How should we read Paul?

[Strong in Him]

All false claimers based on false apostle, Paul.

Like I said, you are calling the Lord's chosen one, someone called by Jesus himself, a false apostle.
Are you sure you're happy to disrespect the Lord's chosen one?

 

[Righttruth]

Like I said, you are calling the Lord's chosen one, someone called by Jesus himself, a false apostle.
Are you sure you're happy to disrespect the Lord's chosen one?

Yes, he was chosen one, but cannot be as an apostle. The number is limited by the 12 tribes of Israel. Paul never knew the spiritual significance and responsibility of chosen 12. He was a great divider which is proved by the thousands of denominations based on his epistles. What is more, he divided the apostleship also on his own.

 

[Extraneous]

Yes, he was chosen one, but cannot be as an apostle. The number is limited by the 12 tribes of Israel. Paul never knew the spiritual significance and responsibility of chosen 12. He was a great divider which is proved by the thousands of denominations based on his epistles. What is more, he divided the apostleship also on his own.

Maybe more than one apostle can come from each tribe.

 

[Righttruth]

Maybe more than one apostle can come from each tribe.

There are only 12 recognized in heaven.

Revelation 2
2 'I know your deeds and your toil and perseverance, and that you cannot tolerate evil men, and you put to the test those who call themselves apostles, and they are not, and you found them to be false;

Revelation 21
14 And the wall of the city had twelve foundation stones, and on them were the twelve names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.

 

[Extraneous]

There are only 12 recognized in heaven.

Revelation 2
2 'I know your deeds and your toil and perseverance, and that you cannot tolerate evil men, and you put to the test those who call themselves apostles, and they are not, and you found them to be false;

Revelation 21
14 And the wall of the city had twelve foundation stones, and on them were the twelve names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.

According to Revelation only 144,000 Jews will be saved. Only 12,000 from each tribe

 

[Strong in Him]

Yes, he was chosen one, but cannot be as an apostle. The number is limited by the 12 tribes of Israel. Paul never knew the spiritual significance and responsibility of chosen 12. He was a great divider which is proved by the thousands of denominations based on his epistles. What is more, he divided the apostleship also on his own.

Nonsense. As a Jew Paul was perfectly aware that there were 12 tribes and 12 heads. He must have realised the significance of the Lord choosing 12 disciples, But in Scripture the word "apostle" is not used solely about the 12. It was used of Jesus and is used, at least once, of all believers - a fact you will not accept. Also there are other apostles mentioned besides Paul, like James and Barnabas - again, you have not addressed this at all because of your obsession with Paul.

You cannot say that a person is divisive just because others, and future generations, interpret their writings differently. That's not the fault of the man who wrote them. What about the book(s) you often refer to/quote from? People disagree with what he says; is HE, himself, divisive too? What of your posts in this thread? Lots of people disagree with you, so by your own logic, you are divisive too.

It seems to me that your starting point is that you dislike Paul, so you interpret everything in that light. Eg he has a disagreement with someone - are you saying you never have - and you are putting it forward as evidence of a divisive nature. Paul wasn't perfect, and never claimed to be. Yet look at his fruit; the churches he founded and the letters he wrote which are read, studied, loved and acted on hundreds of years later.
It's a shame you are far more willing to pick on, what you see as being bad, that you can't acknowledge the good.

 

[Extraneous]

The more i read Paul, the more i see whats hes saying. Its amazing what the Lord has opened my eyes us to lately. I feel so grateful. Paul teaches that we should not store riches on earth but in heaven, just as Christ teaches. In many of pauls letters i see this hiding in plain sight. I know it sounds like im beating a dead horse with the riches in heaven thing, but i find so many scriptures, from Isaiah and Paul both, pointing to that one command from Christ. It amazes me to no end.

 

[Righttruth]

According to Revelation only 144,000 Jews will be saved. Only 12,000 from each tribe

They are already saved Jews. Now salvation through Jesus for all.

 

[Righttruth]

Nonsense. As a Jew Paul was perfectly aware that there were 12 tribes and 12 heads. He must have realised the significance of the Lord choosing 12 disciples, But in Scripture the word "apostle" is not used solely about the 12. It was used of Jesus and is used, at least once, of all believers - a fact you will not accept. Also there are other apostles mentioned besides Paul, like James and Barnabas - again, you have not addressed this at all because of your obsession with Paul.

OK. Let us see where else it is used if you quoted the verses. You cannot include the self-claim of Paul and Luke who were both rank outsiders who were not in the ministry of Jesus when He called the twelve. Don't try to understand and fit your logic from backwards, that is, from Paul's epistles to the gospel books.

