conclude no-one recognised Jesus as an apostle? Vs 16,also indicts you.Peter said many who are UNLEARNED wrestle with Paul's doctrines even as they do with other scriptures. This is exactly what you are doing with this thread. 1 Like |
| Re: Paul: The False Apostle by deScifa(m): 6:46pm On Aug 19, 2014 |
Kei144: [size=13pt]2Pe. 3:15 Bear in mind that our Lord’s patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote to you with the wisdom that God gave him. Which version are u quoting from? it says the lawless and not lawless men? "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. Therefore, dear friends, since you have been forewarned, be on your guard so that you may not be carried away by the error of the lawless and fall from your secure position." Well if you are good student of the Bible you will understand that Paul's teachings were against the law....so who was the lawless that Peter was referring to if not Paul |
| Re: Paul: The False Apostle by deScifa(m): 6:53pm On Aug 19, 2014 |
thorpido: Jesus said,'ye err not knowing the scriptures'. Macarius Magnes (early church theologian) found Paul to be contradictory [Paul] says, ‘As many as are under the Law are under a curse’ (Gal 3:10). The man who writes to the Romans, ‘The Law is spiritual’ (7:14), and again, ‘The Law is holy and the commandment holy and just’ (7:12), places under a curse those who obey that which is holy!... In his Epistles … he praises virginity (I-Tim 4:1, I-Cor 7:25), and then turns round and writes, ‘In the latter times some shall depart from the faith,... forbidding to marry’ (I-Tim 4:1-3).... And in the Epistle to the Corinthians he says, ‘But concerning virgins I have no commandment of the Lord’ — (I-Cor 7:25). ca. 300 Augustine (early church theologian) accused Paul of being a liar. If it be possible for men to say and believe that, after introducing his narrative with these words, ‘The things which I write unto you, behold, before God, I lie not’, the apostle (Paul) lied when he said of Peter and Barnabas, ‘I saw that they walked not uprightly, according to the truth of the gospel’,... [then] if they did walk uprightly, Paul wrote what was false; and if he wrote what was false here, when did he say what was true? — 397 AD |
| Re: Paul: The False Apostle by deScifa(m): 6:59pm On Aug 19, 2014 |
Lilimax: You may think you've read the Bible in and out but NOT. What spirit? are u saying God will contradict him self or Paul contradicting him self, lets leave the deceitful spirit and be logical for once, Paul's falsehood is not accepted by present day Christians cos it points to one thing. I'll come to that later  |
| Re: Paul: The False Apostle by truthman2012(m): 7:53pm On Aug 19, 2014 |
thorpido: Jesus said,'ye err not knowing the scriptures'. Thank you bro. God bless you. |
| Re: Paul: The False Apostle by deScifa(m): 7:56pm On Aug 19, 2014 |
truthman2012: Isn't it funny that you expect anyone to be appointed a judge over Paul, The facts are there for everyone to see and i know you are running away from one obvious fact. Theirs no point playing Tantrum, you are only crying in futility my dear. If everything about Pauls Gospel is built on falsehood then a lot of question need to be asked about present day Christianity. When we read the epistles attributed to Paul or even the book of Acts many red flags seem to appear. For starters, Paul began by arresting/persecuting Christians. In the book of Acts we are told Paul was present at the murder of a Stephen who was a known Christian. Acts goes on to tell us Paul experienced a conversion on his way to Damascus to further persecute Christians. This account is mentioned in 9:1-31, 22: 1-22, and 26: 9-24. This whole story is suspicious for a number of reasons. First, the way Jesus appears to Paul in the story is not biblical. Jesus always appeared in the flesh, not as a light as specified in Paul's supposed account. Second, the account given is contradictory. Verse 9:7 tells us the individuals traveling with Paul heard Jesus' voice but saw no one. Verse 22:9 tells us instead the individuals with Paul saw a light but did not hear Jesus' voice. Third, is the improbable claim that Paul was on his way to Damascus to round up Christians. This is very unlikely considering Damsacus was a predominantly pagan territory at the time under Nabataean control. Paul would have had no authority to round any one up. Fourth, where are those individuals that were with Paul to verify this incident? It surely would make it more believeable if there were witnesses. In the New Testament Paul is referred to as an apostle 22 times. Only twice is this done by someone other than Paul himself. It is not from Jesus, or any of the original apostles(disciples), but from Paul's friend and personal press secretary Luke. It is obvious from reading the accounts of Paul, Acts for instance, that the disciples did not believe him to be one of them. There was obviously no love loss between the disciples and Paul. Another area of contradiction is in Paul's teachings. Paul was