Is Calvinism mainly dependent on the writings of Paul?

[ananda]

[cut & paste] ... Yeshua prophesied that Peter would be led away by another to doctrines which Yeshua did not preach, and in this direction he (Peter) was warned that should not go (John 21:18); this appears to be the reason why Yeshua, in the same chapter, repeatedly warned Peter that he should 1) pay attention to feeding his lambs & sheep (with true doctrine), repeated three times, and 2) follow Yeshua (not anyone else), repeated twice. It appears Peter was led away by Paul to the latter's foreign doctrine ("grace only" vs. Yeshua's doctrine of "faith & faithfulness") in his possible endorsement of Paul's writings and elsewhere. In essence, Peter would fail to be a faithful witness for Messiah, whereas Messiah seems to hint that John's testimony would remain true to Him to the end (John 21:21).

I believe James may have written his epistle as a refutation of Galatians (and all of Paul's writings in general); compare Gal 2:16 vs James 2:24, and the perspectives on Abraham in both epistles. James may have written it to oppose the double-minded man (James 1:8) - sounds like Paul to me, who preached pro-Torah & anti-Torah in different places!

 

[heymikey80]

As this is not the proper forum for debate, I will only comment that Yeshua prophesied that Peter would be led away by another to doctrines which Yeshua did not preach, and in this direction he (Peter) was warned that should not go (John 21:18); this appears to be the reason why Yeshua, in the same chapter, repeatedly warned Peter that he should 1) pay attention to feeding his lambs & sheep (with true doctrine), repeated three times, and 2) follow Yeshua (not anyone else), repeated twice. It appears Peter was led away by Paul to the latter's foreign doctrine ("grace only" vs. Yeshua's doctrine of "faith & faithfulness") in his possible endorsement of Paul's writings and elsewhere. In essence, Peter would fail to be a faithful witness for Messiah, whereas Messiah seems to hint that John's testimony would remain true to Him to the end (John 21:21).

I believe James may have written his epistle as a refutation of Galatians (and all of Paul's writings in general); compare Gal 2:16 & Jas 2:24, and the perspectives on Abraham in both epistles. James may have written it to oppose the double-minded man (James 1:8) - sounds like Paul to me, who preached pro-Torah & anti-Torah in different places!

We can continue in a more appropriate forum if you (or anyone else) wishes to continue

No, Jesus said Peter would be imprisoned for his leadership, taken places he wouldn't want to go.

James' letter isn't opposed to Paul. In fact as Paul said,

1Then after fourteen years I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, taking Titus along with me. 2I went up because of a revelation and set before them (though privately before those who seemed influential) the gospel that I proclaim among the Gentiles, in order to make sure I was not running or had not run in vain. 3But even Titus, who was with me, was not forced to be circumcised, though he was a Greek. 4 Yet because of false brothers secretly brought in—who slipped in to spy out our freedom that we have in Christ Jesus, so that they might bring us into slavery— 5to them we did not yield in submission even for a moment, so that the truth of the gospel might be preserved for you.Gal 2​

James was in charge at the time.

James also wrote the letter from the Jerusalem Council.

So ... knock out Paul, and ain't nobody left in the Apostolic ministry.

For that matter, Paul and James were fine with one another in Acts 21, too. It was the crowd that had a problem with Paul.

Recommended: "Peter, Stephen, James & John" -- F. F. Bruce

 

[ananda]

No, Jesus said Peter would be imprisoned for his leadership, taken places he wouldn't want to go.

This interpretation does not fit with what Messiah repeatedly said to Peter. If Messiah was just warning Peter that he would be imprisoned, why did He repeatedly warn/remind Peter to "feed my lambs/sheep" and "follow me"? How does this interpretation fit with Messiah's comment that John would remain until His second coming? Besides, all of Messiah's admonitions towards Peter in that chapter, and comment toward John, was spiritual in nature - why wouldn't Jn 21:18 also speak of Peter's spiritual condition as well?

James' letter isn't opposed to Paul. In fact as Paul said, ... James was in charge at the time.

Paul is his own witness. Yeshua says that if He bore witness on His own, His witness is not true (Jn 5:31, Mt 18:16). Is Paul greater than Messiah?

On another note, the verses you quoted showed Paul to be a liar. Gal 2:1,2 says he went to Jerusalem in obedience to a revelation, whereas Acts 21:4 shows the Spirit forbidding Paul to go to Jerusalem.

 

[heymikey80]

This interpretation does not fit with what Messiah repeatedly said to Peter. If Messiah was just warning Peter that he would be imprisoned, why did He repeatedly warn/remind Peter to "feed my lambs/sheep" and "follow me"?

Jesus is responding to an answer to a very different question, asked three times of Peter until he "got it" -- that Jesus knows Peter loves Him. It does fit. Jesus asks the question, gets the answer, and issues a commission. But the answer isn't right 'til the last.

There's no indication that Peter would not follow the commission.

How does this interpretation fit with Messiah's comment that John would remain until His second coming?

Peter asks -- "Well what about him?" The implication being, you just commissioned me -- what are you going to commission John to do?

Besides, all of Messiah's admonitions towards Peter in that chapter, and comment toward John, was spiritual in nature - why wouldn't Jn 21:18 also speak of Peter's spiritual condition as well?

Is Jesus' return only spiritual? No, there's no dualistic "spiritual/physical" demarcation here. Jesus expects Peter to travel, physically, to feed His lambs. Jesus expects Peter to teach, in person, to feed His lambs. And Jesus is telling Peter that now, this is how his life is going to go. It's not divorced from feeding Jesus' lambs, even. Peter will be teaching and feeding Christ's lambs even under Roman guard.

Paul is his own witness. Yeshua says that if He bore witness on His own, His witness is not true (Jn 5:31, Mt 18:16). Is Paul greater than Messiah?

11I have become foolish; you yourselves compelled me Actually I should have been commended by you, for in no respect was I inferior to the most eminent apostles, even though I am a nobody. 12The signs of a true apostle were performed among you with all perseverance, by signs and wonders and miracles. 13For in what respect were you treated as inferior to the rest of the churches, except that I myself did not become a burden to you? Forgive me this wrong! 2 Cor 12:11-13

That's not Paul. That's the Spirit of God.

If you look, there are far more witnesses. The Apostolic group in Jerusalem also confirmed Paul's Apostleship: 9and recognizing the grace that had been given to me, James and Cephas and John, who were reputed to be pillars, gave to me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, so that we might go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised. Gal 2:9

Oh, and btw, these verses don't demand that Jesus never witness to His own status -- because Jesus did witness to His own status. The difference in both cases is that, for Jesus and for Paul, this wasn't the only witness to their position. They didn't bear witness "on their own".

On another note, the verses you quoted showed Paul to be a liar. Gal 2:1,2 says he went to Jerusalem in obedience to a revelation, whereas Acts 21:4 shows the Spirit forbidding Paul to go to Jerusalem.

Two different events, as Acts 15 shows Paul goes to Jerusalem at other times as well.

The reason why people were warning Paul not to go to Jerusalem was because the Spirit was showing them what would happen. This does not conclude that they were responding spiritually to this information. They cared for Paul; but Paul cared for Christ's mission more than his life. Acts 21:13-14.

 

[ananda]

Jesus is responding to an answer to a very different question, asked three times of Peter until he "got it" -- that Jesus knows Peter loves Him. It does fit. Jesus asks the question, gets the answer, and issues a commission. But the answer isn't right 'til the last ... There's no indication that Peter would not follow the commission ... Peter asks -- "Well what about him?" The implication being, you just commissioned me -- what are you going to commission John to do?

I see what you are saying, but I disagree. I contend that Messiah is focused on one subject in the whole narrative of John 21:15-25 as He speaks to and about Peter and John - that is, faithfulness to Him and His message. How does your interpretation explain what Yeshua said about John in v22? I see Messiah telling Peter in effect, "It is not your concern if I desire that John remains until my second coming. All you need to concern yourself with is that you are following me."

The whole narrative begins with Messiah speaking about His disciple's (Peter) testimony, and also ends with Messiah speaking about His disciple's (John) testimony. Wouldn't it make sense that v18 is also a prophecy about Peter's testimony?

