Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
It is well known that many old manuscripts do not contain "do this in remembrance of me" and the entire v. 20 clearly proving that these were done by Paul's people.
Show me the manuscript evidence for your claim.
The footnote in NASB of my edition clearly says that, and also if you made research on your own.
It was all in the beginning. But later picks up only Gentiles on his own. Please read excerpts from "Did Saint Paul Deviate From The Gospel?" at my replies no. 680, 726 and 741
Show me the manuscript evidence for your claim.
Source please.
Please show any English language versions which omit this verse.
Show the manuscript evidence for the omission.
The beginning only .. hardly (unless you believe the "beginning" for St. Paul lasted for YEARS and spanned THREE MISSIONARY JOURNEYS)!!
From Thessalonica St. Paul continued on to:
Berea:
The brethren immediately sent Paul and Silas away by night to Berea, and when they arrived, they went into the synagogue of the Jews. Acts 17:10
Athens:
While Paul was waiting for them at Athens, his spirit was being provoked within him as he was observing the city full of idols.
So he was reasoning in the synagogue with the Jews and the God-fearing Gentiles, and in the market place every day with those who happened to be present." Acts 17:16–17
Corinth:
1 After these things he left Athens and went to Corinth.
2 And he found a Jew named Aquila, a native of Pontus, having recently come from Italy with his wife Priscilla, because Claudius had commanded all the Jews to leave Rome. He came to them,
3 and because he was of the same trade, he stayed with them and they were working, for by trade they were tent-makers.
4 And he was reasoning in the synagogue every Sabbath and trying to persuade Jews and Greeks.
5 But when Silas and Timothy came down from Macedonia, Paul began devoting himself completely to the word, solemnly testifying to the Jews that Jesus was the Christ. Acts 18
11 And he settled there a year and six months, teaching the word of God among them.
12 But while Gallio was proconsul of Achaia, the Jews with one accord rose up against Paul and brought him before the judgment seat,
13 saying, “This man persuades men to worship God contrary to the law.”
14 But when Paul was about to open his mouth, Gallio said to the Jews, “If it were a matter of wrong or of vicious crime, O Jews, it would be reasonable for me to put up with you;
15 but if there are questions about words and names and your own law, look after it yourselves; I am unwilling to be a judge of these matters.” Acts 18
Ephesus:
19 They came to Ephesus, and he left them there. Now he himself entered the synagogue and reasoned with the Jews. Acts 18
8 And he entered the synagogue and continued speaking out boldly for three months, reasoning and persuading them about the kingdom of God.
9 But when some were becoming hardened and disobedient, speaking evil of the Way before the people, he withdrew from them and took away the disciples, reasoning daily in the school of Tyrannus.
10 This took place for two years, so that all who lived in Asia heard the word of the Lord, both Jews and Greeks.
Acts 19
I could continue, but Paul is already well into his 3rd Missionary Journey at this point. You've been duped! My advice to you, stop reading/believing "theology" books written by mechanical engineering professors and open the word of God and read it instead (and commentaries by actual BIBLICAL scholars, ancient and/or modern, wouldn't be a bad idea either). That's what you should have done to begin. If you had, you wouldn't have wasted so much of our time ... or yours!!
Yours in Christ,
David
I am pointing out how it has been recorded by Luke who was not there when the alleged event took place.
Truth is absolute. It cannot be explained depending on circumstances and people.
That is Paul's relative strategy with his abridged gospel.
What is there is in the cross without the words of Jesus?
Jesus was also opposed. I read all books to realize the truth.
All Protestant pastors don't answer the call of Jesus. They go after Paul.
Yes, he qualifies to be a saint and disciple.
Did he not even teach them the basic notion of sharing the bread?
Lord has the wisdom and power to save people depending on the situation. We are not thieves under similar conditions to expect salvation.
Paul had so many self-claims. Why he didn't do this?
Only if you have a pre conceived idea about sainthood and don't believe what the Bible says about it.So an immoral person was also a Christian in Corinth? What a loose title in that case!
Paul quotes imaginary words of Jesus to push is agenda.
Sure when it supports the Gospel.
It is well known that many old manuscripts do not contain "do this in remembrance of me" and the entire v. 20 clearly proving that these were done by Paul's people.