a stout supporter of faith. This in itself is not a bad thing. The problem is Paul emphasized faith over everything else; including action. Paul's teachings on salvation apart from works contradicts other clear teachings in the New Testament such as Matthew 5:19, Matthew 25:31-46, John 15:10, James 1:22-25, and James 2:24. Other than Paul, the New Testament teachings are predominantly works based. Another area of difference in Paul's teachings and the rest of the New Testament are his views in the Jewish Law. Paul's letters contain a substantial amount of criticism of the Law. This view would not have held well with the Jewish Jesus and his Jewish disciples. Many people over the centuries have doubted Paul. Many considered themselves Christian (followers of Jesus). Ebionites (possibly the first Christians) believed him to be a false apostle. These men (Ebionites), moreover, thought that it was necessary to reject all the epistles of the apostle [Paul], whom they called an apostate from the law — Eusebius 325 AD Some significant early church fathers had issues with Paul. Macarius Magnes (early church theologian) found Paul to be contradictory. [Paul] says, ‘As many as are under the Law are under a curse’ (Gal 3:10). The man who writes to the Romans, ‘The Law is spiritual’ (7:14), and again, ‘The Law is holy and the commandment holy and just’ (7:12), places under a curse those who obey that which is holy!... In his Epistles … he praises virginity (I-Tim 4:1, I-Cor 7:25), and then turns round and writes, ‘In the latter times some shall depart from the faith,... forbidding to marry’ (I-Tim 4:1-3).... And in the Epistle to the Corinthians he says, ‘But concerning virgins I have no commandment of the Lord’ — (I-Cor 7:25). ca. 300 Augustine (early church theologian) accused Paul of being a liar. If it be possible for men to say and believe that, after introducing his narrative with these words, ‘The things which I write unto you, behold, before God, I lie not’, the apostle (Paul) lied when he said of Peter and Barnabas, ‘I saw that they walked not uprightly, according to the truth of the gospel’,... [then] if they did walk uprightly, Paul wrote what was false; and if he wrote what was false here, when did he say what was true? — 397 AD Jerome (early church theologian) accused Paul of hypocrisy. Porphyry ... accuses Paul of presumption because he dared to reprove Peter and rebuke him to his face, and by reasoning convict him of having done wrong; that is to say, of being in the very fault which he himself, who blamed another for transgressing, had committed.... Oh blessed Apostle Paul— who had rebuked Peter for hypocrisy, because he withdrew himself from the Gentiles through fear of the Jews who came from James—why are you, notwithstanding your own doctrine, compelled to circumcise Timothy (Acts 16:3), the son of a Gentile, nay more, a Gentile himself? — 404 AD Jerome's continued criticism of Paul. Paul does not know how to develop a hyperbaton [i.e., a change of normal word order for emphasis], nor to conclude a sentence; and having to do with rude people, he has employed the conceptions, which, if, at the outset, he had not taken care to announce as spoken after the manner of men, would have shocked men of good sense. — 411 AD |
| Re: Paul: The False Apostle by thorpido(m): 8:02pm On Aug 19, 2014 |
deScifa:Macarius Magnus was one of the disciples to discredit Paul?Anybody can write anything.Who made Magnus God's standard?Mcteeew. The scripture I quoted in 2 Peter 3:15-16 aptly describes what you are doing with scriptures.Paul did not contradict himself.He had a way of writing that those who don't understand scriptures get confused and therefore discredit him.He usually wrote in a form of dialogue and debates. The part where he criticised Peter was where Peter was doing things that contradicted the gospel and rightly so because he had not yet fully understood the divine message of Christ which he did in the latter part of his life. |
| Re: Paul: The False Apostle by truthman2012(m): 8:06pm On Aug 19, 2014 |
Lilimax: You may think you've read the Bible in and out but NOT. Remain blessed sister. 1 Like |
| Re: Paul: The False Apostle by deScifa(m): 8:23pm On Aug 19, 2014 |
thorpido: Jesus said,'ye err not knowing the scriptures'. Nah! Peter never agreed with Pauls doctrines......Paul was never recognized as an apostle by the Disciples OR Jesus Paul was never trained by the disciples, the men who walked, talked, and broke bread with Jesus. Where did he receive his teachings? Paul's account of his Damascus Road Experience changed every time he told it, thus the disciples knew he was lying. Paul declared he was teaching another Gospel of which he himself was the Father Paul declared he himself was the son of God Paul issued his own commandments and laws for people to adhere to Paul taught the exact Opposite of what Jesus and His real disciples did. Paul worked to destroy and undo everything Jesus and His disciples did and were doing. Paul was never repentant for being the