Did Jesus Warn Us of the "Christ" Paul Met in the Wilderness?

[Neochristian]

I think people just declared the first person they possibly could of 'teaching a false Christ.' If I remember, he said to beware, not that anyone who claims it is lying.

What is the one commandment that Jesus gives? The two-part commandment to love God and love others.

Paul says love is the fulfillment of the Law. That is why Jesus commanded it. Paul says love is greater than faith, and that if we have not love, we are nothing, but that love is the perfect and complete, because love does no wrong and love does no harm.

Basically, he says, if you love, you have understood everything, and if you have not, you have understood nothing.

Then John says, God is love. Those who love know God and God is within them, but those who do not love do not know God and God is not within them.

Anyone who teaches you something in the name of Christ that leaves you like a whitewashed grave, apparently wholesome on the outside, but actually wretched on the inside is the one teaching a false Christ.

For not everyone who says, 'Lord, Lord' will be saved, but many will claim to have done well, but will be told, 'I never knew you.'

Who knows God? Those who love! Their cups are truly clean because God is within them!

 

[Neochristian]

If by "quite supportive" you mean "entirely unsupportive," then I agree.

The perspective of the Holy Orthodox Church, specifically; more generally a Nicene perspective to the extent that other Nicene Christians, to their credit, agree with us.

Well, in fact, the entire Gospel of Thomas contains nothing except the words of Jesus, and it seems Thomas 108 clearly supports incarnation seeing as that's what it says.

It is my remembrance that a university taught that the Council of Nicaea put the canon together saying, "We read these four gospels whatever else we read." So they weren't against what is today considered alternative. Does that make them orthodox?

 

[Neochristian]

And again, where in scripture did Jesus say he would return after he ascended to the father and speak a new revelation to someone unknown to the Apostles?

Exactly what Jesus said not to believe.

Why would Jesus appear as a light?

When after he resurrected he appeared in a way to be recognized by his Apostles.

Once he got there he thought to tell a Roman citizen Pharisee to give revelation to the gentiles? Whom he called dogs? When he told his Disciples he was sent only to the lost sheep.

Living Water.

That's similar to what He said, not exactly what He said.

Because He is the light.

The people who uncovered Him at His tomb didn't recognize Him at all.

Didn't he feed a dog? Plus, Paul was a jew! Also I heard Jesus was the Savior of everyone, not only jews.

 

[Jahrooshshalom]

Well, in fact, the entire Gospel of Thomas contains nothing except the words of Jesus, and it seems Thomas 108 clearly supports incarnation seeing as that's what it says.

It is my remembrance that a university taught that the Council of Nicaea put the canon together saying, "We read these four gospels whatever else we read." So they weren't against what is today considered alternative. Does that make them orthodox?

And yet Thomas isn't a canonical book.

 

[Neochristian]

Everything prohibited in Acts 15:20 is in regard to refraining from pagan worship and idolatry. For example, sun worshippers would go to a temple, sacrifice to their god, eat the sacrifice, drink the blood, and have sex with the temple prostitutes, so Christians should not have any part in that whatsoever. Our allegiance should be holy devoted to God, not to demons. The problem with the Corinthians was that they were under the false understanding that everything was permitted and that the freedom they had in Christ permitted them to partake in sexual immorality and other sins. Their "knowledge" puffed them up and they didn't have the wisdom to use it correctly. They reasoned that and idol has no real existence and that there is only one God, so sacrifices to idols meant nothing and could be done in good conscious. Paul sarcastically referred to them as "strong" in that they thought they were strong because they believed the right things about God and contrasted them with the "weak" who felt that eating polluted meat was sinful and against God's will. The "weak" believe this was true not because of their "knowledge", but because of their close relationship with God and that God was jealous for them as He was for the Israelites. The "strong" believed that they could eat polluted mean because of what they knew, but the "weak" believed they could not eat because of who they knew.

1 Corinthians 10:14 Therefore, my dear friends, run from idolatry!

1 Corinthians 10:21-22 You can’t drink both a cup of the Lord and a cup of demons, you can’t partake in both a meal of the Lord and a meal of demons. Or are we trying to make the Lord jealous? We aren’t stronger than he is, are we?

Revelation 2:14 But I have a few things against you: you have some there who hold the teaching of Balaam, who taught Balak to put a stumbling block before the sons of Israel, so that they might eat food sacrificed to idols and practice sexual immorality.

Revelation 2:20 But I have this against you, that you tolerate that woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophetess and is teaching and seducing my servants[c] to practice sexual immorality and to eat food sacrificed to idols.

2 Corinthians 6:17 Therefore go out from their midst, and be separate from them, says the Lord, and touch no unclean thing; then I will welcome you,

Does the correct understanding of God make us stronger?

