Paul, the False Apostle: Rebuttal of Point 3

[JesusMartyr]

I'm amazed I'd find such silly ideas that "Paul wasn't an apostle" on a "Christian website". And the REASONS given, oh my. Well, here's where the hearts lay open before the Lord. You can tell Him your reasons and you'll receive from Him as warranted for your disbelief. As for me, I'll continue loving the Word of God as from Jesus through Paul and the rest of the apostles, and I'll continue in the richness of knowing and living in the Holy Spirit as Paul gives us to know, rejoicing in Israel. I just can't imagine how shallow and meaningless one's life would be without his revelations to us from Jesus. But good luck with whatever you have left.

 

[Sheraldo]

JesusMartyr said:

I'm amazed I'd find such silly ideas that "Paul wasn't an apostle" on a "Christian website".

Mr. JesusMartyr,

I don't find the way I believe "silly" at all and I take what I know and have been taught from the Holy Spirit very seriously. I don't think Jesus finds it silly either as He says this to the church of Ephesus (the church Paul started):
I know your deeds, your hard work and your perseverance. I know that you cannot tolerate wicked people, that you have tested those who claim to be apostles but are not, and have found them false.

We are all on different legs of the journey but to label a sincere view as "silly" is pretty uncool.

Peace and Grace to you,

Sheraldo

 

[drstevej]

The letter to Ephesus does not name any specific false apostle, you are reading your subjective opinion into the text.

 

[Sheraldo]

Yes, Drstevej, it is the subjective conclusion I have reached but my point was that Jesus commended the Ephesians for testing the apostles. It is not "silly" to question an apostle even it is Paul. As many have mentioned on this thread, there are legitimate reasons to question him. There is reasonable doubt. Based on the evidence and the way I see it, I find Paul false.

We all come to our own conclusions. We know what we know, we see what we see.
I came to this site to hopefully find others who might "see" things similarly to the way I see them. And I have found some! Clearly, it is an unorthodox view and unpopular. But I am okay with this as I know that the path is narrow and few find it.

Thank you all for your contributions and insight.

Peace to all,

Sheraldo

 

[IchoozJC]

Yes, Drstevej, it is the subjective conclusion I have reached but my point was that Jesus commended the Ephesians for testing the apostles. It is not "silly" to question an apostle even it is Paul. As many have mentioned on this thread, there are legitimate reasons to question him. There is reasonable doubt. Based on the evidence and the way I see it, I find Paul false.

We all come to our own conclusions. We know what we know, we see what we see.
I came to this site to hopefully find others who might "see" things similarly to the way I see them. And I have found some! Clearly, it is an unorthodox view and unpopular. But I am okay with this as I know that the path is narrow and few find it.

Thank you all for your contributions and insight.

Peace to all,

Sheraldo

"Shortly after I began to obey as He asked those who love him to do, I started to see things differently and I could no longer ingest Paul's teachings. Like some of the other posters, I could no longer reconcile Yeshua and Paul's teachings. In fact, before I started becoming obedient, I clung to teachings of Paul which in my mind, justified my sin of drinking alcohol. I'm not judging anyone for drinking alcohol. I was convicted but used Paul's teachings to continue in sin. For example, there is a verse somewhere sandwiched in one of his 13 letters that says something to the effect, "Everything is permissible. Not everything is profitable." Well I glomped onto the everything is permissible part of that. I ended up with a very serious addiction and almost lost everything, including my family. It never crossed my mind that I wasn't going to heaven because of grace because there was also a verse in one of his letters that said something to the effect that a person is sanctified by their believing spouse so I had that as double protection. "


From your testimony, it honestly sounds to me like you blame Paul for your own misunderstanding of his words. Do you not think its possible to also twist the red letters? Why did you go to Paul to justify your drinking problem? Couldn't you also have justified it by Jesus' words and examples? His first miracle was water to wine. He hung around drinkers and other sinners. He used wineskins as examples in His teachings. And I'm sure there are many other things Jesus said that we can twist to suit are own bent.