Paul writes the word 'remembrance' for both bread and wine. It is missing for wine in Luke. The entire Christendom has fallen 'lock, stock and barrel' for the easy ritual of observance invented by Paul, so where is the question of finding a version without that?
So Paul claimed to be an apostle of the uncircumcised for fun? Stopped baptizing against the Great Commission of the Lord! The excerpts from the book "Did Saint Paul Deviate From The Gospel?" is a testimony of a serious seminary student seeking truth; it is not that of statements of a mechanical engineering professor. Perhaps, professor is trying to figure out the truth better than professional scholars in their pursuit of livelihood.
Luke does not say that Jesus pleaded with Paul. And you say "alleged event"; does this mean you don't believe it?
The truth is that Paul met with the risen Lord Jesus and it changed his life. That truth did not change, ever. Even under persecution and suffering Paul did not say "I've changed my mind; it did not happen". He didn't change the truth, only the amount of detail he went in to.
I make greetings cards for people.
If I made a card for a friend who was in hospital and gave it to them - that is what I did; the truth and the facts. But if I was talking to an arty friend/group of crafters, I might also say, "I used floral paper which I mounted onto blue cardstock and then onto to the card blank. Then I stamped an image of a girl picking daisies, coloured it with promarkers, cut it out and mounted it onto green card stock ...... "etc etc. A nursing friend might not be at all interested in how I made the card, but in how my friend was, what ward she was on, what the staff were like and what treatment she was getting. A Minister might be concerned that she was in hospital, pleased that someone had visited and would want to know if she had received communion recently.
Would I be changing the truth for all these people? No. A Minister probably wouldn't be at all interested in hearing how to make a get well card and might not have the time to listen. He/she might just need to know what ward my friend was on and could they visit? My crafting friend would probably not want all the medical details that my nursing friend wanted. The truth - that I made my friend a card and gave it to her - would remain the same.
No. You seem to believe that the Gospel is not the Gospel unless it includes all of Jesus' teachings, miracles and the sermon on the mount.
That is not so. Someone could hear the message that they are sinners, have rebelled against God, that Jesus came to die for them and was raised to life on the 3rd day, receive Jesus and the Holy Spirit, be saved and born again without actually knowing anything about what Jesus said, taught and did during his ministry. That would come afterwards. Others might learn about Jesus first and then be saved - we all come to faith in different ways.
Jesus taught the cross, so did Paul; that is my point. Jesus said that he had come to die, that his blood was being poured out for the forgiveness of sins, that he was the only way to God, and the other verses which I quoted earlier. We are saved if we believe this - the words of Jesus. Paul also preached that we are saved through Jesus alone.
Jesus wasn't opposed to Paul - it was Jesus who called and chose him.
Not all books contain truth - and we only have your word for it that it was the Spirit who leads you to read certain books and that those certain books have the truth.
How are we to know? Someone else might say that the Holy Spirit led them to read a book which says that Mormonism is true, or a book which says that Judas didn't betray Jesus, or that Jesus wasn't really dead; he just fainted on the cross. Anyone could claim divine inspiration/guidance for anything - but that doesn't mean that their claims are true.
So how does he qualify to be a saint?
I should think so, otherwise they would not have known. But Acts 18 does not tell us what he taught them.
Yes, agreed.
But my point was that the thief on the cross did not DO anything to be saved - and God doesn't make exceptions.
You say they are self claims only because you do not believe, or want to believe, them.
Only if you have a pre conceived idea about sainthood and don't believe what the Bible says about it.
If Paul, who met Jesus, says they are from him, then we either believe that, or disbelieve it. If you don't believe it, how can you prove that Jesus NEVER said that just because it's not recorded in the Gospels?
But that position doesn't actually make sense!
You spend quite a long time writing posts which say that Paul was a self proclaimed apostle, had his own agenda, was false and contradicted Jesus; yopu don't seem to think much of him at all. But then you say, (effectively) "but sometimes he was trustworthy, spoke the truth and was actually a saint and the Lord's chosen one." How can someone "qualify as a saint" if they are arrogant, untrustworthy and contradict the one who called and chose them?
You have been shown to be wrong, so you try to discredit the source.
So we should just do the bread in remembrance?
Can you show in the Greek (you can use the lexicon) where Jesus is specifically applying only the bread as in remembrance and excludes the cup?