Just as when Messiah speaks about John not passing away, He also speaks about His generation not passing away (Mt 24:34) - how does Messiah interpret it? In the next verse, v35: His words (His testimony) will not pass away, even if the physical (heaven and earth) passes away. In the same way, He is prophesising that John's testimony would not pass away (Jn 22:22).

Is Jesus' return only spiritual? No, there's no dualistic "spiritual/physical" demarcation here. Jesus expects Peter to travel, physically, to feed His lambs. Jesus expects Peter to teach, in person, to feed His lambs. And Jesus is telling Peter that now, this is how his life is going to go. It's not divorced from feeding Jesus' lambs, even. Peter will be teaching and feeding Christ's lambs even under Roman guard.

Of course, Messiah's return is not only spiritual. However, this narrative is not focused on the physical. Yeshua does not say anything about *going* anywhere to feed His lambs. If He did, then I can see how the focus may also be on the physical act of travelling. All Messiah talks about is *feeding* His lambs. Is He expecting Peter to go bring physical food to the lambs? Of course not, that is not the main issue. The issue is focused on Peter feeding the lambs spiritually - with spiritual food, with his testimony and message about Yeshua. Messiah is saying, in effect, "If you love me, you will seriously pay attention, pay attention, pay attention! to your job of feeding My sheep with your testimony."

2 Cor 12:11-13 ... That's not Paul. That's the Spirit of God. If you look, there are far more witnesses. The Apostolic group in Jerusalem also confirmed Paul's Apostleship: 9and recognizing the grace that had been given to me, James and Cephas and John, who were reputed to be pillars, gave to me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, so that we might go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised. Gal 2:9 Oh, and btw, these verses don't demand that Jesus never witness to His own status -- because Jesus did witness to His own status. The difference in both cases is that, for Jesus and for Paul, this wasn't the only witness to their position. They didn't bear witness "on their own".

The verses you quoted are all written by Paul. It is only Paul who claims that the other apostles confirmed his apostleship. Paul is functioning as his own witness. Certainly he can be his own witness, but that only adds up to one witness. Where are the other witnesses outside of Paul's writings?

I concede that Gal 2 & Acts 21 may have referred to two different events. However, it does not hide the fact that Paul did disobey the Spirit. The Spirit says that Paul is not to go to Jerusalem - no ifs ands or buts about it. No explanation either - just a straightforward commandment from the Holy Spirit.

 

[heymikey80]

I see what you are saying, but I disagree. I contend that Messiah is focused on one subject in the whole narrative of John 21:15-25 as He speaks to and about Peter and John - that is, faithfulness to Him and His message. How does your interpretation explain what Yeshua said about John in v22? I see Messiah telling Peter in effect, "It is not your concern if I desire that John remains until my second coming. All you need to concern yourself with is that you are following me."

The whole narrative begins with Messiah speaking about His disciple's (Peter) testimony, and also ends with Messiah speaking about His disciple's (John) testimony. Wouldn't it make sense that v18 is also a prophecy about Peter's testimony?

It's a prediction about where his life will take him. There is no need for Jesus to dictate the subject so tightly as to require Peter understand His meaning as "spiritually hand-tied". Jesus says something that occurs in history. Jesus is saying it in the context of events in history. History does not require Jesus be understood within some theme. In fact, Jesus should be understood to be speaking plainly when there's nothing there except Jesus speaking plainly.

Just as when Messiah speaks about John not passing away, He also speaks about His generation not passing away (Mt 24:34) - how does Messiah interpret it? In the next verse, v35: His words (His testimony) will not pass away, even if the physical (heaven and earth) passes away. In the same way, He is prophesising that John's testimony would not pass away (Jn 22:22).

This strays so far from the meaning Jesus gave. It's nice to be devotional and allegorical. It's just not realistic.

Of course, Messiah's return is not only spiritual. However, this narrative is not focused on the physical.

"Any luck fishing, guys?" No, it's physical. It's plainly understood as physical, so it's physical. There's no reason to allegorize it. Allegorization is not spiritualization, either.

Yeshua does not say anything about *going* anywhere to feed His lambs.

If you're so focused on the allegory, recognize that sheep don't get fed by keeping them in pens.

The verses you quoted are all written by Paul. It is only Paul who claims that the other apostles confirmed his apostleship. Paul is functioning as his own witness. Certainly he can be his own witness, but that only adds up to one witness. Where are the other witnesses outside of Paul's writings?

24"Since we have heard that some of our number to whom we gave no instruction have disturbed you with their words, unsettling your souls, 25it seemed good to us, having become of one mind, to select men to send to you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul Acts 15:24-25

regard the patience of our Lord as salvation; just as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, wrote to you, 16as also in all his letters, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction. 2 Peter 3:15-16

It's rather odd that you would reject Paul's claim to perform the signs of Apostles, because if that claim had been rejected by the church he was writing to, we wouldn't have the letter.

Finally -- you've only got "no-names" even alluding to Peter as head of the Apostles -- Matthew, Mark, Luke. Using this evaluative method, you'd be limited to the writings of John as reasonable to accept as Scripture.

Why would anyone pick James the Less to trust above an Apostle Jesus commissioned?

3As he was traveling, it happened that he was approaching Damascus, and suddenly a light from heaven flashed around him; 4and he fell to the ground and heard a voice saying to him, "Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting Me?" 5And he said, "Who are You, Lord?" And He said, "I am Jesus whom you are persecuting, 6but get up and enter the city, and it will be told you what you must do." Acts 9:3-6

I concede that Gal 2 & Acts 21 may have referred to two different events. However, it does not hide the fact that Paul did disobey the Spirit. The Spirit says that Paul is not to go to Jerusalem - no ifs ands or buts about it. No explanation either - just a straightforward commandment from the Holy Spirit.

No, it says people with the Spirit advised Paul not to go to Jerusalem. There are clearly "buts" about it. "And now, behold, bound by the Spirit, I am on my way to Jerusalem, not knowing what will happen to me there, 23except that the Holy Spirit solemnly testifies to me in every city, saying that bonds and afflictions await me." Acts 20:22-23

Is persecution an excuse to defy the binding of the Spirit of God?

 

[ananda]

24"Since we have heard that some of our number to whom we gave no instruction have disturbed you with their words, unsettling your souls, 25it seemed good to us, having become of one mind, to select men to send to you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul Acts 15:24-25 ... regard the patience of our Lord as salvation; just as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, wrote to you, 16as also in all his letters, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction. 2 Peter 3:15-16

Neither James nor Peter claim Paul as a fellow apostle in the verses you quoted.

It's rather odd that you would reject Paul's claim to perform the signs of Apostles, because if that claim had been rejected by the church he was writing to, we wouldn't have the letter.

Contrary to Paul's claim that signs and wonders performed at his hand authenticates his apostleship, Yeshua explicitly claims the opposite. Messiah says that false Christs and false prophets will also show signs and wonders to deceive the elect (Mt 24:24, Mk 13:22).

Messiah says His apostles will bear witness to Him, because they have been with Him from the beginning (John 15:27). Peter also recounts the same requirements for an apostle when Matthias was chosen (Acts 1:21). Paul was not with Messiah from the beginning of His earthly ministry.

Yeshua says the foundations of the heavenly Jerusalem number twelve, for the twelve apostles (Rev 21:14). How can Paul be #13?

It is also interesting to note that, in Revelation 2-3, Yeshua spoke to His 7 churches in the Roman province of Asia (current day Turkey), and commended the Asian church of Ephesus for testing those who claim that they are apostles, but were really false apostles (Rev 2:2). Compare to what Paul wrote in 2Tim 1:15, where he says all those in Asia abandoned him. Yeshua scolds the church of Pergamos for holding on to the doctrine of a type of Balaam who taught them it was ok eat foods sacrificed to idols (Rev 2:14,20). Paul taught that it was ok to eat food sacrificed to idols (Ro 14:14, 2:20, 1Cor 8:8, 10:25-27). Balaam was the wicked prophet who went through the desert with his companions to curse the Jews, and saw a heavenly vision along the way; Paul went through the desert with his companions to curse the Jewish believers, and saw a heavenly vision along the way. Balaam was from Pethor, in the area of modern-day southwestern Turkey. Paul was born in the Roman province of Cilicia: modern-day southwestern Turkey!

