Is Paul a False Apostle?

[Rick Otto]

Interesting video:
Proof That Paul Is A Apostle Of Satan - YouTube

 

[Zeena]

Interesting video:
Proof That Paul Is A Apostle Of Satan - YouTube

Ya know it can only go downhill from that 1st sentence, because he says "against the Apostle Paul"

Eph 6:12
For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.

 

[hedrick]

He is not alone in thinking that Paul has seriously departed from Jesus. But part of that comes from reading Paul through what I'd call hyperLutheran assumptions. Recent scholarship on Paul understands him as being more consistent with Jesus.

But the arguments he uses are just weird. He cites weird numerological arguments, argument based on coincidence in names, and cites late non-canonical work as having more historical value than I think makes sense. I'm not an expert in dispensationalism, but I believe he grossly misrepresents it. He also uses ad hominem, dispensationalists ignore Jesus because they want to continue in their sin. At that point (about 30 min in) I reached the limit to my ability to tolerate bogosity, and stopped listening.

 

[Rick Otto]

Ya know it can only go downhill from that 1st sentence, because he says "against the Apostle Paul"

Eph 6:12
For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.

LOL, he certainly is on a high hill, ya might say.

 

[Lovely Jar]

There are Christians that are not ready to hear such questions about Paul.

Then there are those who find it odd that the majority of the new testament is comprised of his letters to churches he established. While the gospels, that good news Jesus brought to the people of the earth, are in minority.

Paul never knew Jesus but is given foremost credit for bringing the new testimony of God to the world.

This is what leads some to believe Paul was that what Christ warned against when he said there would be those who, after he departed earth, would claim Jesus sent them. They'd perform miracles and prophesy. But that we are not to believe them.

And just to add, the OP question is more fitting for Unorthodox Theology. Not General Theology. For obvious reasons.

 

[Frogster]

Ya know it can only go downhill from that 1st sentence, because he says "against the Apostle Paul"

Eph 6:12
For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.

 

[Frogster]

don't mind the way this reads, it was in a debate here, with a person who is not into Paul, he kept saying Paul had not witnesses, I offered this post to him, to show all of the support, Luke, gives Paul, that is why it is phrased in an aggressive manner.



Read this, and tell me if Luke does not witness Paul. Luke records Peter and James saying not to burden the church with the yoke of law in Acts 15, same as how Paul referred to the law and it being a yoke.

Peter called Paul scripture in 2 Peter 3:16.
James called Paul his beloved brother in Acts 15, as did Peter, in 2 Peter 3.

So when Luke says the Holy Spirit in Acts 13, sent out Paul, along with the prophets sending him, that does not support Paul?

When Luke says Paul was a chosen instrument, as spoken by the Lord in acts 9:15, repeated in Acts 26, that does not support Paul?


When Luke records Ananias a disciple going to Paul in Acts 9, that does not witness Paul.

A Jewish prophet named Silas, started churches with Paul. There is a good one!

When the demons in acts 19, recognized the same Spirit in Paul, as Jesus, that does not support Paul?

When the very respected Barnabas, the man of faith in Acts 4 and 11, went to get Paul, that does not support Paul?

When Luke records Jesus in acts 18, 22, 23, telling Paul to keep going, without any correction TO HIS MESSAGE, that does not WITNESS Paul?

When an angel in acts 27 supports Paul, that does not witness Paul?

When Torah knowing Aquila and Priscilla travel with Paul, that does not confirm Paul?

When the council in acts 15 agreed with Paul, and his gospel, as per recorded in Galatians 2, that does not WITNESS Paul? They also called him “our beloved brother Paul”, who risked his life for the Lord, and Peter talked about his beloved brother Paul again, who was given wisdom, obviously from God in 2 peter 3.

When Torah knowing Timothy travels with Paul, along with Luke himself, that does not support Paul?


Do the miracles recorded by Luke, Acts 19:11 etc, saying GOD did miracles through Paul, testify about Paul?

The churches of Judea, praised God, because of Paul, Galatians 1:24,

When Luke says THE WORD OF THE LORD, was spread by Paul in Acts 19, that does not witness Paul?

Acts 14:3 at Iconium, Luke says God was testifying to the grace Paul preached, that saved Jew and Greek. The Gospel of grace, that of Acts 20:24.

In Acts 19:6, Luke records that after Paul placed his hands on some disciples, they received the Holy Spirit, spoke in tongues, and prophecied. Good witness there too…

Acts 16, God sent an earthquake to free Paul, pretty good testimony there too.

 

[from scratch]

He is not alone in thinking that Paul has seriously departed from Jesus. But part of that comes from reading Paul through what I'd call hyperLutheran assumptions. Recent scholarship on Paul understands him as being more consistent with Jesus.

But the arguments he uses are just weird. He cites weird numerological arguments, argument based on coincidence in names, and cites late non-canonical work as having more historical value than I think makes sense. I'm not an expert in dispensationalism, but I believe he grossly misrepresents it. He also uses ad hominem, dispensationalists ignore Jesus because they want to continue in their sin. At that point (about 30 min in) I reached the limit to my ability to tolerate bogosity, and stopped listening.