greatest persecutor of Christians at that time! He boasted about it! Over and Over! Paul said God's law was a Curse. Jesus said it was a blessing. Who's lying? Paul condemned Jesus and His disciples for false teachings, he condemned Jesus Himself for having long hair in 1 Corinthians 11:14, something approved in Numbers 6:5 and Judges 13:5. Jesus Said: Keep the Sabbath (Mark 2:27), circumcise male children (Luke 2:21), Paul Said: Circumcision is not necessary (Romans 2:26) that is going against what the Christ said in Luke 2:21. In 1 Corinthians 15:1 Paul says that he was not giving them anything but what “he preached.” He explained this even further in the second book (or letter) to the Corinthians (2 Corinthians 11:17). It reads - “That which I speak, I speak it not after the Lord, but as it were foolishly, in this confidence of boasting.” He's telling you plain and simple he was speaking of himself and not from or of the Lord!" Paul cursed Jesus and His disciples Paul claimed he himself was the son of God Paul Supported and demanded Adherence to Iniquity (Discrimination), Jesus said to not let it be found among us! Who's lying? |
| Re: Paul: The False Apostle by deScifa(m): 8:28pm On Aug 19, 2014 |
thorpido: Macarius Magnus was one of the disciples to discredit Paul?Anybody can write anything.Who made Magnus God's standard?Mcteeew. lol he has a way of writing that makes people confused and therefore discredit him?....that he mentioned himself as an Apostle and was only supported by only his friend/secretary Luke.? So Paul who got no teachings from the Apostles closest to Jesus knew more than Peter to say he was contradicting the gospel lol...pls wake up |
| Re: Paul: The False Apostle by Kei144(m): 8:30pm On Aug 19, 2014 |
deScifa: [size=14pt] The problem is Paul emphasized faith over everything else[/size] The problem you have is that you have not understood what faith, or in fact the gospel of Jesus Christ, is all about. Yes, the New Testament teachings are predominantly works based; but you have not understood the source of the power that can do the work. Jesus Christ (the Holy Spirit, actually) said, "Apart from me you can do nothing" (Jn 15:5). And without faith, you can never get the Holy Spirit. Your will (or human) power cannot do any good work that is satisfactory to God. It is only by faith that you can get the Holy Spirit to be involved in your life; the involvement of the Holy Spirit makes every good work possible. [size=14pt] Some significant early church fathers had issues with Paul[/size] Gentile early church fathers with shallow spiritual background! The people who enacted dogmas that threw the Church into the dark age, after the Romans threw the early Jewish Church leaders to the lions. https://www.nairaland.com/1857130/romans-threw-true-christianity-lions |
| Re: Paul: The False Apostle by deScifa(m): 8:33pm On Aug 19, 2014 |
If Jesus was referring to Paul as a false apostle and liar in the book of Revelation, how is it he was a liar? The claim of apostleship itself might be considered a lie... but in my thinking, the label "liar" implies a person who uses conscious intent to deceive. When Paul called himself an apostle, I believe he thought he was one. Therefore, I would have a hard time actually labeling him as a liar on those grounds alone. I would call him conceited and self-deceived. Interestingly enough, just by the way Jesus states it, he appears to make the same distinction. "And you have tested those who say they are apostles and are not, and have found them liars." Revelation 2:2 Notice that the idea of apostle is completely negated first and then the idea of liar appears to be in addition to the fact. So if Paul was the one Jesus was referring to, I would expect him to be guilty of using conscious intent to deceive. Here again I would draw a distinction and not include the many errors he had in his doctrines because I’m sure he thought he was right. What I am looking for are outright bold-faced lies. If Paul’s letters are the inspired and infallible word of almighty God, breathed through Paul by the Holy Spirit as Christian doctrine asserts, would it have been possible for Paul to have told an outright lie in them? I think not. So if he did, what would that by itself directly imply concerning the notion that his words are God’s words? Consider the following. Paul and the Jerusalem Council In the book of Acts, Luke records two separate trips Paul made to Jerusalem to discuss doctrinal matters with the head Messianic leaders Peter and James. The first incident is recorded in Acts 15. Here, as the story goes, there had been a disagreement as to whether the Gentile believers needed to be circumcised, so Paul and Barnabas were sent to Jerusalem to find an answer to the question. When they came to Jerusalem, the elders received them, and Paul told them of his work among the Gentiles. At this point, a group of believing Pharisees stated that it was necessary for the Gentiles to be circumcised and require them to keep the Law. This must have been