 

[Neochristian]

If this is true and beyond contestation, why then did Paul have to go up to Jerusalem and meet with James and the Apostles?

We both know it was because many (perhaps even Paul himself) doubted he had the authentic Gospel. Now 2000 years later whose word do we have to take in this matter? Luke, a friend of Paul's? The Catholic Church? The Roman Empire?
I say unless you're a dispensationalist, just compare what Paul taught to what Yashua taught.

IMHO, here is the problem:
People interpret Yahshua's teachings in light of Paul's when they should interpret Paul's teachings in light of Yahshua's. If Paul's teaching cannot be reconciled with Yahshua's, that leaves you with 4 choices:
1) Paul is a type of antichrist
2) Paul's writings have been corrupted
3) Yahshua and Paul taught under different dispensations
4) Yahshua's or Paul's teachings are being misinterpreted

Well done, young philosopher!

I see nothing but agreement.

 

[Neochristian]

The context of Mathew 24 is Christ's second coming. Jesus appearing to Paul was a divine intervention that had nothing to do with Mathew 24. Of course Paul is a true apostle. Peter even said his words were scripture. ( 2 Peter 3:15-16) "Bear in mind that our Lord’s patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction".

Oh, snap!

 

[Neochristian]

Yes, Paul taught a new gospel about Jesus, he brought his own religious baggage to the new religion. Paul just happened to be the first great evangelist that the Pagan world heard about Jesus from, so naturally he was their hero.

The original gospel is what the Jews would be teaching from Jerusalem today if they would have accepted Jesus and taken up their calling. The Pagan mystery religions already had the foreign concepts of human/divine sacrifice, atonement, blood drinking rituals. But Paul was sincere, he was just wrong as he never sat at Jesus' feet to be taught. Even the apostles who did know Jesus for 3 years were often baffled by his teaching. Their minds were contaminated by the messianic expectations of the Jews.

The only thing I see Paul teaching is the same thing Jesus taught: love.

 

[Neochristian]

And yet Thomas isn't a canonical book.

Right, but it wasn't anti-canon. Canon books are cosidered genuine, and Thomas was not ungenuine. The canon was not restrictive or exclusive. It didn't say other books were not allowed, or that they were heretical. Being part of the canon didn't mean those books were better, just that they were required reading, whereas the rest were optional.

 

[HebrewVaquero]

IMHO;
People are on the wrong track with Paul even before they start. This is because they try to prove Paul by the testimonies of Luke, Paul himself, one mention by Peter and the Nicene Council.

It is not the "messenger" Paul which must be proved, after all;
*a sincere messenger can be sincerely wrong,
*truth can contain small lies
*a Lie can contain many truths.
(In fact, the best way to have a lie accepted is to hide it among many truths)

>What should be done vvv
It is the "Message" of Paul which must be proved.
Proved by what? Luke? Paul? Peter? >NO!<
Proved by the same criteria which proved Yahshua to be Messiah; The Torah, Prophets and Writings.
Under the circumstances should any less be used to prove Paul's Gospel?

 

[Wgw]

Well, in fact, the entire Gospel of Thomas contains nothing except the words of Jesus, and it seems Thomas 108 clearly supports incarnation seeing as that's what it says.

It is my remembrance that a university taught that the Council of Nicaea put the canon together saying, "We read these four gospels whatever else we read." So they weren't against what is today considered alternative. Does that make them orthodox?

There is in fact nothing in Thomas 108 that can be regarded as incarnational; on the contrary, the peculiar implications of reading that verse literally lend the passage to a non-literal interpretation; either Christ was a mere man speaking metaphorically, or more probably, this work was favoured by those who support a docetic theology.

Note that we have one Church Father on record attributing this volume to the Manichaeans, and all but a few of the more left-wing scholars generally date it to the third century, which makes sense in the grand scheme of thing. Thomas was the name of one of the disciples of Mani, who taught in areas where the Syriac speaking Christians evangelized by St. Thomas the Apostle predominated. So it makes sense that a Manichaean named Thomas would write a psuedepigraphical work in the name of St. Thomas the Apostle, who may well have been the Manichaean Thomas's own namesake.

 

[Wgw]

Right, but it wasn't anti-canon. Canon books are cosidered genuine, and Thomas was not ungenuine. The canon was not restrictive or exclusive. It didn't say other books were not allowed, or that they were heretical. Being part of the canon didn't mean those books were better, just that they were required reading, whereas the rest were optional.

That's not accurate. All alleged scriptures not in the canon were rejected by St. Athanasius,mwith the exception of certain works like the Shepherd of Hermas, which he noted might be useful for catechesis; later, the Decree of Gelasius specifically identified this work as heretical.