Finally -- you've only got "no-names" even alluding to Peter as head of the Apostles -- Matthew, Mark, Luke. Using this evaluative method, you'd be limited to the writings of John as reasonable to accept as Scripture. Why would anyone pick James the Less to trust above an Apostle Jesus commissioned?

No-names? Matthew was an apostle, as was James "the Less".

3As he was traveling, it happened that he was approaching Damascus, and suddenly a light from heaven flashed around him; 4and he fell to the ground and heard a voice saying to him, "Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting Me?" 5And he said, "Who are You, Lord?" And He said, "I am Jesus whom you are persecuting, 6but get up and enter the city, and it will be told you what you must do." Acts 9:3-6

#1 There are three different accounts of Paul's claimed encounter with Messiah (Acts 9:1-19; 22:6-16; 26:12-18). Did the men with Paul see something or saw nothing? Did they hear something or heard nothing? Was Paul sent to Ananias for his mission details, or was He given his mission by Messiah directly during the vision?

#2 Compare Mt 24:23-27. Messiah warns us that if anyone says that he has appeared here or there, do not believe! Did Messiah actually return to give Paul his mission, in contradiction to what He says that His return will be seen by all (Mt 24:27), and not secretly?

No, it says people with the Spirit advised Paul not to go to Jerusalem. There are clearly "buts" about it. "And now, behold, bound by the Spirit, I am on my way to Jerusalem, not knowing what will happen to me there, 23except that the Holy Spirit solemnly testifies to me in every city, saying that bonds and afflictions await me." Acts 20:22-23

Is persecution an excuse to defy the binding of the Spirit of God?

The "believers prophesied [not just "advised"] through the Holy Spirit that Paul should not go on to Jerusalem" (Act 21:4 NLT). The only "buts" are the ones claimed by Paul.

 

[heymikey80]

Neither James nor Peter claim Paul as a fellow apostle in the verses you quoted.

Acts 15. Know what "apostolos" really means? "sent". In addition, Jesus sent Paul.

2 Peter calls Paul's letters "Scriptures", they being along with "the rest of the Scriptures".

Contrary to Paul's claim that signs and wonders performed at his hand authenticates his apostleship, Yeshua explicitly claims the opposite. Messiah says that false Christs and false prophets will also show signs and wonders to deceive the elect (Mt 24:24, Mk 13:22).

Let's make that claim for James, then. OK, James is out. Nothing says James is an Apostle. Anywhere.

In fact, let's do that to Jude as well. There's even less information there.

Messiah says His apostles will bear witness to Him, because they have been with Him from the beginning (John 15:27). Peter also recounts the same requirements for an apostle when Matthias was chosen (Acts 1:21). Paul was not with Messiah from the beginning of His earthly ministry.

So you'll exclude someone Yeshua appears to, resurrected, and appoints to ministry, while including people who have no such claim.

Yeshua says the foundations of the heavenly Jerusalem number twelve, for the twelve apostles (Rev 21:14). How can Paul be #13?

Poor James. Less and less credibility.

It is also interesting to note that, in Revelation 2-3, Yeshua spoke to His 7 churches in the Roman province of Asia (current day Turkey), and commended the Asian church of Ephesus for testing those who claim that they are apostles, but were really false apostles (Rev 2:2). Compare to what Paul wrote in 2Tim 1:15, where he says all those in Asia abandoned him. Yeshua scolds the church of Pergamos for holding on to the doctrine of a type of Balaam who taught them it was ok eat foods sacrificed to idols (Rev 2:14,20). Paul taught that it was ok to eat food sacrificed to idols (Ro 14:14, 2:20, 1Cor 8:8, 10:25-27). Balaam was the wicked prophet who went through the desert with his companions to curse the Jews, and saw a heavenly vision along the way; Paul went through the desert with his companions to curse the Jewish believers, and saw a heavenly vision along the way. Balaam was from Pethor, in the area of modern-day southwestern Turkey. Paul was born in the Roman province of Cilicia: modern-day southwestern Turkey!

Paul also wrote to Asia Minor churches not to listen to "super-apostles" (check out 1 & 2 Corinthians)

No-names? Matthew was an apostle, as was James "the Less".

... waiting for you to prove Matthew wrote it.

James the Less was never said to be appointed an Apostle. Look it up. He's not one of the Twelve.

#1 There are three different accounts of Paul's claimed encounter with Messiah (Acts 9:1-19; 22:6-16; 26:12-18). Did the men with Paul see something or saw nothing? Did they hear something or heard nothing? Was Paul sent to Ananias for his mission details, or was He given his mission by Messiah directly during the vision?

Those are nitpicking issues with the words, you could just as readily deny the Resurrection on the same basis. No, they're actually more consistent than the Resurrection accounts. Look up the harmonization of these accounts. People saw no thing; they heard no words. Annanias was sent to Paul for training, and Paul was told what that'd be.

#2 Compare Mt 24:23-27. Messiah warns us that if anyone says that he has appeared here or there, do not believe! Did Messiah actually return to give Paul his mission, in contradiction to what He says that His return will be seen by all (Mt 24:27), and not secretly?

No, Jesus warned us that we're not to believe He has returned again to judge the world: that we'll know.

The "believers prophesied [not just "advised"] through the Holy Spirit that Paul should not go on to Jerusalem" (Act 21:4 NLT). The only "buts" are the ones claimed by Paul.

Pull another translation. That's not what the verse says.

 

[ananda]

Acts 15. Know what "apostolos" really means? "sent". In addition, Jesus sent Paul.

I beg to differ. "Apostolos" does mean "sent," but Messiah specifically chose twelve whom He named apostles (Lk 6:13) - not 13 (Rev 21:14).

2 Peter calls Paul's letters "Scriptures", they being along with "the rest of the Scriptures".

It appears you need to study why the Tanach is divided into the Law, Prophets, and Writings, and why the Writings are considered edifying in general, but unproven. If the Apostle Peter wrote 2 Peter, he may have considered Paul's writings to be in the category of the "Writings", as "graphe" in 2Pet 3:16 can be translated merely as "writings".

OK, James is out. Nothing says James is an Apostle. Anywhere. In fact, let's do that to Jude as well. There's even less information there ... So you'll exclude someone Yeshua appears to, resurrected, and appoints to ministry, while including people who have no such claim. ... Poor James. Less and less credibility. James the Less was never said to be appointed an Apostle. Look it up. He's not one of the Twelve.

Messiah appointed both James the Less and Jude to the office of apostle. "Saint James, son of Alphaeus was one of the Twelve Apostles of Jesus Christ. He is often identified with James the Less and commonly known by that name in church tradition" Also, "Jude was one of the Twelve Apostles of Jesus. He is generally identified with Thaddeus" (Wikipedia) ... "Now the names of the twelve apostles are these ... James the son of Alphaeus, and Lebbaeus, whose surname was Thaddaeus" (Mt 10:2-3), and "of them He chose twelve, whom also He named apostles ... Judas [the brother] of James" (Lk 6:13,16; also Acts 1:13).

... waiting for you to prove Matthew wrote [his gospel]

The test of an authentic message from Elohim is not mainly the authority of or the identity of the person who communicated it, but the message itself (Deu 13, Deu 17:6, 19:15, Mt 18:16). The message must be consistent with prior revelation (Isa 8:20), they must point people to YHVH Elohim's Torah and Testimony (Isa 8:19,20), and all prophecies must come to pass (Deu 18:22, Jer 28:9), among other tests. Paul fails all three tests listed. The gospels, including Matthew, and the epistles of James and Jude passes those tests, to my knowledge.