the hot topic of the day, because it was just what Paul and Barnabas had been sent there to discuss. And it says there was "much dispute" among those who were at the conference. Then Peter speaks and makes reference to an event where he had been sent to the Gentile Cornelius, and he goes on to say these words. "So God, who knows the heart, acknowledged them, by giving them the Holy Spirit just as He did to us, and made no distinction between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith. Now therefore, why do you test God by putting a yoke on the neck of the disciples which neither our fathers or we were able to bear?" Acts 15:8-10 Here Peter is referring to the Gentiles and appears to be calling the Law an unbearable burden. Before going on to the subject of Paul, a couple of things need to be addressed in this quote because there are those in the Jewish community who can’t believe Peter or James would ever call the Law an unbearable burden. Some would rather charge Luke with dishonest reporting. As mentioned before, I see no reason to accuse Luke of malice. I believe Luke accurately recorded what he saw and heard. The people he quotes may have been in doctrinal error, and his own commentaries may have been made in Paul-induced ignorance, but I personally have a hard time with the notion that Luke was part of a grand conspiracy to destroy the Law. I see Luke as a very typical everyday person, a Gentile with honorable intentions. He also records events which end up convicting Paul as well as support him! When he is discredited as a reporter, nothing he says is reliable anymore. The key to understanding Peter’s quote which appeared to call the Law an unbearable burden is to remember who started the argument and who he is addressing... the Pharisees. (see previous three verses. Acts 15:5-7) Even Jesus called their idea of the Law a burden. He said: "The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses seat. Therefore whatever they tell you to observe, that observe and do. But do not do according to their works; for they say and do not do. For they bind heavy burdens hard to bear, and lay them on men’s shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers." Matthew 23:2-4 ........ |
| Re: Paul: The False Apostle by deScifa(m): 8:36pm On Aug 19, 2014 |
These words must have been echoing in Peter’s ears when he heard the Pharisees demand that the Gentiles keep the Law. He knew what their idea of the Law was... with all its added oral traditions… a burden! Jesus kept the whole Law as found in Moses, and yet said these words. "My yoke is easy and my burden is light." Matt.11:30 NKJV Here is what the apostle John said about God's Law. "For this is the love of God, that we keep His commandments. And His commandments are not burdensome." 1John 5:3 The true unadulterated Law of Moses is not unbearable. But Peter and James did not want the Pharisees dictating to the Gentiles their idea of the Law with all its traditions, additions and amendments. This is what Peter was referring to when he called the Law an unbearable yoke. As the story continues, Paul and Barnabas tell of "the many miracles and wonders God had worked through them among the Gentiles". Then James begins to speak, and after a short speech says: "Therefore I judge that we should not trouble those from among the Gentiles who are turning to God, but that we write to them to abstain from things polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from things strangled, and from blood. For Moses has had throughout many generations those who preach him in every city, being read in the synagogues every Sabbath." Acts 15:19-21 Here James is endorsing dietary and sexual purity laws along with Moses in general. It is reasonable to assume that James intended for the four laws he outlined to be a kind of stop-gap measure, to keep the new believers from defiling themselves before they could receive the rest of the Law through the reading of Moses in the synagogues every Sabbath. The continued hallowing of the Sabbath is evident in that James uses the present tense word "being", and the attendance of the new Gentile believers to synagogue on the Sabbath is obviously assumed. The idea of "troubling" the Gentiles is his way of saying the Pharisaic laws were too much of a burden. The issue of circumcision is left up in the air. Again, it appears that James intended the new believers to be convicted when they heard Moses read in the synagogues and as a result, follow through with the rest of the Law including circumcision. This was his way of trying to keep as many of the factions together without unduly reproaching the believing Pharisees, and allowing for the Gentiles to receive a more unadulterated version of the Law. The Messianic leaders then decided to write a letter to the Gentile believers. This was to be the official position on the issue, and it was given to Paul, Barnabas, and other leading men of the congregation who went with them to confirm its authenticity and see that it was delivered properly. The part of this official decision that we will focus on is the list of four immediate requirements concerning dietary and sexual purity laws. They are listed a second time in the official letter itself: "…For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit, and to us, to lay no greater burden than these necessary things: that you abstain from things offered to idols, from blood, from things strangled, and from sexual immorality. