I'd like to argue that tho that is totally reasonable, no, because the message comes after the Law has been fulfilled. Thoughts?
Upvote
0
Did Jesus Warn Us of the "Christ" Paul Met in the Wilderness?
- Thread starter Jahrooshshalom
- Start date
I'd like to argue that tho that is totally reasonable, no, because the message comes after the Law has been fulfilled. Thoughts?
Wgw, you just said both: "scholars DO presume to date it, "and "scholars DO NOT presume to date it."
Upvote
0
Wgw
Pray For Brussels!
- May 24, 2015
- 4,304
- 2,074
- Faith
- Eastern Orthodox
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- UK-Conservative
No. I said that those scholars who do believe it to be the oldest Gospel do not presume to date it to the same specific year in which (presumably) St. Mark authored his gospel, which is what you have done.
Upvote
0
Is that a tautology?
I could just as easily say those scholars who do believe it to be the oldest gospel do presume to date it to the same specific year in which Mark (not written by the person it was named after, I think none of them are) was authored.
It doesn't mean anything.
Upvote
0
No doubt, but that isn't what I mean.
I mean that actually knowing them is a kind of knowledge.
Upvote
0
That it is even possible for there to be a difference between those who are most well versed in doctrine and those who are most virtuous and excellent suggests both that doctrine is unneccesary and fallible. Virtuous without doctrine means it doctrine is unnecessary. Doctrine without virtue suggests doctrine is fallible.
If the concerns that Paul is a false prophet are legitimate, then the canon and the doctrine are incompatible. If they are compatible, then the concern is illegitimate. If it is legitimate, then either the canon or the doctrine must be rejected. So, assuming Paul was false, do we reject the canon or the doctrine. Were they established by the same person? If so, they clearly didn't know what they were doing, which undermines their authority because of incompetence, or they intentionally founded a dinomination that is in disagreement with itself, which is strange.
If the concerns that Paul is a false prophet are legitimate, then the canon and the doctrine are incompatible. If they are compatible, then the concern is illegitimate. If it is legitimate, then either the canon or the doctrine must be rejected. So, assuming Paul was false, do we reject the canon or the doctrine. Were they established by the same person? If so, they clearly didn't know what they were doing, which undermines their authority because of incompetence, or they intentionally founded a dinomination that is in disagreement with itself, which is strange.
Upvote
0
timewerx
the village i--o--t--
I regard Paul as like a modern-day preacher. NOT inherently evil, but also not a first-hand witness of Christ in the flesh and like many modern-day preachers, not immune to making mistakes. The other disciples also made mistakes.
What makes you think the disciples became absolutely perfect, not making mistakes? They made mistakes while they were with Christ and when Christ left, they became perfect? I don't think so.
This is why the Bible *seems* to have so many contradictions. If there seems to be so many *apparent* contradictions, maybe they are not apparent after all but real conflicts and contradictions because they are authored by fallible men...
Jesus Himself said, be more righteous than the scribes - these are same people instrumental in making the Bible that exists today. It could also be said as "be more righteous than those who transcribed the Bible".
What makes you think the disciples became absolutely perfect, not making mistakes? They made mistakes while they were with Christ and when Christ left, they became perfect? I don't think so.
This is why the Bible *seems* to have so many contradictions. If there seems to be so many *apparent* contradictions, maybe they are not apparent after all but real conflicts and contradictions because they are authored by fallible men...
Jesus Himself said, be more righteous than the scribes - these are same people instrumental in making the Bible that exists today. It could also be said as "be more righteous than those who transcribed the Bible".
Upvote
0
Very good! What I mean to focus on is the canon (the official collection of biblical books) and the doctrines (the official opinions of each dinomination concerning the canon).
Upvote
0
anonymouswho
Active Member
Hello my friend.
"And this IS life (zoe) eternal (aionios), that they might KNOW thee the ONLY true God, AND Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent." John 17:3
Aionios zoe is the very act of knowing God our Father, as well as the man Yeshua the Messiah. We have this now, and it's amazing!
As for Paul, I put him to the test years ago. I found he was legit, and did not teach against the Law. I've recently had to reevaluate my conclusion, and it's not looking good for Paul. You seem to be an intelligent person. Would you like to discuss this with me? My theology is not orthodox at all, and I may say things you find ridiculous; but I truly believe every word of the Hebrew Scriptures, as well as the words of Yeshua. I also love Paul, but I'm seeing many inconsistencies. Thank you and God bless you.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Sounds like fun. I see Jesus making one commandment with two parts, both involving love, and Paul declaring love to be the fulfillment of the law.
