Paul's limited understanding!

[Righttruth]

You have missed the point completely: The fact that Paul's epistles have come through God's providence over His word down through history, shows them to be approved by God. What present day preachers do with it has no bearing on God's providence. Only time will tell. But in the case of Paul...time has already told the truth, which only God could have allowed in His providence. Since God has already approved Paul's writings - you cannot disapprove them.

Jesus warned of false prophets. John called Paul indirectly as a liar! James and Hebrews contradict Paul's convenient theology! Published book "Did Saint Paul Deviate From the Gospel?" may clarify.

 

[Wgw]

More than one of Paul's teachings conflict with that of Jesus.

However, Jesus did forewarn when he was alive in his earthly ministry in Matthew 24.

I think the reason Christianity is divided today and the world is in the state it is in is because Jesus truth has been largely overshadowed by what is false.

But we were forewarned and Jesus would have known what was to come. I think that is why we should take comfort in the other scriptures that tell us of the father calling to him those whom he chooses. This so that we know the Bible is not that door to salvation but God's spirit calling us forth is.

Note that almost all, if not all, of your "forewarning," you received from Christians whi regard St. Paul as authentic.

 

[Righttruth]

I have read these and other low end polemics; when even relatively high end scholarship cannot make this case convincingly, I see no point in downmarket polemics.

Tell me whether apostle Thomas preached the convenient concepts and assumptions of Paul when he was ministering people in India?

 

[Crystal C]

Note that almost all, if not all, of your "forewarning," you received from Christians whi regard St. Paul as authentic.

Jesus forewarning was enough.

 

[Wgw]

Jesus warned of false prophets.

As did St. Paul.

John called Paul indirectly as a liar!

No.

James and Hebrews contradict Paul's convenient theology!

No, rather they contradict Martin Luther's greatly erroneous reading / mistranslation of St. Paul. St. Paul is not Martin Luther.

Published book "Did Saint Paul Deviate From the Gospel?" may clarify.

For those people prepared to accept downmarket polemics, sure.

 

[Wgw]

Tell me whether apostle Thomas preached the convenient concepts and assumptions of Paul when he was ministering people in India?

I rather doubt you have much knowledge of St. Paul given that thus far your criticsm seems to be primarily of Sola Fide, which as much as Martin Luther may have wished otherwise, was not actually authentic Pauline doctrine.

Jesus forewarning was enough.

How do you know of His forewarning? From what source did you obtain this information?

 

[ScottA]

Jesus warned of false prophets. John called Paul indirectly as a liar! James and Hebrews contradict Paul's convenient theology! Published book "Did Saint Paul Deviate From the Gospel?" may clarify.

One man's book/life is no match for the providence of God to approve or disapprove Paul's writings throughout the greater history of His word and His purpose. History attests to God's approval, which makes it indisputable by you or the author of such a book. Your reference to another source other than the time-tested approval of God over the providence of history regarding His word, is the very thing Jesus warned about.

I say again: You cannot dispute what God has already approved.

 

[Job8]

It is very much known fact that Paul was not a part of the earthly ministry of Jesus.

It is also an established fact that precisely for this reason, Paul was taught directly and personally by Christ for many years.

He had no occasion to hear the parable explained by Jesus to chosen apostles.

Paul had access to Luke's Gospel.

Being a crafty scholar, he fabricated populist suggestions and imagined stories that have nothing to do with Jesus' preaching.

Paul's enemies also accused him of craftiness and guile. Nothing new here, and totally false.

You may want to read "Did Saint Paul Deviate From the Gospel?"

You may want to read The Life and Epistles of St. Paul by Conybeare and Howson (Eerdmans). It will give you an excellent insight into Paul.

 

[Righttruth]

As did St. Paul.


No.


No, rather they contradict Martin Luther's greatly erroneous reading / mistranslation of St. Paul. St. Paul is not Martin Luther.


For those people prepared to accept downmarket polemics, sure.

Paul maniacs are dead blind to his greatest hoodwinking in any religion with his bluffing! Meaningless communion of Paul is the basis of all sects and denominations of Christendom! That is because it is easy to observe that than being obedient to the words of Jesus! Weird beliefs in different groups go with that since it is Satanic ploy

 

[Righttruth]

I rather doubt you have much knowledge of St. Paul given that thus far your criticsm seems to be primarily of Sola Fide, which as much as Martin Luther may have wished otherwise, was not actually authentic Pauline doctrine.

