Those who denounce Paul

[ananda]

Interesting that you have such a contradiction. You do not view Luke's words as scripture, yet you give acts the infallibility in claiming Paul counted himself as a pharisee. Very interesting.

Unlike most Christians, I do not see things in black and white or either/or in regards to the canon.

To me, it's not a choice between "infallible Scripture" and "erroneous everything else".

I see Luke's words as Ketuvim-level Scripture. That is, edifying and inspiring, but not necessarily inspired and perfect. (This was the traditional view of Ketuvim back in Messiah's day.) To me, any sermon preached or commentary which does not disagree with Torah/Law or the Neviim/Prophets can be considered Ketuvim/Writings.

For example, take history books. Are they perfect, and error free? Likely not. Yet for most people, they are held to be fairly accurate second- and third-hand accounts of events not personally experienced by the writers.

I see Luke-Acts in the same way. I have no reason to disbelieve Luke's account of Paul's statement regarding his status as a Pharisee. In fact, this is supported by Paul's own witness in Phl 3:5.

I don't see Luke as infallible, but I do consider that what he recorded is generally accurate.

 

[ananda]

His NT is very thin. In fact, he agreed in another post in another thread that he developed his own canon.

My canon is based on tests given and recorded in the books which Messiah identified as "Scripture".

And yes, I have chosen my canon, as did you. So did others, in their choice of the Catholic canon. Or the Ethiopian canon. Or the Orthodox canon. Et cetera.

The difference is, I do not recall that those Scriptural tests were employed in the formation of your canon, or the Catholic, Ethiopan, Orthodox canons or otherwise.

 

[Hentenza]

My canon...

Yes and only your canon.

 

[ananda]

Yes and only your canon.

... or, the alternative is .... your canon?

 

[Hentenza]

... or, the alternative being your canon?

Time tested and ready for learning baby!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[ananda]

Time tested and ready for learning baby!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The earliest believers (Ebionite & Nazarene) in the 1st century did not have Paul in their canons.

"Time tested and ready for learning baby!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

 

[Hentenza]

The earliest believers (Ebionite & Nazarene) in the 1st century did not have Paul in their canons.

"Time tested and ready for learning baby!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

All believers since the early church had Paul's epistles. Those that chose to reject them are at their own peril. I'm not interested in following schismatic groups.

 

[ananda]

All believers since the early church had Paul's epistles. Those that chose to reject them are at their own peril. I'm not interested in following schismatic groups.

Yes, the early church had Paul's epistles, but they were not considered canon or "Scripture" by some until later.

Who gets to determine who is "schismatic"?

To paraphrase a famous statement: "History is written by the majority"

 

[Hentenza]

Yes, the early church had Paul's epistles, but they were not considered canon or "Scripture" by some until later.

Peter trumps your understanding.

Who gets to determine who is "schismatic"?

The Ebonites, for example, were a gnostic sect that believed that Jesus was a mere man. Do you believe that Jesus was a mere man?

To paraphrase a famous statement: "History is written by the majority"

There is some truth in this regarding secular history but Christian history was written by the early church fathers.

 

[ananda]

Peter trumps your understanding. The Ebonites, for example, were a gnostic sect that believed that Jesus was a mere man. Do you believe that Jesus was a mere man? There is some truth in this regarding secular history but Christian history was written by the early church fathers.

Peter is fallible, as am I, yes. Besides, Peter warned against those who misinterpret Paul & the Scriptures to support a lawless theology. In that, I am in total agreement.

No, I don't believe everything the Ebionites are said to believe. As I'm sure you do not believe everything every division of "orthodox" Christianity believes either.

 

[seeingeyes]

I believe James is merely teaching that anyone who fails on one point of the Law is liable/accountable for paying the debt that is required as penalty in all of the Law. (For those who have accepted Messiah and walks with Him in faith and faithfulness, that debt is transferred to Him).

This is not a verse that teaches against following the Law, for James, two verses later (2:12) states that we must speak & keep/do-well, as we will be judged by the Law.