You cannot say that a person is divisive just because others, and future generations, interpret their writings differently. That's not the fault of the man who wrote them. What about the book(s) you often refer to/quote from? People disagree with what he says; is HE, himself, divisive too? What of your posts in this thread? Lots of people disagree with you, so by your own logic, you are divisive too.

The truth is not decided by a majority. Sex of a monkey in a zoo cannot be decided by a majority vote of children.

It seems to me that your starting point is that you dislike Paul, so you interpret everything in that light. Eg he has a disagreement with someone - are you saying you never have - and you are putting it forward as evidence of a divisive nature. Paul wasn't perfect, and never claimed to be. Yet look at his fruit; the churches he founded and the letters he wrote which are read, studied, loved and acted on hundreds of years later.

Who doesn't want goodies? Churches love traditions, 'ear tickling' concepts and rituals over obedience to the words of Jesus. Protestant pastors gladly take up the call of Paul, not that of Jesus.

It's a shame you are far more willing to pick on, what you see as being bad, that you can't acknowledge the good.

Anything that complements the Gospel will be accepted whether it is from Paul or others.

 

[Righttruth]

The more i read Paul, the more i see whats hes saying. Its amazing what the Lord has opened my eyes us to lately. I feel so grateful. Paul teaches that we should not store riches on earth but in heaven, just as Christ teaches. In many of pauls letters i see this hiding in plain sight. I know it sounds like im beating a dead horse with the riches in heaven thing, but i find so many scriptures, from Isaiah and Paul both, pointing to that one command from Christ. It amazes me to no end.

It was not Paul first to preach this.

 

[Extraneous]

They are already saved Jews. Now salvation through Jesus for all.

I was only attempting to suggest that maybe your understanding of numbers according to tribes might not be accurate.

 

[Extraneous]

It was not Paul first to preach this.

Of course not, but that wasnt my point though.

 

[Strong in Him]

Don't try to understand and fit your logic from backwards, that is, from Paul's epistles to the gospel books.

Paul's epistles were written before the gospels.

The truth is not decided by a majority.

The truth about the God of truth is in the Bible, which was inspired by the Spirit of truth.
But you won't accept that. You reject that Jesus' chosen instrument was inspired by the Holy Spirit, or maybe sometimes, but mostly not, yet you claim that the Holy Spirit inspires you to read books that contain the truth also but which were not included in Scripture.

Who doesn't want goodies? Churches love traditions, 'ear tickling' concepts and rituals over obedience to the words of Jesus. Protestant pastors gladly take up the call of Paul, not that of Jesus.

Well if you're prepared to tell the Lord one day that his chosen man was "tickling people's ears" and preaching "goodies" and "sugar coated teachings"; go ahead. It is entirely inconsistent to say that Paul was chosen by the Lord Jesus and a saint and you accept some of Paul's teachings, but that he was also a false apostle, arrogant and a man with his own agenda.
If he was false you can't trust him; yet he, an untrustworthy man, was chosen and called by Jesus. If he was false, then the Holy Spirit shouldn't have led people to put his letters in the Bible. If he was false, then the churches wouldn't believe him, and anyone who read his words would be led astray, confused or damned - because the thief comes to steal and destroy. Yet thousands are edified by his writings which have brought life, hope and truth to us.

Anything that complements the Gospel will be accepted whether it is from Paul or others.

Yes, but your definition of the Gospel is the words of Jesus. You seem to say that it is the words of Jesus, alone, that save - and anyone who wasn't around to hear them when they were spoken, is false and not preaching the Gospel. That is incorrect. We are saved from our sin by the cross, not by the sermon on the mount. You won't accept that view, but it is truth and orthodox Christian doctrine.

 

[nomadictheist]

Better let me know what you think of it.

The dictionary definition of rely is as follows:

depend on with full trust or confidence

That's the definition I have for rely. And anyone who uses the word rely should be assumed to have the same meaning.

So that particular translation of the Greek reads "All who depend with full trust or confidence on the law are under a curse." Once again, where is their trust and confidence? In the law. But the law says that whoever does not do everything written in the law is cursed, and as Jesus Himself shows us we cannot do everything written in the law. So anyone whose trust and confidence is in the law is under a curse.

 

[Extraneous]

Paul's epistles were written before the gospels.



The truth about the God of truth is in the Bible, which was inspired by the Spirit of truth.
But you won't accept that. You reject that Jesus' chosen instrument was inspired by the Holy Spirit, or maybe sometimes, but mostly not, yet you claim that the Holy Spirit inspires you to read books that contain the truth also but which were not included in Scripture.