What are authentic in Paul's imaginations?"

How do you know of His forewarning? From what source did you obtain this information?

Jesus' words and John's warnings!

 

[Righttruth]

One man's book/life is no match for the providence of God to approve or disapprove Paul's writings throughout the greater history of His word and His purpose. History attests to God's approval, which makes it indisputable by you or the author of such a book. Your reference to another source other than the time-tested approval of God over the providence of history regarding His word, is the very thing Jesus warned about.

I say again: You cannot dispute what God has already approved.

No where God has said to believe in only 66 books compiled by men!

 

[Wgw]

Jesus' words and John's warnings!

Which were faithfully preserved and handed down to you by the Church that regards St. Paul as a holy Apostle.

 

[Wgw]

No where God has said to believe in only 66 books compiled by men!

What other books do you suggest we believe in?

 

[Righttruth]

It is also an established fact that precisely for this reason, Paul was taught directly and personally by Christ for many years.

That was his figment of imagination! There was no need for three and a half of Jesus' ministry if He wanted to have private tutorial with him!

Paul had access to Luke's Gospel.

That way Luke was better of in sharing the Gospel! Luke's gospel and book of Acts don't support the Paul's self-claims with regard to communion and gibberish speaking that required invented bogus interpreters.

Paul's enemies also accused him of craftiness and guile. Nothing new here, and totally false.

Craftiness was his own admission. Poor fellow all the time bothered by a messenger of Satan because of his egoism!

You may want to read The Life and Epistles of St. Paul by Conybeare and Howson (Eerdmans). It will give you an excellent insight into Paul.

I don't believe in professional preachers with their biased understanding fabricated in 'knowledge factories'!

 

[Righttruth]

Which were faithfully preserved and handed down to you by the Church that regards St. Paul as a holy Apostle.

None was a holy apostle, let alone self-proclaimed Paul! Subsequent tradition of a church was not what was revealed in the Bible!

 

[Righttruth]

What other books do you suggest we believe in?

Read apocryphal books and other books, such as, Acts according to Thomas, Peter, John. etc. that may help in understanding what was going on instead of books by rank outsiders, such as Luke and Paul! You believe in the history/fiction of outsiders or of present witnesses?

 

[Wgw]

Read apocryphal books and other books, such as, Acts according to Thomas, Peter, John. etc. that may help in understanding what was going on instead of books by rank outsiders, such as Luke and Paul! You believe in the history/fiction of outsiders or of present witnesses?

The Acts of Thomas are known second century apocrypha associated with the Tatianists / Syriac Gnostics. Similiarly, the other books you cite are known to date from the second or third century. Thus, they hardly count as first-hand narratives.

 

[Wgw]

None was a holy apostle, let alone self-proclaimed Paul! Subsequent tradition of a church was not what was revealed in the Bible!

"The Bible." Not, for example, the Acts of Thomas.

 

[Strong in Him]

The published book "Did Saint Paul Deviate From the Gospel?" elaborates on this.

I don't want to know what some book says about this, I want to know why you say it.
Forget other people's ideas, why do YOU say the things you say about Paul?
Why do you say that he deviates from the words of Jesus when I have shown you that he preached the cross and resurrection, and Jesus did too?
When you meet with God after you die, you may have to answer such questions for yourself; answer for your beliefs, not someone else's.

 

[Strong in Him]

Paul maniacs are dead blind to his greatest hoodwinking in any religion with his bluffing!

And yet you have said that you don't completely disregard Paul's teachings; that you filter them, and have the Holy Spirit to tell you which ones to believe.

One can read through his life and letters to arrive on such a conclusion with the help of the Holy Spirit.

So, he was a manipulator with an agenda, a self proclaimed apostle, someone who has deviated from Jesus' words and a hoodwinker - yet you are prepared to accept some of what he says? The Spirit of truth, apparently, leads you to accept and receive SOME of the words of this hoodwinker and deceiver?
How, then, is he the Spirit of truth who leads us into ALL truth? And how is it that your words are prompted by this Spirit,

It is the Holy Spirit prompting.

whereas when Paul says that he was speaking by, sent by and empowered by the Spirit, you ignore him and accuse him of deceiving people?