I'm not sure I see much of a difference between James 2 and Ephesians 4 (for example) or Galatians 5 (though Gal 5 uses stronger language about 'keeping the whole law' than James does).

Is there some specific teaching of his that you disagree with? And if so, can you find that teaching's counterpart in the Pharisees that Jesus rebuked?

(It's unfortunate what this thread has become. I hope that you can tell that my questions are sincere, and not opportunities to say 'gotcha'.)

God bless

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

The earliest believers (Ebionite & Nazarene) in the 1st century did not have Paul in their canons.

"Time tested and ready for learning baby!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

That would make for an interesting topic

http://www.christianforums.com/t6356472-9/#post40321589
Ebionites

Originally Posted by Ishraqiyun

The first people within Christianity to strongly reject Paul were probably the Ebionites. They stressed the importance of following the Jewish law, circumcision, diet, etc. They thought of Christianity as a path specifically for Jews. Paul preached Christianity as a universal religion that wasn't bound to the Jewish law. He described it using the language of the Greek Mystery religions. The two were cruising for a collision.
​

The Ebionite Home Page


You have reached the Ebionite/Nazirene Spiritual Restoration HomePage

The Ebionites are the Original And Genuine People of the New Covenant
Unless you are an Ebionite (A Poor One To The Way Of This World)
You Cannot be a Disciple of Yeshua/Jesus

Many Messianic Jews attempt to embrace traditional Christian doctrine with a Jewish facade in an attempt to convert other Jews to a quasi-form of Jewish-Christianity with a Roman Pagan foundation. In view of the fact that the original followers of Yeshua are historically described as “…rejected from one religion as apostates, and from the other as heretics” (Gibbon: Decline & Fall of the Roman Empire, v.1, p.416), this conversion to Jewish-Christianity would be a grave error -- as grave an error as embracing traditional Christianity which is fundamentally of 4th century Roman origin. I have often heard it expressed by both Messianic Jews and Christians that only Paul understood the teachings of Yeshua, and his disciples were too Jewish. Yet, Paul was the father of Christian Gnosticism which was a parallel religious path -- and it is correctly pointed out by Prof. Hyam Maccoby in The Mythmaker: Paul and the Invention of Christianity​

The Problem With Paul

Of the Ebionites it was noted by the early Church writer Irenaeus:"Those who are called Ebionites agree that the world was made by God... they use the Gospel of Matthew only, and repudiate the Apostle Paul, maintaining that he was an apostate from the Law." What does this mean? Did the Ebionites condemn Paul? Or did they condemn the misunderstandings of the Law that many spiritually ignorant non-Jews assumed Paul to be promoting? The problem is not so much with Paul -- but rather, the ignorance of both the Jews and the Christians with respect to why the Ebionites seemingly condemned Paul.
To begin to understand why the Ebionites condemned Paul, you must first understand that his Epistles were not only corrupted (see Orthodox Corruption Of The Scriptures), but numerous writings attributed to Paul were authored by anti-Jewish Gentiles who were members of the very Gnostic Greek Mystery religions. Yet, Paul was not wrong on a number of points -- but he espoused a very different religion than Yeshua. This fact is noted in the Encyclopedia Britannica where it writes: “In calling Paulinism 'Christocentric', one raises the question as to its relation to the Gospel proclaimed by Jesus... how far he unconsciously modified the Gospel by making Christ its subject matter rather than its revealer.... Paul... put all into so fresh a perspective as to change the relative emphasis on points central to the teaching of Jesus, and so alter its spirit. A school of writers, by no means unappreciative of Paul as they understand him, of whom W. Wrede may be taken as example, answer that Paul so changed Christianity as to become its 'second founder' - the real founder of ecclesiastical Christianity as distinct from the Christianity of Jesus. They say, 'either Jesus or Paul' it cannot be both at once’”. .................................​

.

 

[Hentenza]

Peter is fallible, as am I, yes.