What I'm getting at is just because you struggle with a sin is no reason to blame another who has spoken very clearly about the pitfalls of sin.

 

[JesusMartyr]

JesusMartyr said:

Mr. JesusMartyr,

I don't find the way I believe "silly" at all and I take what I know and have been taught from the Holy Spirit very seriously. I don't think Jesus finds it silly either as He says this to the church of Ephesus (the church Paul started):
I know your deeds, your hard work and your perseverance. I know that you cannot tolerate wicked people, that you have tested those who claim to be apostles but are not, and have found them false.

We are all on different legs of the journey but to label a sincere view as "silly" is pretty uncool.

Peace and Grace to you,

Sheraldo

I am female for starters.

And yes, the view that Paul isn't an apostle is worse than silly. It is suicide. Nothing personal. For Paul most certainly stands perfect as tested to be an apostle. His perfect revelations of showing the fulfillment of all O.T. prophecy in Christ, and giving all the references, is perfect. His message is perfect, and totally of the Messiah, who called him out of the Jews, so that he could go to them totally equipped with the wisdom knowledge and understanding of the law, and show how it is totally fulfilled in Christ.
The writings of Paul are a major portion of the New Covenant (N.T.) where we are given to comprehend the marriage of God to Israel, fulfilling the O.T. promises, and the bringing forth of Children of God by this Marriage. Paul covers it better with all the references back to the O.T. than any other apostle. Anyone with bias and attraction back to their old life from which they were delivered, might not like Paul's message I perceive, since we are to die to our old selves and the traditions of men that kept us in darkness and death. Coming from a Jewish background, I can understand this rebellion. But I thank Jesus, and PAUL HIS MESSENGER, that I am released from the old law of sin and death of Moses, into the Light and Life of Jesus Christ, Israel's Messiah, and my Lord God.

The only reason someone might not like Paul, is because he shows that the church is Israel, the Wife of Christ. And as an ex-jew, I can certainly see where that rubs them wrong.

In fact, this is why I was disowned by my jewish family, as I am a follower of Jesus Christ, and am guided fully by His Holy Spirit in the revelation of the entire N.T. word of God. There is no room in this new wineskin for that old law junk, nor for those who throw out the testimony of Christ's anointed, of which Paul was a Pillar.

Brenda

 

[Sheraldo]

My apologies Brenda for assuming you were male! So not believing in Paul is suicide? Leads to death? How is that? Jesus is the Way, the Truth and the Life…not Paul. The law is junk? We are going to have to seriously agree to disagree because the chasm in the way we see things is so completely opposite.

And IchoozJC: Yes, I blame Paul. Peter warns us that his letters are confusing to the unlearned and unestablished. Paul had a thorn in his flesh that he never overcame. John, a true apostle of the lamb, let me know in his letter that sin could be overcome. 1 John 14…

Peace to all,

Sheraldo

 

[IchoozJC]

My apologies Brenda for assuming you were male! So not believing in Paul is suicide? Leads to death? How is that? Jesus is the Way, the Truth and the Life…not Paul. The law is junk? We are going to have to seriously agree to disagree because the chasm in the way we see things is so completely opposite.

And IchoozJC: Yes, I blame Paul. Peter warns us that his letters are confusing to the unlearned and unestablished. Paul had a thorn in his flesh that he never overcame. John, a true apostle of the lamb, let me know in his letter that sin could be overcome. 1 John 14…

Peace to all,

Sheraldo

You blame Paul, because YOU CHOSE to justify your own sin? When thousands of Paul approving Christians walk in victory over sin?

 

[Sheraldo]

That is correct IchoozJC….I was told by my pastor at the time that I was free in Christ to sin…or not to sin..everything was permissible…although not profitable....that grace was scandalous. There was nothing I could do to lose my salvation as long as I confessed with my mouth that Jesus was Lord. Believe and receive. That was the good news.