Paul also wrote to Asia Minor churches not to listen to "super-apostles" (check out 1 & 2 Corinthians)

I believe Paul was attempting to lead the congregation away from the true apostles, or what you call the "super apostles" (2Cor 11:5):

1. First, it is Father YHVH's job to give the church-bride to Messiah, not Paul (2Cor 11:2).
2. Second, Paul falsely associates these apostles with the trickery/panourgia of Satan (2Cor 11:3), when he himself states that he used trickery/panourgos to "catch" people with guile/dolos (2Cor 12:16), even as he shows his doublemindedness (cf James 1:8) when he says he never used guile/dolos (1Thes 2:3), cf Eph 4:14, 2Cor 4:2, 1 Pet 2:22.
3. Next, Paul associates these "super apostles" with preaching another gospel and Messiah (2Cor 11:4), yet at the same time he considers himself a part of their group (2Cor 11:5)?!
4. Paul robbed other congregations and took wages from them (2Cor 11:6), Messiah taught that His apostles should not do so (Mt 10:8,9).
5. Paul takes pleasure in his boasting (2Cor 11:10, cf 2Cor 11:17, Rom 5:17, 2Cor 1:12, 7:14, 8:24, 9:4, 1Thes 2:19, etc.) - is this a characteristic of a true apostle? James says such boasting is wicked (Jas 4:16).
6. Paul writes that he is in disagreement with the "super apostles" (2Cor 11:12), but then he calls them false apostles (11:13), and goes on to call them the servants of Satan (11:14-15)! Will you hinge your eternal destiny on the word of one man - Paul - who may have called the true apostles of Messiah the servants of Satan?
7. Paul gives a glimpse at a characteristic of these "super apostles" - they were apparently preaching works of some sort, which Paul rebukes them for (2 Cor 11:15). Perhaps he had in mind the "super apostles" as they were preaching faith & faithfulness (works of Elohim), just as Messiah, James, Peter, and John taught (Mt 5:16, Mk 13:34, Jn 3:21, 6:28,29, 10:37,38, 14:10-12, Jam 1:25, 2:14,17,18,20, 2:21,22,24,25,26, 3:13, 1Pet 1:17,2:12, 1Jo 3:18, Rev 2:2,5, 2:9,19,23,26, 12:17, 20:13, 22:12) - in opposition to Paul's "faith & grace only" message.
8. Finally, why should we listen to a so-called apostle who admittedly says he is not speaking for Messiah (2Cor 11:17), but takes confidence in his foolish boasting yet again (2Cor 11:17), and asks us to tolerate his folly/foolishness (2Cor 11:1), when Messiah says that foolishness is an evil thing from the heart of man (Mk 7:21-23)?

 

[heymikey80]

I beg to differ. "Apostolos" does mean "sent," but Messiah specifically chose twelve whom He named apostles (Lk 6:13) - not 13 (Rev 21:14).

Slamming James, Jude, Apollos .... No, this really doesn't wash. It's a commemorative thing in Revelation. There were other Apostles.

It appears you need to study why the Tanach is divided into the Law, Prophets, and Writings, and why the Writings are considered edifying in general, but unproven.

It appears you need to study who divided Tanach.

If the Apostle Peter wrote 2 Peter, he may have considered Paul's writings to be in the category of the "Writings", as "graphe" in 2Pet 3:16 can be translated merely as "writings".

Oh, so we can disregard the other Scriptures as being Scriptures, as well?

So now an anti-Christian can write Scripture? No, it doesn't wash another way. 2 Peter identifies Paul as writing Scripture. So Peter does. That means inspired by God, regardless of how you slice up the subjects of revelation.

Messiah appointed both James the Less and Jude to the office of apostle. "Saint James, son of Alphaeus was one of the Twelve Apostles of Jesus Christ. He is often identified with James the Less and commonly known by that name in church tradition"

OH, then my mistake. The author of "James", and the leader of the Church at Jerusalem, was not James the son of Alphaeus. It's James the Just.

Acts 12:2.

Also, "Jude was one of the Twelve Apostles of Jesus. He is generally identified with Thaddeus" (Wikipedia) ... "Now the names of the twelve apostles are these ... James the son of Alphaeus, and Lebbaeus, whose surname was Thaddaeus" (Mt 10:2-3), and "of them He chose twelve, whom also He named apostles ... Judas [the brother] of James" (Lk 6:13,16; also Acts 1:13).

The author of Jude is brother to James the Just. Jude 1. I don't know of anyone in ancient times who attributed this book to the Apostle Judas Thaddeus.

The test of an authentic message from Elohim is not mainly the authority of or the identity of the person who communicated it, but the message itself (Deu 13, Deu 17:6, 19:15, Mt 18:16). The message must be consistent with prior revelation (Isa 8:20), they must point people to YHVH Elohim's Torah and Testimony (Isa 8:19,20), and all prophecies must come to pass (Deu 18:22, Jer 28:9), among other tests. Paul fails all three tests listed. The gospels, including Matthew, and the epistles of James and Jude passes those tests, to my knowledge.

In a word: naaaah.

You demanded there be only 12 Apostles. But others are called Apostles.

This is simply a modern, constructed argument. It doesn't hold force. Paul's prophetic sense was accurate. Paul practiced miraculous gifts associated with the Apostles. Paul's theology, aligned with Christ's established Torah in its proper place. Romans 3:31.

 

[ananda]

Slamming James, Jude, Apollos .... No, this really doesn't wash. It's a commemorative thing in Revelation. There were other Apostles.

What happend to "Jesus should be understood to be speaking plainly when there's nothing there except Jesus speaking plainly"? If Yeshua authorized more than 12 to be named "Apostles," based on your idea that the word merely means "sent," then why didn't He give the title of apostle to *all* of His sent disciples (Lk 6:13, cf Lk 10:1, 22:14)? A sent disciple is not automatically an apostle. Outside of Paul's accounts, it is plainly evident that there are only 12 apostles, and Paul is not one of them.

It appears you need to study who divided Tanach.

It doesn't matter *who* divided the three sections; the fact is, *Messiah Himself recognized the division* (Mt 7:12, 11:13, 22:40, Lk 16:16, 24:44, Jn 1:45), as does Philip (Jn 1:45).

2 Peter identifies Paul as writing Scripture. So Peter does. That means inspired by God, regardless of how you slice up the subjects of revelation.

As I mentioned before, I see Messiah prophesizing in John 21 that Peter would fall away from His teachings to follow and teach the doctrine of another man, a prophecy fulfilled whenever anyone reads 2Pet 3:16. Yeshua chose Judas the traitor as an apostle. Does that automatically make all of Judas' actions inspired by Elohim?

OH, then my mistake. The author of "James", and the leader of the Church at Jerusalem, was not James the son of Alphaeus. It's James the Just. Acts 12:2.

"The Belgian theologian Achille Camerlynck concludes that, based on Hegesippus's account, it is probable that James the Just is also James the Less, and that he is therefore James, son of Alphaeus, as well as James, the son of Mary Cleophas" (Wikipedia).

You wrongly believed Matthew was a "no-name," wrongly believed nothing was written about either Jude or James as apostles, you confuse James the son of Alphaeus and the Just with James the Greater, but yet you believe, and are confident, that Paul is an apostle, and that his epistles are Scripture?

The author of Jude is brother to James the Just. Jude 1. I don't know of anyone in ancient times who attributed this book to the Apostle Judas Thaddeus.

The book of Jude was accepted by Clement of Alexandria and Tertullian, but that is beyond my point. As I said, *who* wrote it doesn't matter as much as Elohim's requirements for an authentic message from Him.

In a word: naaaah. You demanded there be only 12 Apostles. But others are called Apostles. This is simply a modern, constructed argument. It doesn't hold force. Paul's prophetic sense was accurate. Paul practiced miraculous gifts associated with the Apostles. Paul's theology, aligned with Christ's established Torah in its proper place. Romans 3:31.

"Naaaah"? How do you figure it to be a modern argument when I appeal to the *oldest* tradition - Scripture itself? I proved from Scripture the requirements for an authentic message from Elohim. What is your Scriptural basis for rejecting my argument?

Paul's prophecies failed (Rom 10:18, 1Cor 7:29,10:11, 1Thes 4:15-18). Paul admitted he was not speaking for Messiah. Paul foolishly boasted, and asked us to tolerate his foolishness. I see you conveniently ignored those points! The bottom line is this: if Paul is wrong, and I accept him and his writings, then my eternal spirit may be in danger. If Paul is right, and I reject him and his writings (or at least doubtful of both), then I would still be able to obtain the gospel message from The Tanach, from Messiah in the Gospels, and in the remaining Epistles.