Upvote
0
anonymouswho
Active Member
Great! I've already started discussing this at The Gospel (moved from Philosophy) with one of my friends. It starts where I reply to Righttruth that I may have been wrong about Paul; on the last couple of pages. Would you like to join us there or do you want to continue here. Either way is fine with me. Thank you my friend and God bless.
Upvote
0
I'm using a second party app to do this so I'm having trouble finding it. I think this thread has died anyway, so I would only be able to participate here.
Upvote
0
anonymouswho
Active Member
Alright, no problem my friend. If it is okay, I'd like to start out with your interpretation of this prophecy by Jacob to his sons:
"Benjamin shall ravin as a wolf: in the morning he shall devour the prey, and at night he shall divide the spoil" Genesis 49:27
Yeshua told us to beware of wolves in sheep clothing. Outwardly they appear godly, but inward they are ravaging wolves. Saul first persecuted the church (devour the prey), and later he converted and wrote 13 epistles. These 13 epistles are regarded as sacred to almost all Christian denominations. There are over 10,000 Protestant denominations and several Catholic institutions; as well as the non-denominational churches. All accept Paul, and all disagree over hundreds of issues (dividing the spoil).
Yeshua also warned us of the leaven of the Pharisees. The Pharisees were Yeshua's number one opponent during all His ministry. Paul tells us something that I find very revealing:
"Though I might also have confidence in the flesh. If any other man thinketh that he hath whereof he might trust in the flesh, I more:
Circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, of the tribe of BENJAMIN, an Hebrew of the Hebrews; as touching the law, a PHARISEE" Philippians 3:4
"I say then, Hath God cast away his people? God forbid. For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of BENJAMIN." Romans 11:1
I'm curious to know your thoughts on this. Thank you my friend.
Upvote
0
I try not to weigh in on obscure scripture that I don't fully understand. As for the flesh part, my understanding and experience is that once you are made a new creation, your fleshly tendencies change. For instance, now I only have a sex drive for procreation. As for the tribe of Ben, I know that as Christians, Paul says we are descendants of Abraham not through the flesh but through the spirit. Paul is a fleshly descendants of Ben, but clearly not a spiritual descendant, as far as I can tell. I think that means that what is written about the tribe of Ben does not apply to him.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
anonymouswho
Active Member
That prophecy is just something I thought good to consider before we continue. My main concern is Paul's conversion. I'd like to go over it piece by piece, to see if Paul's conversion is valid.
"And as he journeyed, he came near Damascus: and suddenly there shined round about him a light from heaven" Acts 9:3
This verse says Paul was on the outskirts of Damascus. This would be considered "wilderness", since it is uninhabited land. Yeshua says:
"Wherefore if they shall say unto you, Behold, he is in the desert (wilderness); go not forth" Matthew 24:26
Yeshua said there would be many false Messiahs claiming to be Him. He said:
"For as the lightning cometh out of the east, and shineth even unto the west; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be." Matthew 24:27
This means that many people will see Yeshua when He returns, which is what happened at the end of all the Gospels.
Yeshua also tells us in verse 26:
"behold, he is in the secret chambers; believe it not."
Paul claims that no man taught him the Gospel. Rather, he learned it through revelation by Jesus Christ. When we learn something by revelation, it is revealed to us in our heart and mind. Are these the secret chambers that Yeshua speaks of?
That's the first part of Saul's converstion. From this information alone, why is Paul any different than Joseph Smith? I'm not trying to be arrogent; this is something I'm really struggling with. Thank you friend.
Upvote
0
I'm going to have to read these passages again before I can answer. It will take a day or two. Please be patient. However, I wonder why this instance should be seen any differently from those few instances where He was seen for up to forty days after the crucifixion.
Upvote
0
anonymouswho
Active Member
Please take as much time as you need. The reason why Paul's account is different than the others is what I would like to discuss next. If you would like, you can check out Luke 24:39, and compare this to what Paul saw. We can go into greater detail whenever you're ready to. I'm looking forward to talking to you again. Peace and God bless you.
Upvote
0
Thank you for your patience! Now to begin.
When I read the whole passage of Matthew 24, I notice something. What jumps out at me is this whole, "Look! Look! Look! Look!" thing. Each time he warns us about the false leadership of false leaders, He begins with, "Look!" as if these falsehoods needed to be pointed out and brought to our attention or else we might not notice.
By contrast, the true signs He mentions all seem to be impossible to miss, and do not need to be pointed out and brought to our attention by anyone, because we could not keep from noticing. They are like a lightning strike that flashes across the entire sky, and shines as far as the eye can see: international war and civil war, famine and earthquakes, mass torture and murder, universal hatred, faithlessness, betrayal and hatred of friends and loved ones, the spread of crookedness and corruption, and the dwindling of neighborly love. Everything is noticable like vultures gathering around a corpse.