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well. Farewell." Acts 15:28,29 Twice, these four requirements are listed in Acts 15. Later in the book, Paul returns again to Jerusalem, only this time he was in trouble for what he had been teaching. After a short lecture to Paul concerning what he had been hearing about him, James makes this statement. "But concerning the Gentiles who believe, we have written and decided that they should observe no such thing, except that they should keep themselves from things offered to idols, from blood, from things strangled, and from sexual immorality." Acts 21:25 There they are again. The same four requirements listed a third time. The Lie In Galatians 2, Paul makes mention of the same first trip to Jerusalem as mentioned above. It is obvious from the subject matter alone that it is a reference to the same Jerusalem council meeting. First, let's take an overview of the subject matter of the book of Galatians. Christianity fondly refers to Galatians as "the Magna Carta of spiritual emancipation". One reference says, "…it remains as the abiding monument of the liberation of Christianity from the trammels of legalism." It is evident to the reader of Galatians that Paul’s position against the Law is quite hostile. His intention is to convince the Galatian believers not to give the time of day to the "Judaizers" like Peter who were teaching the Law of Moses including circumcision. As mentioned in the previous chapter, Paul twice commands the Galatians to curse anyone who teaches anything other than his doctrine. Galatians 1:8,9 Among his numerous anti-Law (anti-nomian) arguments are these quotes: "…for by the works of the Law no flesh shall be justified." Galatians 2:16 "But that no one is justified by the Law in the sight of God is evident…" Galatians 3:11 Deuteronomy 6:25 rebuffs these statements when Moses says: "Then it will be righteousness for us, if we are careful to observe all these commandments before the Lord our God, as He has commanded us." "Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the Law…" Galatians 3:13 The law is not a curse, nor does it of itself bring one. Breaking the law brings a curse. Therefore it is man and not the Law that is the problem. "Indeed I, Paul, say to you that if you become circumcised, Christ will profit you nothing. And I testify again to every man who becomes circumcised that he is a debtor to keep the whole Law. You have become estranged from Christ, you who attempt to be justified by the Law; you have fallen from grace. Galatians 5:2-4 He even drops his own name as the foremost authority before telling the Galatians a doctrinal lie. "For all the Law is fulfilled in one word, even this: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself’". Galatians 5:14 This is only the second greatest commandment. Matt. 22:36-40 says; "Teacher, which is the great commandment in the law?" Jesus said to him, "’You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.’ This is the first and the great commandment. And the second is like it: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets." 1 John 5:3 describes how we are to fulfill the first and greatest commandment to love God with all our heart: "For this is the love of God, that we keep His commandments. And His commandments are not burdensome." Paul is so filled with malice toward those who preach circumcision that he wishes they would take the knife and cut their own joysticks off! Galatians 5:11,12 He refers to circumcision as "the mutilation" in Philippians 3:2. His attitude toward the Law and those who teach it is obviously quite hostile. Now, keeping Paul's anti-Law rhetoric in mind, take a look at Paul’s recollection to the Galatians of his first meeting with the Jerusalem council. "Then after fourteen years I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, and also took Titus with me. And I went up by revelation, and communicated to them that gospel which I preach among the Gentiles… But from those who seemed to be something—whatever they were, it makes no difference to me; God shows personal favoritism to no man—for those who seemed to be something added nothing to me. But on the contrary, when they saw that the gospel for the uncircumcised had been committed to me, as the gospel for the circumcised was to Peter… and when James, Cephas, and John who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that had been given to me, they gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised. They desired only that we should remember the poor, the very thing which I was also eager