I find it ironic that in your attempt to defame St. Paul you just did both of the things you accuse him of: made up your own interpretation of Jesus' words and added your own to them.Jesus never said to start a ritual of 'remembrance' of Him and to proclaim His death. What is the big deal of proclaiming death of any person?
Only dead bury the dead and proclaim death!
All of the claims that your "author" makes are false, just like his claim that St. Paul stopped preaching the Gospel to his own people, the Jews, when he said "I am turning to the Gentiles" in Acts 13. Paul didn't abandon his commission at that moment, by, "turning to the Gentiles", he fulfilled it (as I pointed out in my last couple of posts).
Here's what I don't understand, even though you now have clear evidence that your "author" is a false prophet, rather than fleeing from him and apologizing for joining him in misleading others about St. Paul and his Epistles as you have, you continue to try to find ways to perpetuate his lies
One last thing Rt. Do you know what conspiracy theories are really good for? ................................... Selling books
I wasn't about to pay $2.99 for the Kindle version of the book you've been promoting, but I read what I could of it online. Like Dan Brown, that guy is a captivating author (and as a result, I'm sure the remainder of his book is just as much of a page turner), but it's less truthful and far more insidious than Brown's page turner, The Da Vinci Code. I read that book and couldn't put it down, but at least Dan Brown had the decency to say it was a work of fiction in the introduction.
Look, the Christian Church has been able to scrutinize St. Paul's Epistles for over 2,000 years now, and we've done so year after year through conspiracy theory after conspiracy theory. And as divided as we've been at times over certain soteriological issues, two of the things we've stood firmly together on through the centuries and millennia are St. Paul's apostleship, and the fact that his Epistles (the ones in the Bible anyway) are the "breathed" words of God.
Yours and His,
David
I find it ironic that in your attempt to defame St. Paul you just did both of the things you accuse him of: made up your own interpretation of Jesus' words and added your own to them.
But irony aside, what's the big deal about proclaiming Jesus' death? Maybe the fact that His death was the ultimate sacrifice by which the sins of the world were paid for. Maybe the fact that Jesus said "Whoever eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me..." and then later said "This is my body, which is for you..." and "This is my blood of the new covenant..." Perhaps Jesus' death is worth proclaiming because it was by His death that men could be reconciled to God, and by His resurrection that we can live. That might be a good reason to proclaim His death.
Also, you say that Jesus never instituted the sacrament of the Lord's supper, but every serious Bible scholar disagrees with you, as does the early church,
and the apostles also (or are you not aware that the other apostles were still present when the Lord's supper was celebrated on a regular basis and would have put an end to it if it were against their Lord's commands?)
So we are back to my original question. Can you show me one real instance of Paul contradicting Jesus?
Really?Yes, I have added, but don't claim that to be of Jesus' like Paul was doing.
This is where all miss the symbolic spiritual aspect of eating His body. Jesus continued to live after the Last Supper. He was implying that His words need to read (eating) and digested (obedience) and blood represent life of us that pleases Him.
No thanks. I've already read them and have addressed each of them one at a time with you. You always end up trying to argue from your own understanding which seems to rest entirely on the interpretation of the author of this book - who has published many lies about the apostle Paul. Even your two statements within these brackets, which have been refuted so many times it's not even worth doing again, are nothing more than your own self-claims, unsubstantiated by scripture.Paul was advocating this ritual to notorious people in Corinth who never knew the words of Jesus that well.
The chosen apostles were observing this differently. They were fully aware of the thrust needed to observe both the communal meal and communion. Paul on his own dismissed the communal meal altogether.
See the pages I have referred already.
Also, the way that you and your cherished author continually refer to St. Paul as an "outsider" speaks volumes about your opinion of your own opinion. It's a blatant and obvious appeal to emotion, placing Paul on the "outside" of the church in your sentences to add an automatic level of disqualification to anything he might have said. But all it really accomplishes is show the prejudice that is held against him.Yes, I have added, but don't claim that to be of Jesus' like Paul was doing.
This is where all miss the symbolic spiritual aspect of eating His body. Jesus continued to live after the Last Supper. He was implying that His words need to read (eating) and digested (obedience) and blood represent life of us that pleases Him.
Paul was advocating this ritual to notorious people in Corinth who never knew the words of Jesus that well.
The chosen apostles were observing this differently. They were fully aware of the thrust needed to observe both the communal meal and communion. Paul on his own dismissed the communal meal altogether.
See the pages I have referred already.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?