He seems to list the wilderness (a place where the Holy Spirit led Him to have an important spiritual experience) and the secret room (the place where He tells us the Father will reward us for sincere prayer) specifically, only as random examples of where a false spiritual leader might tell us to look (perhaps because those are significant places). He does not seem to say that those places might be untrustworthy, but that the leadership of those who lead us there might be untrustworthy. Similarly, He also mentions 'devastating desecration in the holy place.' This does not mean the holy place(s), presumably the temple(s), are no good, just that something is temporarily besmirching them (here it seems to be the false leadership of false leaders).
He seems to be warning against the false leadership of false leaders, saying that it will not be 'over here' and it will not be 'over there' nor will it be any other particular place at all (or any kind of particular thing at all, as if warning against false idols, as Paul does). Similarly, in apocryphal accounts of the Kingdom of Heaven He warns against the false leadership of false leaders, saying that it will not be 'in the sky' and it will not be 'in the sea' but rather that it is 'within.'
It seems the message is that we are not to be told by another, because as He said, we have one Teacher. It will be obvious to us. The rewards we collect are given to us in our private room, as with prayer, fasting, and charity.
I see both Acts 9:3 and Luke 24:39 being an instance of people looking at Jesus but not perceiving. Some would argue that was the moment Paul went from blind to baptized.
I don't know enough about Joseph Smith to comment on him. I try to judge a tree by its fruit.
What's next?
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
anonymouswho
Active Member
Hello my friend. Sorry for the delay. I've been busy writing my friends over at The Gospel forum. I would like to address a few things you've written, then I will move on to my next objection.
You are correct that Yeshua spoke of devestating evils. However, He uses a particular word that I feel is very important.
"And because iniquity (G458 ἀνομία) shall abound, the love of many shall wax cold." Matthew 24:12
Anomia means "without Law" or "lawlessness". Yeshua never spoke against the Law. If Paul did, then he is a false Apostle. This is still to be determined, but it's not looking good for Paul.
We will also discuss the "devastating desecration of the Holy place" or "the abomination of desolation", but not yet. It'll become relevant as we go on.
I agree that Yeshua is warning against the false leadership of false teachers. John tells us:
"But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him." 1 John 2:27
Yeshua tells us:
"Neither be ye called masters (teachers): for one is your Master (Teacher), even Christ." Matthew 23:10 (He said this to the Apostels)
Paul tells us:
"Whereunto I am appointed a preacher, and an apostle, and a teacher of the Gentiles." 2 Timothy 1:11
Okay, now I will move on to the next part of Paul's conversion.
"And as he journeyed, he came near Damascus: and suddenly there shined round about him a light from heaven:
And he fell to the earth, and heard a voice saying unto him, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me?"
Acts 9:3
This is very important, but I have a feeling our theological perspectives may differ here. Paul saw a light, and heard a voice. This light is supposed to be Yeshua. Paul later claims to have seen Yeshua:
"Am I not an apostle? am I not free? have I not seen Jesus Christ our Lord? are not ye my work in the Lord?" 1 Corinthians 9:1
I would argue that Paul did not see Yeshua. Yeshua was a man, and when He was resurrected, He was resurrected as a flesh and bone man:
"But they were terrified and affrighted, and supposed that they had seen a spirit.
And he said unto them, Why are ye troubled? and why do thoughts arise in your hearts?
Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have." Luke 24:37
Yeshua was not resurrected as a spiritual being, and Yeshua never was a spiritual being. If Yeshua was a spirit, then He is basically an exalted angel. Hebrews tells us:
"For unto the angels hath he not put in subjection the world to come, whereof we speak.
But one in a certain place testified, saying, What is man, that thou art mindful of him? or the son of man, that thou visitest him?" Hebrews 2:5
John tells us:
"Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in [the] flesh is of God" 1 John 4:2
The definite article "the" of "the flesh" is not present in the Greek. This says that Yeshua is come in flesh. Adding the definite article makes it appear as though John is saying Yeshua preexisting as some spiritual being, and was then put into something called "the flesh". Yeshua was a flesh and bone man. Paul says that Yeshua was a light, a spiritual being, made only in the "likeness" or "appearance" of flesh:
"But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men" Philippians 2:7
"For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:" Romans 8:3
I've read through this forum and I understand that the "incarnation" is important to you. I have thought about this for a very long time. I've gone from believing in a triune god-man, to more of an Arian view that Yeshua was the "first-begotton" son of God, born before the foundation of the world. I've finally had to come to the conclusion that unscriptural words are only meant to confuse. The "teachers" tell us that although these words are not present, they are clearly revealed. So, if we do not agree about this, I will go ahead and move on to my next objection. If you would like to discuss this further, I would be more than happy. Either way is fine with me. Thank you my friend and God bless you.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