to do." Galatians 2:1,2,6-7,9-10 This is Paul’s version of what happened. When he said that the church in Jerusalem desired "only" that he remember the poor, how could this be anything less than an outright lie? Remember, Paul was forcefully trying to persuade the Galatians to not be circumcised or follow the Law of Moses. This is the foundational theme of the entire book. What's more, Paul was clearly telling the Galatians that he had Jerusalem’s full support... in spite of the fact that he didn't think he needed it from those who only "seemed" to be something and "added nothing" to him. In light of his message, he could not afford to tell the truth, that the official edict from Jerusalem included four requirements from the Law of Moses, three of which were dietary. So he told them a lie when he said, "They desired only that we remember the poor". The official letter read that the Gentiles were to "keep themselves from things offered to idols, from blood, from things strangled, and from sexual immorality." And this lie isn't just a matter of conveniently leaving some things out, he left all the commands out, and then replaced them with one that wasn't even in the official letter. Nowhere in the letter is there any mention of "the poor"! And then Paul has the gall to state it like, "...and they didn't need to tell me that. I have always been eager to remember the poor. See, those who only seemed to be something can't even add that to me." What is it going to take for Christianity to see the lies and incredible arrogance of Paul? Read the passage above again if necessary........................... |
| Re: Paul: The False Apostle by truthman2012(m): 8:37pm On Aug 19, 2014 |
deScifa: You have only repeated here all you have once said. I have some questions for you, which I expect you to honestly answer: Was Paul persecuting the church before? What made him to change and become persecuted? Paul was killed for the course of the gospel, he never denied Christ. Would a man afford to die for the course he took to deceive? Could Paul perform miracles before his conversion? What or who empowered him to do so (with proof) after his claimed conversion? Can a man perform miracles without spiritual backing? What was his spiritual backing (with proof)? Can a man speak against the plan of God (gospel) and still empowered with signs and wonders as a proof of his calling by God? I believe you will discover your errors if you correctly and honestly answer the questions. 1 Like |
| Re: Paul: The False Apostle by deScifa(m): 8:37pm On Aug 19, 2014 |
Paul begins telling the Galatians of his contacts with the Jerusalem Messianic leaders in Galatians 1:18. Just before this, in verses 11 and 12, he had told them that his doctrine was given to him by divine revelation. In other words, it didn't come from the original apostles who had spent three and a half years with Jesus and only "seemed" to be pillars of the church. When Paul tells of his meeting with the Jerusalem leaders, his attitude was that the original apostles were of no significance to him, but... if it mattered to the Galatians... he indicated in Galatians 2:9 that he still had Peter, James, and John’s full support anyway. This is the picture Paul is painting. After mentioning his contact with Peter, James and John the first time in Jerusalem to discuss what should be required of the Gentiles, he says these words. "Now concerning the things which I write to you, indeed, before God, I do not lie." Galatians 1:20 Paul actually had the gall to preface a lie with an oath of honesty! One has to ask the question why he felt compelled in the first place to assure the Galatians he was not lying! Jesus had a few words to say concerning this type of oath: "Again you have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not swear falsely, but shall perform your oaths to the Lord.’ But I say to you, do not swear at all, neither by heaven, for it is God’s throne’ nor by the earth, for it is His footstool; nor by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great King. Nor shall you swear by your head, because you cannot make one hair white or black. But let your ‘Yes’ be ‘Yes’, and your ‘No’ be ‘No’. For whatever is more than these is from the evil one." Matthew 5:33-37 Paul’s own words convict him again. He was a liar, along with being a false apostle just as Jesus had commended the Ephesian church for exposing. He was a liar regardless of whether or not the Ephesian church was aware of this particular lie. But it is not at all unlikely that the Ephesian church was very familiar with both Paul’s letter to the Galatians and the official letter from the Jerusalem council. The Jerusalem council letter would have been circulated to all the Gentile churches, and we know that Paul’s letters were being copied and circulated among the churches as well . Peter makes this apparent in 2 Peter 3:15,16 when he speaks of Paul and the content of "all his epistles". Peter could not say this without being familiar with most if not all of them! One