Well if you're prepared to tell the Lord one day that his chosen man was "tickling people's ears" and preaching "goodies" and "sugar coated teachings"; go ahead. It is entirely inconsistent to say that Paul was chosen by the Lord Jesus and a saint and you accept some of Paul's teachings, but that he was also a false apostle, arrogant and a man with his own agenda.
If he was false you can't trust him; yet he, an untrustworthy man, was chosen and called by Jesus. If he was false, then the Holy Spirit shouldn't have led people to put his letters in the Bible. If he was false, then the churches wouldn't believe him, and anyone who read his words would be led astray, confused or damned - because the thief comes to steal and destroy. Yet thousands are edified by his writings which have brought life, hope and truth to us.



Yes, but your definition of the Gospel is the words of Jesus. You seem to say that it is the words of Jesus, alone, that save - and anyone who wasn't around to hear them when they were spoken, is false and not preaching the Gospel. That is incorrect. We are saved from our sin by the cross, not by the sermon on the mount. You won't accept that view, but it is truth and orthodox Christian doctrine.

Not exactly. Paul heard the Gospel message. We dont have any of the original documents, so who can actually say when the gospels were written? Dont you think that believers would have written down Christs words pretty quickly? I do,

 

[Strong in Him]

Not exactly. Paul heard the Gospel message. We dont have any of the original documents, so who can actually say when the gospels were written?

Well commentators and others who have studied these things, say that Mark's Gospel was the earliest to be written - between 60-70 AD. They doubtless have evidence for such things; I can't tell you what it is because I haven't studied these things.
Paul died around 64 AD during persecution. Again, I am pretty sure there must be evidence for that somewhere.

Dont you think that believers would have written down Christs words pretty quickly? I do,

No, because the Jews had a great oral tradition, going right back to the time of Moses - "teach these commandments to your children." So they would have repeated Jesus' stories and teachings over and over again - to each other, as they talked and discussed them, and to others.
Apart from this, the apostles expected Jesus to return within their life times. They began to write things down when it seemed likely that they might die before the Lord's return. The next generation, while hearing all the stories, would not be eye witnesses, so it was important to have their accounts.

 

[98cwitr]

MOD HAT ON

The Staff at Christian Forums would like to encourage and remind you that our site rules call you to address one another with respect. I am posting the rule for everyone's review

Flaming and Harassment
Please treat all members with respect and courtesy through civil dialogue. Refrain from insulting, inflammatory, or goading remarks. When you disagree, remember to address the content of the post and not the poster personally.
If you are flamed, do not respond in-kind. Alert staff to the situation by utilizing the report button.
Stating or implying that another member or group of members who have identified themselves as Christian are not Christian is not allowed.
Be considerate and do not make another member's experience on this site miserable. This includes making false accusations or persistently attacking them in the open forums.
Respect another member's request to cease personal contact.


Statement of Purpose and Off-Topic
Read and abide by each forum's Statement of Purpose; Statement of Purpose threads are sticky threads located at the top of the forum's page. Not all forums have a Statement of Purpose thread. Start threads that are relevant to that forum's stated purpose. Submit replies that are relevant to the topic of discussion.

Again, please be kind to one another, as Christ has called us to do. Please help us keep this thread open by showing one another respect.

MOD HAT OFF​

 

[Strong in Him]

I'm really sorry if I've got carried with my arguments and been less than respectful to anyone.

 

[Extraneous]

Well commentators and others who have studied these things, say that Mark's Gospel was the earliest to be written - between 60-70 AD. They doubtless have evidence for such things; I can't tell you what it is because I haven't studied these things.
Paul died around 64 AD during persecution. Again, I am pretty sure there must be evidence for that somewhere.



No, because the Jews had a great oral tradition, going right back to the time of Moses - "teach these commandments to your children." So they would have repeated Jesus' stories and teachings over and over again - to each other, as they talked and discussed them, and to others.
Apart from this, the apostles expected Jesus to return within their life times. They began to write things down when it seemed likely that they might die before the Lord's return. The next generation, while hearing all the stories, would not be eye witnesses, so it was important to have their accounts.

That's true, but Jerusalem sure wasn't short of scribes either. Look also at all the fake letters that paul refers to, as well. I just cant believe that they didnt wright down the Lords words till 60 years later. I think commentaries are wrong about that.

 

[Strong in Him]

That's true, but Jerusalem sure wasn't short of scribes either. Look also at all the fake letters that paul refers to, as well. I just cant believe that they didnt wright down the Lords words till 60 years later. I think commentaries are wrong about that.

If Mark's Gospel was written in 60 A.D., that's roughly 30 years afterwards, not 60.

I don't know enough to say that all commentaries are wrong. Like I said, a) they thought that Jesus would be returning and b) there was a long established oral tradition. Had Jesus walked this earth in recent times, we'd all be rushing to share it on social media, in our blogs, or whatever. It wasn't like that then.