 

[heymikey80]

What happend to "Jesus should be understood to be speaking plainly when there's nothing there except Jesus speaking plainly"? If Yeshua authorized more than 12 to be named "Apostles," based on your idea that the word merely means "sent," then why didn't He give the title of apostle to *all* of His sent disciples (Lk 6:13, cf Lk 10:1, 22:14)? A sent disciple is not automatically an apostle. Outside of Paul's accounts, it is plainly evident that there are only 12 apostles, and Paul is not one of them.

But when the apostles Barnabas and Paul heard of it, they tore their garments and rushed out into the crowd, crying out, Acts 14:4

It doesn't matter *who* divided the three sections; the fact is, *Messiah Himself recognized the division* (Mt 7:12, 11:13, 22:40, Lk 16:16, 24:44, Jn 1:45), as does Philip (Jn 1:45).

Ah. Then your argument from Tanach isn't really intended to provide an answer.

As I mentioned before, I see Messiah prophesizing in John 21 that Peter would fall away from His teachings to follow and teach the doctrine of another man, a prophecy fulfilled whenever anyone reads 2Pet 3:16. Yeshua chose Judas the traitor as an apostle. Does that automatically make all of Judas' actions inspired by Elohim?

I don't, and I don't think we should understand Jesus allegorically when His speaking plainly is fine.

"The Belgian theologian Achille Camerlynck concludes that, based on Hegesippus's account, it is probable that James the Just is also James the Less, and that he is therefore James, son of Alphaeus, as well as James, the son of Mary Cleophas" (Wikipedia).

Dying before he wrote. Hm. Dying before he spoke at council. Um. Yeah.

You wrongly believed Matthew was a "no-name," wrongly believed nothing was written about either Jude or James as apostles, you confuse James the son of Alphaeus and the Just with James the Greater, but yet you believe, and are confident, that Paul is an apostle, and that his epistles are Scripture?

Cite one statement in Matthew that he wrote it.

The book of Jude was accepted by Clement of Alexandria and Tertullian, but that is beyond my point. As I said, *who* wrote it doesn't matter as much as Elohim's requirements for an authentic message from Him.

Paul more satisfies that requirement.

"Naaaah"? How do you figure it to be a modern argument when I appeal to the *oldest* tradition - Scripture itself? I proved from Scripture the requirements for an authentic message from Elohim. What is your Scriptural basis for rejecting my argument?

I guess y'haven't noticed the absence of any assertion being accepted.

Paul's prophecies failed (Rom 10:18, 1Cor 7:29,10:11, 1Thes 4:15-18). Paul admitted he was not speaking for Messiah. Paul foolishly boasted, and asked us to tolerate his foolishness. I see you conveniently ignored those points! The bottom line is this: if Paul is wrong, and I accept him and his writings, then my eternal spirit may be in danger. If Paul is right, and I reject him and his writings (or at least doubtful of both), then I would still be able to obtain the gospel message from The Tanach, from Messiah in the Gospels, and in the remaining Epistles.

Oh, you want me to respond to these points.

Every prophecy looks unfulfilled until it's fulfilled. Rom 10:18 is an Old Testament prophecy that Paul quotes. 1 Cor 7:29 points to how short a time Christians lived on earth under oppression -- an aside, why didn't "Behold, I am coming soon!" invalidate Revelation and thus, John? 1 Cor 10:11 is true. Jesus was resurrected in the time of Paul's church. Who is The Beginning and The End?

As for 1 Th 4:17, I assume you mean the "we" statement. Well, at the time of writing, Paul is alive and dwelling on earth. Paul is simply pointing out, the group that's still living will be caught up with the dead. Instruction simply works this way.

 

[ananda]

Ah. Then your argument from Tanach isn't really intended to provide an answer.

I'm not sure what you meant. What I'm saying is the Tanach is divided into the Law/Torah, the Prophets, and the Writings. The Law was held in highest esteem, as it was considered to be the direct words of Elohim. The Prophets were held in the next highest esteem, as they were considered to be the words of Elohim spoken through the Prophets. The Writings were held to be edifying but unproven prophetically, and not on the level of the Law or the Prophets. As I mentioned, Messiah recognized the divisions. Now, if and when prophetic utterances in a Writing-section book was fulfilled, then that book could be elevated to the Prophets section. For example, many Messianics have elevated the book of Daniel from the Writings section to the Prophets section ("The Scriptures" translation from ISR is an example). Peter could have just considered Paul's writings to be in the Writings category.

Dying before [James] wrote. Hm. Dying before he spoke at council. Um. Yeah.

You appear to be confused between the apostle James the Greater with James the Just. The apostle James the Less = James the Just = James son of Alphaeus = James son of Mary Cleophas. The apostle James the Less/Just is the brother of the apostle Jude/Judas/Thaddaeus. They wrote James and Jude.

Cite one statement in Matthew that he wrote it.

Tradition from as early as Papias and Clement from the first century believed the Apostle Matthew wrote the gospel, and was considered Scripture. "The early church fathers were unanimous in crediting the gospel to Matthew" (source). However, it does not matter if the Apostle Matthew wrote the Gospel of Matthew or not. The internal evidence of the book is consistent with Elohim's authenticity requirements. The message is more important than the messenger.

Oh, you want me to respond to these points.

No, I was referring to the fact that you did not respond to the last 8 points I made in post #9 http://www.christianforums.com/t7559424/#post57608810

Every prophecy looks unfulfilled until it's fulfilled. Rom 10:18 is an Old Testament prophecy that Paul quotes. 1 Cor 7:29 points to how short a time Christians lived on earth under oppression -- an aside, why didn't "Behold, I am coming soon!" invalidate Revelation and thus, John? 1 Cor 10:11 is true. Jesus was resurrected in the time of Paul's church. Who is The Beginning and The End? As for 1 Th 4:17, I assume you mean the "we" statement. Well, at the time of writing, Paul is alive and dwelling on earth. Paul is simply pointing out, the group that's still living will be caught up with the dead. Instruction simply works this way.

In regards to Rom 10:18; Psalm 19:4, the original verse, says that the *glory of Elohim in the heavens*, the heavenly lights, are gone out as a measuring line through all the earth. Paul changes that, in violation to Prov 30:6 (cf Deu 4:2,12:32,Jos 1:7,Rev22:18,19), to say that the *gospel* has spread through all the earth.

Paul says the arrival of the Lord is just around the corner in 1Cr 7:29, so that the married men of his time should live like they had no wife (cf Prov 18:22,Ecc 9:9, Mal 2:14,15)? This is coming from someone who admits that he does not speak for Messiah and *supposes* that he has the Spirit of Elohim (1Cr 7:40)?

"Behold, I come quickly" does not invalidate Revelation. Yeshua does not say that He is coming in any specific generation; the emphasis is that He is coming quickly.

1Cor 10:11 is plainly speaking of the end of the world and age happening in Paul's generation. "It's nice to be devotional and allegorical. It's just not realistic."

1Th 4:17 does say "we", which would include Paul. Paul also says "which are alive" ("zao"/present tense) "and remain" ("perileipomai"/present tense) - both refers to his own generation. Paul could have easily used the future tense and say "shall be alive and shall remain," which would indicate a future generation, but he didn't.

 

[heymikey80]

I'm not sure what you meant. What I'm saying is the Tanach is divided into the Law/Torah, the Prophets, and the Writings. The Law was held in highest esteem, as it was considered to be the direct words of Elohim. The Prophets were held in the next highest esteem, as they were considered to be the words of Elohim spoken through the Prophets. The Writings were held to be edifying but unproven prophetically, and not on the level of the Law or the Prophets. As I mentioned, Messiah recognized the divisions. Now, if and when prophetic utterances in a Writing-section book was fulfilled, then that book could be elevated to the Prophets section. For example, many Messianics have elevated the book of Daniel from the Writings section to the Prophets section ("The Scriptures" translation from ISR is an example). Peter could have just considered Paul's writings to be in the Writings category.