can also see from the passage that he assumes his readers are aware of them as well. (2 Peter 3:15,16 is the passage in which Peter appears to call Paul's letters Scripture. I deal with this issue in chapter 10.) The fact that Paul lied to the Galatians is by itself enough to establish him as a liar, but once a person crosses that line he will likely continue the practice. His lie to the Galatians is by no means his only lie. Paul's lie before the Sanhedrin When Paul was arrested in the temple during his last visit to Jerusalem, he had to be rescued from the Jews by the Romans. On the following day, the Roman commander allowed Paul to be taken before Ananias the high priest and the Sanhedrin to defend himself from the charges against him. During this trial of sorts, Paul makes an interesting claim. But when Paul perceived that one part were Sadducees and the other Pharisees, he cried out in the council, "Men and brethren, I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee; concerning the hope and resurrection of the dead I am being judged!" And when he had said this, a dissension arose between the Pharisees and the Sadducees; and the assembly was divided. Acts 23:6,7 This was a divide-and-conquer ploy in which there was not one shred of truth. For Paul to say he was being judged on the issue of the resurrection of the dead was an outright lie. It had nothing to do with his arrest. The truth concerning why he was arrested is recorded a little earlier in Acts. ...the Jews from Asia, seeing him in the temple, stirred up the whole crowd and laid hands on him, crying out, "Men of Israel, help! This is the man who teaches all men everywhere against the people, the law, and this place..." Acts 21:27,28 NKJV The truth is that Paul was being judged on the matter of bringing to nothing the importance of Israel, the Law of Moses, and the temple. For Paul to suggest otherwise was a lie. He had said earlier that he was willing to die in Jerusalem for what he believed. The question is, when it finally came down to it, why didn't he have the courage to stand by what he had been teaching the Gentiles? Paul's lie to King Agrippa Later in Acts, Paul lied to King Agrippa when recounting his conversion experience on the road to Damascus. The story of Paul's conversion on the road to Damascus is recorded three times in the book of Acts. The first is documented in the narrative by the author, Luke. And as he journeyed he came near Damascus, and suddenly a light shone around him from heaven. Then he fell to the ground, and heard a voice saying to him, "Saul Saul, why are you persecuting Me?" And he said, "Who are You, Lord?" And the Lord said, "I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting, It is hard for you to kick against the goads." So he, trembling and astonished, said, "Lord, what do You want me to do?" And the Lord said to him, "Arise and go into the city, and you will be told what you must do." Acts 9:3-19 The second account is Paul's personal account of his experience as given before the angry Jews in Jerusalem. "Now it happened, as I journeyed and came near Damascus at about noon, suddenly a great light from heaven shone around me. And I fell to the ground and heard a voice saying to me, "Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting Me?' So I answered, 'Who are You, Lord?' And he said to me, 'I am Jesus of Nazareth, Whom you are persecuting.' ...So I said, 'What shall I do, Lord?' And the Lord said to me, 'Arise and go into Damascus, and there you will be told all things which are appointed for you to do.' Acts 22:6-15 There is no significant problem or conflict in these two accounts. Even with the slight variations, the main points remain basically the same. The fact is, they are consistent and corroborate each other. The third record of Paul's conversion experience is given by Paul in his own defense before King Agrippa. Here is how the story goes now. "While thus occupied, as I journeyed to Damascus with authority and commission from the chief priests, at midday, O king, along the road I saw a light from heaven, brighter than the sun, shining around me and those who journeyed with me. And when we all had fallen to the ground, I heard a voice speaking to me and saying in the Hebrew language, 'Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting Me? It is hard for you to kick against the goads.' So I said, 'Who are You , Lord?' And he said, 'I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting. But rise and stand on your feet; for I have appeared to you for this purpose, to make you a minister and a witness both of the things which you have seen and of the things which I will yet reveal to you. I will deliver you from the Jewish people, as well as from the Gentiles, to whom I now send you, to open their eyes and to turn them from the power of Satan to God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins and an inheritance among those who are sanctified by faith in Me.' Therefore, King Agrippa, I was not disobedient to the heavenly