Peter wrote scripture with the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. His NT writings are infallible. You, on the other hand, are not infallible.

Besides, Peter warned against those who misinterpret Paul & the Scriptures to support a lawless theology. In that, I am in total agreement.

Nope.

No, I don't believe everything the Ebionites are said to believe. As I'm sure you do not believe everything every division of "orthodox" Christianity believes either.

This is the problem with the name it and claim it routine. Once the obvious have been pointed you detach yourself from it.

Hey, maybe the Ebonites became a gnostic cult with the believe that Jesus was a mere man because they lacked Paul's epistles.

 

[Hentenza]

That would make for an interesting topic

http://www.christianforums.com/t6356472-9/#post40321589
Ebionites



The Ebionite Home Page


You have reached the Ebionite/Nazirene Spiritual Restoration HomePage

The Ebionites are the Original And Genuine People of the New Covenant
Unless you are an Ebionite (A Poor One To The Way Of This World)
You Cannot be a Disciple of Yeshua/Jesus

Many Messianic Jews attempt to embrace traditional Christian doctrine with a Jewish facade in an attempt to convert other Jews to a quasi-form of Jewish-Christianity with a Roman Pagan foundation. In view of the fact that the original followers of Yeshua are historically described as “…rejected from one religion as apostates, and from the other as heretics” (Gibbon: Decline & Fall of the Roman Empire, v.1, p.416), this conversion to Jewish-Christianity would be a grave error -- as grave an error as embracing traditional Christianity which is fundamentally of 4th century Roman origin. I have often heard it expressed by both Messianic Jews and Christians that only Paul understood the teachings of Yeshua, and his disciples were too Jewish. Yet, Paul was the father of Christian Gnosticism which was a parallel religious path -- and it is correctly pointed out by Prof. Hyam Maccoby in The Mythmaker: Paul and the Invention of Christianity​

The Problem With Paul

Of the Ebionites it was noted by the early Church writer Irenaeus:"Those who are called Ebionites agree that the world was made by God... they use the Gospel of Matthew only, and repudiate the Apostle Paul, maintaining that he was an apostate from the Law." What does this mean? Did the Ebionites condemn Paul? Or did they condemn the misunderstandings of the Law that many spiritually ignorant non-Jews assumed Paul to be promoting? The problem is not so much with Paul -- but rather, the ignorance of both the Jews and the Christians with respect to why the Ebionites seemingly condemned Paul.
To begin to understand why the Ebionites condemned Paul, you must first understand that his Epistles were not only corrupted (see Orthodox Corruption Of The Scriptures), but numerous writings attributed to Paul were authored by anti-Jewish Gentiles who were members of the very Gnostic Greek Mystery religions. Yet, Paul was not wrong on a number of points -- but he espoused a very different religion than Yeshua. This fact is noted in the Encyclopedia Britannica where it writes: “In calling Paulinism 'Christocentric', one raises the question as to its relation to the Gospel proclaimed by Jesus... how far he unconsciously modified the Gospel by making Christ its subject matter rather than its revealer.... Paul... put all into so fresh a perspective as to change the relative emphasis on points central to the teaching of Jesus, and so alter its spirit. A school of writers, by no means unappreciative of Paul as they understand him, of whom W. Wrede may be taken as example, answer that Paul so changed Christianity as to become its 'second founder' - the real founder of ecclesiastical Christianity as distinct from the Christianity of Jesus. They say, 'either Jesus or Paul' it cannot be both at once’”. .................................​

.

What a bunch of nonsense.

 

[Sword of the Lord]

Why is this garbage even in GT? Shouldn't this be in UT?

 

[Frogster]

At his trial before Festus, Paul said this:



Now, if as you contend Paul's position was that the Law has no place in the life of a believer, then you must also contend that this idea is NOT an offense against the Law.

in the acts 26 description he did not break any rules that day in the temple, that was the context, he was right, but they lied to kill em. He was not saying he lived out the law

Did Paul go to jerusalem for 14-17 years? No, that meant no feast keepimg, or cleansing rituals, as per the law.....