 

[drstevej]

The problem was your pastor, not Paul.

What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound? God forbid.

So then do not be foolish, but understand what the will of the Lord is. And do not get drunk with wine, for that is dissipation, but be filled with the Spirit,

 

[Sheraldo]

Exactly Chaplain Drstevej!

Ephesians 4:11 It was he who gave some to be apostles, some to be prophets, some to be evangelists, and some to be pastors and teachers…"

Now that I listen to my one Master, there is no more confusion! Matthew 23:8 But you are not to be called 'Rabbi' for you have only one Master and you are all brothers. And do not call anyone on earth 'father', for you have one Father, and he is in heaven. Nor are you to be called 'teacher', for you have have one Teacher, the Christ!"

I live 5 miles from the scene of the mass shootings that happened last night in the college town in California. Signing off now to see what I can do to help…

Take care everyone,

Sheraldo

 

[IchoozJC]

But when thou doest alms, let not thy left hand know what thy right hand doeth:

 

[Phantasman]

Yes, Drstevej, it is the subjective conclusion I have reached but my point was that Jesus commended the Ephesians for testing the apostles. It is not "silly" to question an apostle even it is Paul. As many have mentioned on this thread, there are legitimate reasons to question him. There is reasonable doubt. Based on the evidence and the way I see it, I find Paul false.

We all come to our own conclusions. We know what we know, we see what we see.
I came to this site to hopefully find others who might "see" things similarly to the way I see them. And I have found some! Clearly, it is an unorthodox view and unpopular. But I am okay with this as I know that the path is narrow and few find it.

Thank you all for your contributions and insight.

Peace to all,

Sheraldo

I can see where you are coming from. But if I may, please consider this:

Some "things attributed to Paul may not be his. Hebrews and the Pastorals has been considered by many scholars as not his style of writing, and the content themselves can be questioned as much does not seem to appear in his 10 books used by Marcion.

Next, you may want to consider Peters comments on Paul.

2 Peter 3
15 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;
16 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.

At first view, Paul can seem hard to understand, and mistaken. But after much seeking on my own, and seeing clarity through understanding that his message is entirely spiritual. without learning spiritual understanding, Pauls physical words seem shallow, to say the least.

I used to feel as you. Now, I see Paul as a master of hidden knowledge revealed to those who understand the spirit as he did, even being able to challenge Peter himself.

 

[TorahMan]

The letter to Ephesus does not name any specific false apostle, you are reading your subjective opinion into the text.

Yes it does: "Paul, an apostle..." (Eph 1:1).

 

[Der Alte]

Yes it does: "Paul, an apostle..." (Eph 1:1).

Where does any verse in Ephesians or the entire NT specifically call or refer to Paul as a false apostle?

 

[TorahMan]

Where does any verse in Ephesians or the entire NT specidically call or refer to Paul as a false apostle?

Revelation 2:2

 

[drstevej]

I know your deeds, your hard work and your perseverance. I know that you cannot tolerate wicked people, that you have tested those who claim to be apostles but are not, and have found them false.

This verse does not specifically mention Paul. You are wrong. Try again.

 

[TorahMan]

This verse does not specifically mention Paul. You are wrong. Try again.

No I am not wrong, as you so rudely put it. But since you ask, let's look at the evidence:

• Paul introduced himself to the Ephesians as an apostle (Eph 1:1).
  
• His visit started out well, but after three months there was a huge uproar and they threw him out. Moreover he lost his new converts (Acts 19:8-9).
  
• He said he had to fight for his life (1 Cor 15:32).
  
• He said that that everyone turned away from him, even his friends (2 Tim 1:15; 4:10; 4:16).
  
• He caused such a furore that the Ephesian Jews were still horrified about it over two years later (Acts 21:27-29).
  