vision..." Acts 26:12-19 Now wait just a minute Paul! According to what you and Luke have previously testified, when you asked Jesus what you were to do, he told you to do absolutely nothing other than to go to Damascus, and there you would be told "all things" you were to do! Now you want us to believe Jesus told you all of this on the spot? This is not just a simple case of information having been left out of the first two accounts. If in fact Jesus had actually come out and said anything like, "Here is the reason why I have appeared to you...", what Jesus said immediately following this would naturally be the focal point and highlight of every recollection of the encounter! But nothing of the sort can be found in the first two accounts. On the contrary, what Paul said he was told to do in the first two accounts proves that what he said in the third account was a fabricated lie. Was he told all things he was to do by Jesus himself on the road, or did Jesus tell him to go to Damascus where he would be told all things he was to do? It should be apparent that Paul wanted to paint a picture for King Agrippa that he believed was his unavoidable destiny, so he embellished the account of his vision with a lie. The part of his story in bold print above is a total fabrication... sounding far more like something Paul would say than something Jesus would say. The main purpose for Jesus confronting Paul is obvious and found in his first words: "Why are you persecuting me?" Jesus's purpose was to stop the persecution! The fact that Paul didn't reject Jesus but submitted to him with the words, "What would you have me do?" is a secondary outgrowth from the event. Had Paul stubbornly tried to continue on his way to Damascus to arrest the Messianic believers, it would have been the end of him on the spot. The scene is very reminiscent of Balaam being stopped by the Angel of the Lord because he intended to curse Israel. The parallels between Paul and Balaam are striking. They both started out as enemies of God on their way to curse God's people when they were stopped by a blinding vision on the way. They both repented, converted and served God for a short while, then turned on Him and His people again. If it can happen to Balaam, why not Paul? For more details on this incredible parallel, read 'Jesus Words Only' by Douglas DelTondo. From Paul's fabricated story, it is evident that he designed it to impress upon King Agrippa the picture that it was Jesus's plan that he be delivered from the Gentiles by him. But Jesus never said those words, and as proof that it was one big fat lie, Paul never was delivered from the Gentiles. A little later in the story, Festus and Agrippa mock Paul (Acts 26:24,28) and come to the conclusion that Paul was little more than a harmless crackpot. This is when Paul opts for making an appeal to Caesar for justice in the matter. Christianity has generally thought of Paul's appeal to Caesar as a brilliant tactical maneuver. But something King Agrippa said to Festus seems to go unnoticed. "This man might have been set free if he had not appealed to Caesar." Acts 26:32 Paul's appeal to Caesar is another subject matter |
| Re: Paul: The False Apostle by truthman2012(m): 8:47pm On Aug 19, 2014 |
truthman2012: |
| Re: Paul: The False Apostle by GooseBaba: 8:54pm On Aug 19, 2014 |
In actual fact, jesus came for the jews, while paul came for the gentiles. Therefore, Nigerian Christians worship a god who do no regard them as his own. Now, since Paul is a lie lie apostle, that means Nigerian Christians are on a very long thing.. No wonder there is a lot of confusion in church business. The story said Jesus came to fulfill the law and the gentiles were not part of the adherent of the law. No wonder Paul was all about faith... For one to deliberately ignore logic and rationale in the name of holy spirit. One has to constantly make his/her arguments on personal convictions. If one needs a special spirit to discern written words of men.... Then the question arise... "who is fooling who.. "? 1 Like |
| Re: Paul: The False Apostle by SonOfEl(m): 9:00pm On Aug 19, 2014 |
OP, IT IS EITHER YOU ARE GAY, EXTREME FEMINIST, ATHEIST, OR JUST A NOISE MAKER SEEKING RELEVANCE. PAUL'S MSGS HAVE BEEN TESTED IN MY DAY TO DAY CHRISTIAN LIVING, AND U KNOW WHAT? HIS WORDS ARE DIVINE. 2 Likes |
| Re: Paul: The False Apostle by deScifa(m): 9:05pm On Aug 19, 2014 |
GooseBaba: In actual fact, jesus came for the jews, while paul came for the gentiles. Therefore, Nigerian Christians worship a god who do no regard them as his own. lol  |
What Lies Have Lucifer Told You? / Musician 9ice Changed His Religion / Triquetra
(Go Up)
| Sections: politics (1) business autos (1) jobs (1) career education (1) romance computers phones travel sports fashion health religion celebs tv-movies music-radio literature webmasters programming techmarket Links: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) Nairaland - Copyright © 2005 - 2024 Oluwaseun Osewa. All rights reserved. See How To Advertise. 259 |