Did he say he became as a gentile in gal 4:12? yes.

 

[Frogster]

Whatever the case may be in regards to his pronouncements elsewhere, in Acts 23, he states on record that he is, then and there, currently a Pharisee. This was spoken well into his "Christian ministry".

Are you saying that men can't be double minded (James 1:8, 4:8)?

naa..he waws just saying he was of that belief, in the resurrection, he stressed the resurrection in later chapters also, saying that is why he was on trial, he was no longer a practicing pharisee, in gal 1, he said his former life in judaism, gal 2:18, he said he tore it down, soooooooo..

ps, then we got the died to law verses in rom 7, and gal 2.....


then we got the poop of Phil 3:8.

 

[Frogster]

This is written by Paul's friend and associate, Luke.

look at what else a gospel writer, Luke said about Paul, alot of good witness for him, and james and peter called him their beloved brother, who risked his life for the Lord.





Read this, and tell me if Luke does not witness Paul. Luke records Peter and James saying not to burden the church with the yoke of law in Acts 15, same as how Paul referred to the law and it being a yoke.

Peter called Paul scripture in 2 Peter 3:16.

So when Luke says the Holy Spirit in Acts 13, sent out Paul, along with the prophets sending him, that does not support Paul?

When Luke says Paul was a chosen instrument, as spoken by the Lord in acts 9:15, repeated in Acts 26, that does not support Paul?

When Luke records Ananias a disciple going to Paul in Acts 9, that does not witness Paul.
A Jewish prophet named Silas, started churches with Paul. There is a good one!

When the demons in acts 19, recognized the same Spirit in Paul, as Jesus, that does not support Paul?

When the very respected Barnabas, the man of faith in Acts 4 and 11, went to get Paul, that does not support Paul?

When Luke records Jesus in acts 18, 22, 23, telling Paul to keep going, without any correction TO HIS MESSAGE, that does not WITNESS Paul?

When an angel in acts 27 supports Paul, that does not witness Paul?

When Torah knowing Aquila and Priscilla travel with Paul, that does not confirm Paul?

When the council in acts 15 agreed with Paul, and his gospel, as per recorded in Galatians 2, that does not WITNESS Paul? They also called him “our beloved brother Paul”, who risked his life for the Lord, and Peter talked about his beloved brother Paul again, who was given wisdom, obviously from God in 2 peter 3.

When Torah knowing Timothy travels with Paul, along with Luke himself, that does not support Paul?

Do the miracles recorded by Luke, Acts 19:11 etc, saying GOD did miracles through Paul, testify about Paul?
The churches of Judea, praised God, because of Paul, Galatians 1:24,

When Luke says THE WORD OF THE LORD, was spread by Paul in Acts 19, that does not witness Paul?

Acts 14:3 at Iconium, Luke says God was testifying to the grace Paul preached, that saved Jew and Greek. The Gospel of grace, that of Acts 20:24.

In Acts 19:6, Luke records that after Paul placed his hands on some disciples, they received the Holy Spirit, spoke in tongues, and prophecied. Good witness there too…

Acts 16, God sent an earthquake to free Paul, pretty good testimony there too.

 

[Standing Up]

Neither?

Was he acting?

Did Messiah ever act lawless to gain the lawless? Was Messiah acting lawful to gain the lawful?

Good luck with this:

Mt. 5:20 For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.

Can your righteousness exceed theirs?

 

[Standing Up]

Consider that Paul was a Pharisee of the Pharisees. He knew the OT inside and out. He knew Deut 5 such that he could recite it in his sleep. He knew beyond anyone alive at the time what it took to be saved in the Sinai covenant (read Deut 5).

Along comes grace of God in Christ, like it was with Abraham, as Habukuk prophesied (the just shall live by faith). What would you do, but shout the Good News from the roof tops?

For those who don't think the Law was their righteousness, please read Deut 5.