As far as "required reading," goes, this term is a bit misleading. There existed, and exists, in the Orthodox, Catholic and Assyrian churches, and in liturgical Protestant churches, a system called the "lectionary," and there are different lectionaries, but these essentially specify which books are to be read on particular occasions in church, for example, on Easter, at a wedding, or on the 5th sunday after Pentecost. Some books are canonical without being included in the lectionary; the Byzantine Rite liturgy of the Eastern Orthodox and Greek Catholics does not include Revelations, yet these churches do regard it as canonical.

 

[Wgw]

IMHO;
People are on the wrong track with Paul even before they start. This is because they try to prove Paul by the testimonies of Luke, Paul himself, one mention by Peter and the Nicene Council.

The Council of Nicea has nothing to do with this; St. Paul was accepted by the church as early as the first century.

It is not the "messenger" Paul which must be proved, after all;
*a sincere messenger can be sincerely wrong,
*truth can contain small lies
*a Lie can contain many truths.
(In fact, the best way to have a lie accepted is to hide it among many truths)

>What should be done vvv
It is the "Message" of Paul which must be proved.
Proved by what? Luke? Paul? Peter? >NO!<
Proved by the same criteria which proved Yahshua to be Messiah; The Torah, Prophets and Writings.
Under the circumstances should any less be used to prove Paul's Gospel?

If you admit the existence of deception in any NT scripture, even accidental deceptiom, there remains no compelling reason to accept any of it.

 

[Soyeong]

Does the correct understanding of God make us stronger?

Those who are strong in their faith are those who trust God to lead them into doing what is right in accordance with His commands, not those who trust in their knowledge. Knowing about God is good, but knowing God is far better.

 

[Viren]

Jesus didn't appear "to" Paul on the road to Damascus. He appeared "in" Paul according the Galatians 1:16. Big difference.

"But when God, who set me apart from my mother’s womb and called me by his grace, was pleased to reveal his Son in me so that I might preach him among the Gentiles"

 

[HebrewVaquero]

The Council of Nicea has nothing to do with this; St. Paul was accepted by the church as early as the first century.



If you admit the existence of deception in any NT scripture, even accidental deceptiom, there remains no compelling reason to accept any of it.

Okay Wgw, in the spirit of brotherly love let us remove any gnats which possibly could be strained at, I'll just 'give' you the points you mentioned. So what do you do with the question asked? :
Shouldn't Paul's Message be judged by the same criteria as Jesus's Message? (Namely The Torah, Prophets and the Writings)
???

 

[HebrewVaquero]

Jesus didn't appear "to" Paul on the road to Damascus. He appeared "in" Paul according the Galatians 1:16. Big difference.

"But when God, who set me apart from my mother’s womb and called me by his grace, was pleased to reveal his Son in me so that I might preach him among the Gentiles"

Thank you, never caught that till now.
In addition:
One must wonder being "set apart from my mother's womb", what exactly was going on during the Christian murdering phase of his life?

 

[Wgw]

Okay Wgw, in the spirit of brotherly love let us remove any gnats which possibly could be strained at, I'll just 'give' you the points you mentioned. So what do you do with the question asked? :
Shouldn't Paul's Message be judged by the same criteria as Jesus's Message? (Namely The Torah, Prophets and the Writings)
???

One should not presume to "judge" one part of canonical scripture against another. Rather, what you are referring to is the idea of searching OT scripture for Christological prophecy, which is abundant. This does not mean that we should attempt to evaluate the words of our Lord and those of St. Paul against a Judaic interpretation of the Torah.

 

[HebrewVaquero]

One should not presume to "judge" one part of canonical scripture against another. Rather, what you are referring to is the idea of searching OT scripture for Christological prophecy, which is abundant. This does not mean that we should attempt to evaluate the words of our Lord and those of St. Paul against a Judaic interpretation of the Torah.

Do you realize your opinion puts you in direct conflict with what Paul, Luke and canonized scripture teaches?
Acts 17:11 Now the Berean Jews were of more noble character than ...

... listened eagerly to Paul's message. They searchedthe Scriptures day after
day to see if Paul and Silas were teaching the truth. ...

 

[Wgw]

Do you realize your opinion puts you in direct conflict with what Paul, Luke and canonized scripture teaches?
Acts 17:11 Now the Berean Jews were of more noble character than ...

... listened eagerly to Paul's message. They searchedthe Scriptures day after
day to see if Paul and Silas were teaching the truth. ...

Alas I fear you have failed to understand my post. My point is that whereas it is proper to search for Christological prophecy in the Old Testament, we should not presume to judge books of the New Testament against it.

So in other words, one can piously search the Old Testament for confirmation of the New. One should not however attempt to revise the New on the basis of perceived conflicts with a Rabinnical, Karaite or other Judaic intepretation of the Old.

Which is precisely what you and Jarooshalom are doing in asking us to reject St. Paul.