After ascension Jesus was no longer a suffering Servant. There was no question of pleading words for stopping persecution.
Then why did you write that Jesus pleaded with Paul?
Even the Damascus event that is quoted twice is contradictory.
It isn't contradictory. He explained it differently to different people.
No, he had his own short gospel to preach people who couldn't question him because nothing godly was known to them.
Paul preached Jesus and the cross - you show me where he didn't.
Then there should not have been letters of others contradicting Paul'
There aren't.
That is man made decision.
Don't you believe in the inspiration of the Holy Spirit? Or will you only accept his guidance if he leads you to read books that are anti Paul?
dozen by a day with private interpretations.
What you don't understand is that
yours is a private interpretation - because it is not accepted by theologians and the church. Yet every time I point this out you say something like, "just because a lot of people believe something, it doesn't mean it's true."
If you are not taught of the words and life of Jesus, you cannot claim to be a believer in Jesus. That is why we have four books with three similar and the fourth with more of spiritual content.
I've asked this before and you didn't answer; how do you know that Paul didn't teach people about Jesus and who he was?
It's quite likely that if you go to another area of the world and say "Jesus saves", people are very likely to want to know who Jesus was. They will want to know what he taught and if he is someone they can trust. How do you know Paul didn't tell them before they were converted? Scripture doesn't tell us so you can't prove that he didn't.
There is no sign of any material from the Gospel books in Paul's.
Yes there is; I quoted it. Jesus talked about the cross, his death, that he had come to save, give eternal life and is the only way to God - so did Paul.
That is another worst self-serving statement declaring one is a saint based on belief -- a bad interpretation on Paul.
No it isn't. In the NT all believers are called saints.
WE tend to think of a saint as being someone who does good things, who is very holy and "religious". Catholics have decided that someone can only be a saint if the pope makes them one, after considering much evidence. I don't intend to start catholic bashing, but in that issue I believe they are mistaken.
You have said that you accept Paul is a saint. Why - if you are so scornful of his conversion, his writings and even him as a person?
What type of communion observance he had taught them when he was there?
No idea.
We are told of Paul's visit to Corinth in Acts 18; we are not told what he taught.
His compromise concepts have led to destructive doctrines, such as, faith alone, Once saved is always saved, self-determination of saint hood, etc.
1) I don't believed he compromised. What is he supposed to have compromised on?
2) If his writings have LED to these doctrines, that is down to the people who interpreted them and made the doctrines - not to Paul himself.
3) Being saved by faith alone is not destructive; it's the truth. Two criminals were crucified with Jesus. One insulted him and told him to save them; the other said that they deserved to be punished because they had done wrong but that Jesus had done nothing wrong. Then he asked "remember me when you come into your kingdom". Jesus said to him, "
today you will
be with me in
paradise". He didn't say "well, did you hear any of my teachings and put them into practice? How many good things did you DO?" He didn't say, "you obviously haven't listened to my teachings or you would not be being crucified as a criminal". Nor did he say "let me release you from your cross then you can go and prove your belief and be baptised." The criminal admitted he had done wrong, (repentance) and said that he knew Jesus had done no wrong and that he was a king, (declaration of faith in Jesus.) Jesus' reply was "you will be with me, today". There are stories of people who have repented and received Jesus on their death beds - or of people who have been born again and then suddenly killed a short while later. I believe they are saved, because they confessed Jesus - who is the ONLY way to God - as their Saviour.
Paul's letters were not written as to be considered scripture.
No, they weren't.
But if Paul had written to the various churches and said "my words are Scripture; they are as holy and important as the OT", you would have dismissed them as being a self claim by a self important man. The fact that he didn't say that should be a good thing. I doubt you will accept that, though.
That is man-made assumption for dubious doctrines for easy nominal life of hypocrites.
It's not an
assumption. Peter wrote that ignorant men distort Paul's writings, as they do other Scriptures and the early church decided - under the guidance of the Holy Spirit - that Paul's writings were authentic, apostolic, contained the Gospel and should be in the NT.
Your response to these two statements has been to dismiss the authorship of 2 Peter and dismiss the canon of Scripture as being a man made thing. In other words, there are reasons why Paul's writings were included in, and thought of, as Scripture, but because you don't accept the reasons, you have decided that they were assumptions.
Show me in Paul Jesus' words.
I have already said that Paul did not write a biography of Jesus. He wrote letters of encouragement to churches he had already founded - i.e to people who were Christians and believed in Jesus. You don't seem to want to accept this.
He has quoted only twice with words that do not belong to Jesus.
So even when Paul quotes Jesus he doesn't really because Jesus never said those words? Right.
Can you prove that Jesus NEVER said those words - bearing in mind that John said that Jesus said many more things than he was able to record?
Then you should accept all the writings of Pope and saints of Catholics too. Paul has already appeared in my dreams indicating he did not distort the Gospel. But his writings prove otherwise.
The writings of the Pope are not Scripture and I don't believe he has ever claimed that they are.
Paul's writings do not prove that he distorts the Gospel, and I have shown you where he agrees with what Jesus taught about the cross and eternal life. Even you agree with some of Paul's writings and accept him sometimes.