You appear to be confused between the apostle James the Greater with James the Just. The apostle James the Less = James the Just = James son of Alphaeus = James son of Mary Cleophas. The apostle James the Less/Just is the brother of the apostle Jude/Judas/Thaddaeus. They wrote James and Jude.

Actually, you appear to be the one now confused. James the Just is not the son of Alphaeus.

Look it up.

"James (Hebrew: יעקב Yaakov; Greek Iάκωβος Iakobos) bishop of Jerusalem (died 62) was an important figure in early Christianity. He is distinguished from the apostle James by various epithets; he is called James the brother of the Lord by Paul (Galatians 1:19), James the Just by Hegesippus and others, James the Righteous, James of Jerusalem, James Adelphotheos, and so on." Wikipedia, "James the Just"

Tradition from as early as Papias and Clement from the first century believed the Apostle Matthew wrote the gospel, and was considered Scripture. "The early church fathers were unanimous in crediting the gospel to Matthew" (source). However, it does not matter if the Apostle Matthew wrote the Gospel of Matthew or not. The internal evidence of the book is consistent with Elohim's authenticity requirements. The message is more important than the messenger.

No, I was referring to the fact that you did not respond to the last 8 points I made in post #9 http://www.christianforums.com/t7559424/#post57608810

Well, I'll take it that now you want even more responses.

1. First, it is Father YHVH's job to give the church-bride to Messiah, not Paul (2Cor 11:2).

Nitpicking on a mistake you inject into the verse. It's Paul's responsibility present the bride properly discipled, note the Great Commission.

2. Second, Paul falsely associates these apostles with the trickery/panourgia of Satan (2Cor 11:3), when he himself states that he used trickery/panourgos to "catch" people with guile/dolos (2Cor 12:16), even as he shows his doublemindedness (cf James 1:8) when he says he never used guile/dolos (1Thes 2:3), cf Eph 4:14, 2Cor 4:2, 1 Pet 2:22.

Oh, this is just a silly statement. The sentence at 2 Cor 12:16 points out that Paul's discreditors were saying this kind of stuff about him.

As are you. Retract.

3. Next, Paul associates these "super apostles" with preaching another gospel and Messiah (2Cor 11:4), yet at the same time he considers himself a part of their group (2Cor 11:5)?!

"I'm not the least inferior to these super-apostles" makes him part of the group? Please. That's like Christ saying "I was before Abraham" means he's of the same nature as Abraham. This isn't even an argument.

4. Paul robbed other congregations and took wages from them (2Cor 11:6), Messiah taught that His apostles should not do so (Mt 10:8,9).

Paul never said the churches didn't know. This isn't robbery in particular. This is robbery in metaphor.

5. Paul takes pleasure in his boasting (2Cor 11:10, cf 2Cor 11:17, Rom 5:17, 2Cor 1:12, 7:14, 8:24, 9:4, 1Thes 2:19, etc.) - is this a characteristic of a true apostle? James says such boasting is wicked (Jas 4:16).

James' statement is about specific people boasting in their own arrogance. That's not Paul's intent.

6. Paul writes that he is in disagreement with the "super apostles" (2Cor 11:12), but then he calls them false apostles (11:13), and goes on to call them the servants of Satan (11:14-15)! Will you hinge your eternal destiny on the word of one man - Paul - who may have called the true apostles of Messiah the servants of Satan?

He didn't. On the other hand, you're trusting yet denying trust in what Peter said, in whom James trusted, to bring the message of Jerusalem Council to the other churches.

7. Paul gives a glimpse at a characteristic of these "super apostles" - they were apparently preaching works of some sort, which Paul rebukes them for (2 Cor 11:15). Perhaps he had in mind the "super apostles" as they were preaching faith & faithfulness (works of Elohim), just as Messiah, James, Peter, and John taught (Mt 5:16, Mk 13:34, Jn 3:21, 6:28,29, 10:37,38, 14:10-12, Jam 1:25, 2:14,17,18,20, 2:21,22,24,25,26, 3:13, 1Pet 1:17,2:12, 1Jo 3:18, Rev 2:2,5, 2:9,19,23,26, 12:17, 20:13, 22:12) - in opposition to Paul's "faith & grace only" message.

"God, who knows the heart, bore witness to them, by giving them the Holy Spirit just as he did to us, 9and he made no distinction between us and them, having cleansed their hearts by faith. 10Now, therefore, why are you putting God to the test by placing a yoke on the neck of the disciples that neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear? 11But we believe that we will be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, just as they will." Acts 15:8-11

No, in reality it's you who are injecting works into this issue. Our works don't save us.

8. Finally, why should we listen to a so-called apostle who admittedly says he is not speaking for Messiah (2Cor 11:17), but takes confidence in his foolish boasting yet again (2Cor 11:17), and asks us to tolerate his folly/foolishness (2Cor 11:1), when Messiah says that foolishness is an evil thing from the heart of man (Mk 7:21-23)?

Paul's reason is to break the Corinthians' foolishness. "you gladly bear with fools, being wise yourselves!" 2 Cor 11:19

Good reason. Foolishness abounds.

In regards to Rom 10:18; Psalm 19:4, the original verse, says that the *glory of Elohim in the heavens*, the heavenly lights, are gone out as a measuring line through all the earth. Paul changes that, in violation to Prov 30:6 (cf Deu 4:2,12:32,Jos 1:7,Rev22:18,19), to say that the *gospel* has spread through all the earth.

You don't think the Gospel is God's glory in the highest. Hm. I'll stick with Paul's thought above yours any day.

Paul says the arrival of the Lord is just around the corner in 1Cr 7:29, so that the married men of his time should live like they had no wife (cf Prov 18:22,Ecc 9:9, Mal 2:14,15)? This is coming from someone who admits that he does not speak for Messiah and *supposes* that he has the Spirit of Elohim (1Cr 7:40)?

Paul says the time is short. He doesn't say the time is short to Christ's return.

"Behold, I come quickly" does not invalidate Revelation. Yeshua does not say that He is coming in any specific generation; the emphasis is that He is coming quickly.

It's the same kind of statement. You've just rationalized one, and nitpicked another. They're the same. John's also out.

So John & Paul are out, Peter's out because he called Paul's writings equal to the other Scriptures and attacked the Law at Jerusalem Council.

That would reduce to Ebionitism.

1Cor 10:11 is plainly speaking of the end of the world and age happening in Paul's generation. "It's nice to be devotional and allegorical. It's just not realistic."

Now these things happened to them as an example, but they were written down for our instruction, on whom the end of the ages has come. The Resurrection of Christ is revealing the end of the ages. It's come to them to see it.

1Th 4:17 does say "we", which would include Paul. Paul also says "which are alive" ("zao"/present tense) "and remain" ("perileipomai"/present tense) - both refers to his own generation. Paul could have easily used the future tense and say "shall be alive and shall remain," which would indicate a future generation, but he didn't.

"We who are alive" is simply in distinction from "others who are dead". Obviously Paul knew that the people who were alive would read his words.

"The end of all things is at hand" said Peter. So he must be excluded, too. It certainly wasn't "at hand" in the plain sense of the word, which you're applying to Paul. Apply it consistently. Peter's out. John's out. James isn't an Apostle, so he shouldn't be trusted.

 

[ananda]

Actually, you appear to be the one now confused. James the Just is not the son of Alphaeus. Look it up.

I sure did! Your source that you quote also says "James the Just is also James the Less" and "he is therefore James, son of Alphaeus".

Nitpicking on a mistake you inject into the verse. It's Paul's responsibility present the bride properly discipled, note the Great Commission.

What mistake did I inject into the verse? Paul claims he betrothed us to one husband. YHVH says "I will betroth thee unto me for ever; yea, I will betroth thee unto me in righteousness, and in judgment, and in lovingkindness, and in mercies. I will even betroth thee unto me in faithfulness: and thou shalt know the LORD." Hsa 2:19-20.

The sentence at 2 Cor 12:16 points out that Paul's discreditors were saying this kind of stuff about him. As are you. Retract.