• The Son of Man referred to a character who told the Ephesians he was an apostle, and when they tested him further, they discovered that he was not an apostle and had lied to them (Rev 2:2).
  
• Paul met none of the four apostolic criteria (Acts 1:21-22).

The evidence is easy to put together, for anyone with eyes to see. But if you still refuse to accept it, then please tell me who the false apostle was. Paul himself said that "All Scripture is complete", so the answer HAS to be in the Bible.

If the Son of Man thought this was important enough to mention in His final address to the church, not just once but twice, don't you think we owe Him the respect of at least considering what He said? Or was He just blowing hot air, sending us on a wild goose chase after some mystery 'false apostle', who cannot be discovered by any means? If that's the case, why would He have mentioned it at all?

TorahMan

 

[IchoozJC]

No I am not wrong, as you so rudely put it. But since you ask, let's look at the evidence:

• Paul introduced himself to the Ephesians as an apostle (Eph 1:1).
  
• His visit started out well, but after three months there was a huge uproar and they threw him out. Moreover he lost his new converts (Acts 19:8-9).
  
• He said he had to fight for his life (1 Cor 15:32).
  
• He said that that everyone turned away from him, even his friends (2 Tim 1:15; 4:10; 4:16).
  
• He caused such a furore that the Ephesian Jews were still horrified about it over two years later (Acts 21:27-29).
  
• The Son of Man referred to a character who told the Ephesians he was an apostle, and when they tested him further, they discovered that he was not an apostle and had lied to them (Rev 2:2).
  
• Paul met none of the four apostolic criteria (Acts 1:21-22).

The evidence is easy to put together, for anyone with eyes to see. But if you still refuse to accept it, then please tell me who the false apostle was. Paul himself said that "All Scripture is complete", so the answer HAS to be in the Bible.

If the Son of Man thought this was important enough to mention in His final address to the church, not just once but twice, don't you think we owe Him the respect of at least considering what He said? Or was He just blowing hot air, sending us on a wild goose chase after some mystery 'false apostle', who cannot be discovered by any means? If that's the case, why would He have mentioned it at all?

TorahMan

The passage in Rev says "those who claim to be apostles" plural. You make it sound like it was written just for Paul. Obviously there was/is an issue with more than one who claimed to be apostles.

Apostle can simply mean one who is sent. Paul is not the only one besides the 12 who is called an apostle in the NT.

 

[Phantasman]

No I am not wrong, as you so rudely put it. But since you ask, let's look at the evidence:

• Paul introduced himself to the Ephesians as an apostle (Eph 1:1).
• His visit started out well, but after three months there was a huge uproar and they threw him out. Moreover he lost his new converts (Acts 19:8-9).
• He said he had to fight for his life (1 Cor 15:32).
• He said that that everyone turned away from him, even his friends (2 Tim 1:15; 4:10; 4:16).
• He caused such a furore that the Ephesian Jews were still horrified about it over two years later (Acts 21:27-29).
• The Son of Man referred to a character who told the Ephesians he was an apostle, and when they tested him further, they discovered that he was not an apostle and had lied to them (Rev 2:2).
• Paul met none of the four apostolic criteria (Acts 1:21-22).

The evidence is easy to put together, for anyone with eyes to see. But if you still refuse to accept it, then please tell me who the false apostle was. Paul himself said that "All Scripture is complete", so the answer HAS to be in the Bible.

If the Son of Man thought this was important enough to mention in His final address to the church, not just once but twice, don't you think we owe Him the respect of at least considering what He said? Or was He just blowing hot air, sending us on a wild goose chase after some mystery 'false apostle', who cannot be discovered by any means? If that's the case, why would He have mentioned it at all?

TorahMan

Why not just say Simon Magus was Paul? The Jews hated Paul (as a former Pharisee). Which is why James thought it best he go to the Gentiles. There were more than 70 apostles sent out. Paul couldn't be one of them? Silly.