I'd disagree based on definition alone. Thus what you say IMHO is double speak.

 

[Lovely Jar]

And yet Luke was also said not to be a credible witness because he was employed by Paul.
One doesn't bite the hand that feeds them.

 

[from scratch]

There are Christians that are not ready to hear such questions about Paul.

Then there are those who find it odd that the majority of the new testament is comprised of his letters to churches he established. While the gospels, that good news Jesus brought to the people of the earth, are in minority.

Paul never knew Jesus but is given foremost credit for bringing the new testimony of God to the world.

This is what leads some to believe Paul was that what Christ warned against when he said there would be those who, after he departed earth, would claim Jesus sent them. They'd perform miracles and prophesy. But that we are not to believe them.

And just to add, the OP question is more fitting for Unorthodox Theology. Not General Theology. For obvious reasons.

I think there's plenty room to believe Paul was alive while Jesus was here in the form of man.

 

[Setyoufree]

Interesting video:
Proof That Paul Is A Apostle Of Satan - YouTube

This deluded man is teaching against Paul because he is offended that Paul taught salvation through faith alone. Paul warned of such legalists in his day.

What this man is attempting to do is to draw off disciples unto himself. And if you follow him he will draw you into a web of salvation by works.

 

[Optimax]

If Paul was not of God then we are all in trouble as the NT is mostly written by him.

However, not to worry!

Paul states that everything he learned was by revelation.

Not from the devil either.

Nor from man.

Gal 1:12
For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ KJV

 

[timewerx]

In many unorthodox religions that have used the standard Bible, many have regarded Paul's epistles and sometimes the Old Testament as false teachings.

But no one has regarded the core teachings of Christ in Matthew, Make, Luke, and John as false teachings.

There's just contradictions that can't be reconciled:

Romans 10:9
If you declare with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.

Romans 10:14
How, then, can they call on the one they have not believed in? And how can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard? And how can they hear without someone preaching to them?

Declaration by mouth is not enough to be saved. Most important is doing God's Will. What is God's Will? It is laid out very clearly in the four Gospels!

Matthew 7:21-23
“Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22 Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?’ 23 Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’


Romans 10:15
And how can anyone preach unless they are sent? As it is written: “How beautiful are the feet of those who bring good news!

How come false prophets can preach even if they are not sent by God?

Matthew 24:11
and many false prophets will appear and deceive many people.

 

[ARBITER01]

If Paul was not of God then we are all in trouble as the NT is mostly written by him.

However, not to worry!

Paul states that everything he learned was by revelation.

Not from the devil either.

Nor from man.

Gal 1:12
For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ KJV

This is true.

All of the teachings concerning the body of Christ came through Paul almost exclusively. The same Holy Spirit that spoke through Jesus, spoke through Paul, as well through all of our first century Christians.

It's a shame when folks like the guy in the video can't discern The Holy Spirit, and have the nerve to claim being a Christian.

 

[hedrick]

In many unorthodox religions that have used the standard Bible, many have regarded Paul's epistles and sometimes the Old Testament as false teachings.

But no one has regarded the core teachings of Christ in Matthew, Make, Luke, and John as false teachings.

There's just contradictions that can't be reconciled:

Romans 10:9
If you declare with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.

Romans 10:14
How, then, can they call on the one they have not believed in? And how can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard? And how can they hear without someone preaching to them?

Declaration by mouth is not enough to be saved. Most important is doing God's Will. What is God's Will? It is laid out very clearly in the four Gospels!

Matthew 7:21-23
“Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22 Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?’ 23 Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’


Romans 10:15
And how can anyone preach unless they are sent? As it is written: “How beautiful are the feet of those who bring good news!

How come false prophets can preach even if they are not sent by God?

Matthew 24:11
and many false prophets will appear and deceive many people.

I do think Jesus and Paul speak of Christian life in different terms. Jesus focuses on obedience and Paul on faith. But I would argue that in the end they have a consistent overall picture. Jesus is no legalist. He believes that obedience comes from loving God, and that obedience is a fruit of a tree whose heart is right. Paul's believing in the heart and Jesus' love for God seem to me to be different ways of talking about the same thing.

Paul also expects faith to result in obedience. You just need to look elsewhere in his letters for that.

You're right that there's a verbal contradiction between Rom 10:9 and Mat 7:21. But taking those passages in a broader context, Paul's faith is a good tree that leads to good fruit, and saying "Lord, Lord" in Mat 7:21 is a verbal acknowledgement that doesn't represent actually serving Jesus as Lord.

 

[ChangedByHim]

Interesting video:

How and in what way could that be interesting? You mean interesting like what it would feel like to stuff garbage in your ears?

 

[riverrat]

How and in what way could that be interesting? You mean interesting like what it would feel like to stuff garbage in your ears?

 

[Setyoufree]

Gal 1:12 For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ KJV

Bingo!

 

[Setyoufree]

Declaration by mouth is not enough to be saved. Most important is doing God's Will. What is God's Will? It is laid out very clearly in the four Gospels!

And what is that? A works trip?

 

[Setyoufree]