Where does it say or imply discreditors? I checked the more literal translations, KJV, NKJV, NASB, ASV, YLT, HNV, even the NIV. None of them say anything about discreditors. It you go by the ESV or RSV, they unlawfully add the words "you say" which is not in the underlying Greek, either Textus Receptus or Nestle-Aland.

"I'm not the least inferior to these super-apostles" makes him part of the group? Please. That's like Christ saying "I was before Abraham" means he's of the same nature as Abraham. This isn't even an argument.

If he implies that he is on the same level as the super-apostles, then yes, he is claiming to be part of their group.

4. Paul robbed other congregations and took wages from them (2Cor 11:6), Messiah taught that His apostles should not do so (Mt 10:8,9).

Paul never said the churches didn't know. This isn't robbery in particular. This is robbery in metaphor.

The issue is not about the metaphorical "robbery." The issue I am bringing up is the fact that Paul took wages from them, whereas Messiah says His apostles are not to take wages.

James' statement is about specific people boasting in their own arrogance. That's not Paul's intent.

Boasting in their own arrogance? Paul surely sounds that way to me, and when he claims to be an apostle!

Paul writes that he is in disagreement with the "super apostles" ...

He didn't. On the other hand, you're trusting yet denying trust in what Peter said, in whom James trusted, to bring the message of Jerusalem Council to the other churches.

Paul did not faithfully deliver the message of the Jerusalem Council. James says in Acts 15:29 that the instructions he received from the Holy Ghost was that they "abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication". Paul says otherwise - he contradicts James and the Council, and apparently lied to the Galatians when he said that the the council "only asked us to remember the poor—the very thing I also was eager to do." (Gal 2:10) - a totally different commandment!

No, in reality it's you who are injecting works into this issue. Our works don't save us.

When did I say that our works saves us? I am saying our good works, walking in His commandments, are necessary to sanctify us and to continue in Messiah's salvation. A woman can say with her mouth that she loves her husband, but if she does nothing to show evidence of that love, her husband will say that he never knew her. "And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity [anomia = contempt and violation of law]." (Mt 7:23)

"If ye love me, keep my commandments .. He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him .. If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him ... He that loveth me not keepeth not my sayings: and the word which ye hear is not mine, but the Father's which sent me." (John 14:15,21,23,24). "Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire." (Mt 7:19) "What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him?" (Jas 2:14).

Paul's reason is to break the Corinthians' foolishness. "you gladly bear with fools, being wise yourselves!" 2 Cor 11:19. Good reason. Foolishness abounds.

How does that explains why Paul admits that he is not speaking for Messiah, and admits that he is a foolish boaster himself?

You don't think the Gospel is God's glory in the highest. Hm. I'll stick with Paul's thought above yours any day.

This has nothing to do with what the verses I quoted says.

Paul says the time is short. He doesn't say the time is short to Christ's return.

If he's writing to husbands in his time to live like they have no wife, then he is surely implying that.

"The end of all things is at hand" said Peter. So he must be excluded, too. It certainly wasn't "at hand" in the plain sense of the word, which you're applying to Paul. Apply it consistently. Peter's out. John's out. James isn't an Apostle, so he shouldn't be trusted.

Paul was teaching people of his time to abandon their responsibilities. That tells me that he was expecting the end was immediately near. Neither Peter nor John taught that. And James the Less/Just/Alphaeus is an apostle:

"Saint James, son of Alphaeus was one of the Twelve Apostles of Jesus Christ. He is often identified with James the Less and commonly known by that name in church tradition. James, the son of Alphaeus, is rarely mentioned in the New Testament, but he is sometimes identified with James the Just, an important leader in the New Testament church. He is clearly distinguished from James, son of Zebedee, another one of the Twelve Apostles." (Wikipedia)

 

[heymikey80]

I sure did! Your source that you quote also says "James the Just is also James the Less" and "he is therefore James, son of Alphaeus".

That'd be agreeing with Roman Catholic theologians ... for no other reason than that they fit your view.

The oldest surviving liturgy names James as "the brother of God". Maybe we should trust it above some guy in 1910 trying to conform with the Roman Catholic view of James. Oh, but then that'd be agreeing with the reviled Paul. mmm.

"He is distinguished from the apostle James by various epithets ..."

What mistake did I inject into the verse? Paul claims he betrothed us to one husband. YHVH says "I will betroth thee unto me for ever; yea, I will betroth thee unto me in righteousness, and in judgment, and in lovingkindness, and in mercies. I will even betroth thee unto me in faithfulness: and thou shalt know the LORD." Hsa 2:19-20.

The mistake is in neglecting two different events -- the first is the preparation of an individual church toward that second event, the entire Church's presentation at the End Times.

If you don't believe anyone is preparing you, then you're in the wrong system of discipleship.

Where does it say or imply discreditors? I checked the more literal translations, KJV, NKJV, NASB, ASV, YLT, HNV, even the NIV. None of them say anything about discreditors. It you go by the ESV or RSV, they unlawfully add the words "you say" which is not in the underlying Greek, either Textus Receptus or Nestle-Aland.

The sentence is a question. It's answered by the next two verses. Paul isn't contradicting himself thrice in as many verses. He's making an argument.

And given that I -- I did not burden you, instead being crafty, with guile I took you? Any one of those whom I have sent unto you -- by him did I take advantage of you? I entreated Titus, and did send with [him] the brother; did Titus take advantage of you? in the same spirit did we not walk? -- did we not in the same steps? 2 Cor 12:16-18

If he implies that he is on the same level as the super-apostles, then yes, he is claiming to be part of their group.

No. And Jesus is not a normal lord, either.

The issue is not about the metaphorical "robbery." The issue I am bringing up is the fact that Paul took wages from them, whereas Messiah says His apostles are not to take wages.

Really. Wages. Hm. Not found. Cite the verse where Jesus tells the apostles not to take wages. Ever.

Boasting in their own arrogance? Paul surely sounds that way to me, and when he claims to be an apostle!

Quite a miss there. For even if I boast a little too much of our authority, which the Lord gave for building you up and not for destroying you, I will not be ashamed. 2 Cor 10:8

Paul did not faithfully deliver the message of the Jerusalem Council. James says in Acts 15:29 that the instructions he received from the Holy Ghost was that they "abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication". Paul says otherwise - he contradicts James and the Council, and apparently lied to the Galatians when he said that the the council "only asked us to remember the poor—the very thing I also was eager to do." (Gal 2:10) - a totally different commandment!

Different events. Paul doesn't say otherwise, he explains the reasons why the Council would advise against such things.

When did I say that our works saves us? I am saying our good works, walking in His commandments, are necessary to sanctify us and to continue in Messiah's salvation. A woman can say with her mouth that she loves her husband, but if she does nothing to show evidence of that love, her husband will say that he never knew her.

"God, who knows the heart, bore witness to them, by giving them the Holy Spirit just as he did to us, 9and he made no distinction between us and them, having cleansed their hearts by faith. 10Now, therefore, why are you putting God to the test by placing a yoke on the neck of the disciples that neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear? 11But we believe that we will be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, just as they will." Acts 15:8-11

"And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity [anomia = contempt and violation of law]." (Mt 7:23)

"If ye love me, keep my commandments .. He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him .. If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him ... He that loveth me not keepeth not my sayings: and the word which ye hear is not mine, but the Father's which sent me." (John 14:15,21,23,24). "Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire." (Mt 7:19) "What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him?" (Jas 2:14).

No disagreement between Paul and these statements.

9Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, 10nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. 11And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God. 1 Cor 6:9-11

How does that explains why Paul admits that he is not speaking for Messiah, and admits that he is a foolish boaster himself?
This has nothing to do with what the verses I quoted says.

Yes. It does. Are you missing the point of self-sacrifice for the sake of Christ's people? Maybe.

If he's writing to husbands in his time to live like they have no wife, then he is surely implying that.

No. He's not.

Paul was teaching people of his time to abandon their responsibilities. That tells me that he was expecting the end was immediately near. Neither Peter nor John taught that. And James the Less/Just/Alphaeus is an apostle:

Horse puckey. 6Now we command you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from any brother who is walking in idleness and not in accord with the tradition that you received from us. 7For you yourselves know how you ought to imitate us, because we were not idle when we were with you, 8nor did we eat anyone’s bread without paying for it, but with toil and labor we worked night and day, that we might not be a burden to any of you. 9It was not because we do not have that right, but to give you in ourselves an example to imitate. 10For even when we were with you, we would give you this command: If anyone is not willing to work, let him not eat. 11For we hear that some among you walk in idleness, not busy at work, but busybodies. 12Now such persons we command and encourage in the Lord Jesus Christ to do their work quietly and to earn their own living. 2 Thess 3:6-12

"Saint James, son of Alphaeus was one of the Twelve Apostles of Jesus Christ. He is often identified with James the Less and commonly known by that name in church tradition. James, the son of Alphaeus, is rarely mentioned in the New Testament, but he is sometimes identified with James the Just, an important leader in the New Testament church. He is clearly distinguished from James, son of Zebedee, another one of the Twelve Apostles." (Wikipedia)

Clearly he's not "James the Lord's brother", who is presiding at Jerusalem Council, working with Paul, and instructing Paul when Paul comes to Jerusalem. In other words, James the son of Alphaeus is not presiding over the church in Jerusalem.

 

[ananda]

That'd be agreeing with Roman Catholic theologians ... for no other reason than that they fit your view.

That was your source in post 14, but you fault me for using the same source?

Also, as I said earlier, the messenger is not more important than the message. What is your Biblical proof that proves the credentials of the messenger is more important than the message?

If you don't believe anyone is preparing you, then you're in the wrong system of discipleship.

Again, you are attempting to change the subject back to preparation and discipleship. That is not the issue. The issue is betrothal. Paul claims to betroth us - promise us in marriage - to Messiah. YHVH says *He* betroths us to Messiah.

The sentence is a question. It's answered by the next two verses. Paul isn't contradicting himself thrice in as many verses. He's making an argument.

I disagree, as does the translators of the KJV, NKJV, NASB, ASV, YLT, HNV, and NIV - the sentence is not a question. There are no question words in the Greek, nor is there a Greek question mark in that verse.

Really. Wages. Hm. Not found. Cite the verse where Jesus tells the apostles not to take wages. Ever.

"Heal the sick, cleanse the lepers, raise the dead, cast out devils: freely ye have received, freely give." Mt 10:8 The Greek words lambano (received) and didomi (give) are both aorist, which means that there is no time limit on this command.

Quite a miss there. For even if I boast a little too much of our authority, which the Lord gave for building you up and not for destroying you, I will not be ashamed. 2 Cor 10:8

"But now ye rejoice in your boastings: all such rejoicing is evil." James 4:16

Different events. Paul doesn't say otherwise, he explains the reasons why the Council would advise against such things.

On what basis are you claiming that these are different events?

9Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, 10nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. 11And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God. 1 Cor 6:9-11

The Jerusalem Council was addressing which commandments were absolutely necessary/needful (Acts 15:5). "He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him ... Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law ... For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous." (1Jn 2:4, 3:4, 5:3) "And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ." (Rev 12:17).

 

[heymikey80]

That was your source in post 14, but you fault me for using the same source?

You omitted that Wikipedia cited one person with that opinion:

The Belgian theologian Achille Camerlynck (1910) concludes that, based on Hegesippus's account, it is "probable" that James the Just is also James the Less, and in line with "most Catholic interpreters", that he is therefore James, son of Alphaeus, as well as James, the son of Mary Cleophas,​

Wikipedia is not a source. It's an encyclopedia.

Also, as I said earlier, the messenger is not more important than the message. What is your Biblical proof that proves the credentials of the messenger is more important than the message?

So if I cobbled together a bunch of inspired statements, and then added a lie that couldn't be disproved, I could write Scripture. Hm. No, the credibility of the messenger is important as well. It's silly to think otherwise, because the messenger with Scripture was once the Devil confronting the King of the Universe.

The Messenger is important.

Again, you are attempting to change the subject back to preparation and discipleship. That is not the issue. The issue is betrothal. Paul claims to betroth us - promise us in marriage - to Messiah. YHVH says *He* betroths us to Messiah.

The betrothal was to Israel, and it's a prophetic illustration (clearly -- Hosea is instructed to marry an unfaithful woman).

Just interesting to me the level of hubris here. Do you expect to express this hubris toward God when He points out His child, Paul?

I disagree, as does the translators of the KJV, NKJV, NASB, ASV, YLT, HNV, and NIV - the sentence is not a question. There are no question words in the Greek, nor is there a Greek question mark in that verse.

Ah. So find a Greek question mark in any text before the 5th century?

This is just a great deal of mistakenness understanding Paul. And Greek.

"Heal the sick, cleanse the lepers, raise the dead, cast out devils: freely ye have received, freely give." Mt 10:8 The Greek words lambano (received) and didomi (give) are both aorist, which means that there is no time limit on this command.

Okay, so you don't even have a verse that says Paul should accept no wages, but indeed, Paul has freely received.

Or are you saying churches aren't allowed to give to Paul? Y'can't have it both ways. Either people can give to Paul, or Paul can't give to others. But no, you've picked the only way to understand that verse that essentially condemns everyone.

"But now ye rejoice in your boastings: all such rejoicing is evil." James 4:16

See that "such"? Proves the point. James is referring to a more limited form of boasting.

On what basis are you claiming that these are different events?

• "only remember the poor" The Apostles said that to Paul, and the Council said a number of other things, omitting this item in their instruction at Jerusalem Council.
• "and having known the grace that was given to me, James, and Cephas, and John, who were esteemed to be pillars, a right hand of fellowship they did give to me" Three Apostles in this case, in the case of Jerusalem Council, "they arranged for Paul and Barnabas, and certain others of them, to go up unto the apostles and elders to Jerusalem about this question,"
• The people who went: Paul, Barnabas and Titus in Gal 2 -- but only Paul and Barnabas in Acts 15.

The Jerusalem Council was addressing which commandments were absolutely necessary/needful (Acts 15:5). "He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him ... Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law ... For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous." (1Jn 2:4, 3:4, 5:3) "And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ." (Rev 12:17).

Oh, so I can violate all the rest of the Ten Commandments, as long as I don't eat blood or commit sex sin? "19wherefore I judge: not to trouble those who from the nations do turn back to God, 20but to write to them to abstain from the pollutions of the idols, and the whoredom, and the strangled thing; and the blood;" No, that's not the instruction of the Jerusalem Council, either.

 

[ananda]

You omitted that Wikipedia is not a source. It's an encyclopedia.

Then why did you quote Wikipedia? Wikipedia, as an encyclopedia, is a tertiary source.

the messenger with Scripture was once the Devil confronting the King of the Universe.

Certainly: then why not consider that Paul may possibly be in that category?

The betrothal was to Israel, and it's a prophetic illustration... Just interesting to me the level of hubris here. Do you expect to express this hubris toward God when He points out His child, Paul?

First, I do not subscribe to the two covenant theory (Ex 12:49, Lev 24:22, Num 9:14, 15:15,16,29).

Second, when a discussion descends to the level of a personal, ad hominem attack, I consider that the end of the discussion.

 

[heymikey80]

Then why did you quote Wikipedia? Wikipedia, as an encyclopedia, is a tertiary source.

Because it's stating generally-available information.

However, you cited Wikipedia as if it's declaring something as fact, when Wikipedia is only citing that someone else believes it.

Certainly: then why not consider that Paul may possibly be in that category?

Because you've no case. Were you to check, you'd discover that you're making a lot of assertions that don't have a basis in fact.

It's similar to the crusade against dihydrogen monoxide: Dihydrogen Monoxide Research Division - dihydrogen monoxide info

First, I do not subscribe to the two covenant theory (Ex 12:49, Lev 24:22, Num 9:14, 15:15,16,29).

So? Certainly you subscribe to the two-nations fact of history. It's not even talking about Judah, much less theological Israel.

Second, when a discussion descends to the level of a personal, ad hominem attack, I consider that the end of the discussion.

So you've no particular reason to reject Paul except extremes of projection. If I used this as a reason to stop debate, the discussion would've stopped with your first posting.