Paul attack.

[Frogster]

I was amazed for a few years in the GT section, at some of the hatred, or bad (untrue) things I heard about Paul. Often in debate, it was easy to take down these arguments though, but I was still suprised. I had heard of it over the years, but there I encountered it. Though, thankfully it was a minority view there.

Some would say things like, "Paul's revelations", in quotes, sarcastically, they did not believe he was given revelations.

Another guy was actually calling Paul a liar.

Some think Paul did not like women, some think his writings are not scripture, and a few more strange notions were mentioned. Another fellow was calling him a false aopstle.


The other night on Les Feldick he spoke of it, and so have the Swaggarts, about the Paul attack. Both are pro-paul though, as I am.


I have also heard about anti Paul things in other churches, and it seems to be interdenominational.

I love our brother Paul, and he gave us so much.

Post #3 has some good info.

 

[motherprayer]

Amen! Paul is one of my faves

 

[Frogster]

One of these individuals kept on saying Paul had no witness, it was his theme over and over. This was a rebbuttal post below that I happily gave him in reply to his Paul attack, don't mind the caps on the WITNESS word, I did it becaus he kept going on and on about the whole witness theory he had.

I thought this post might be useful for others, who encounter a Paul attack, because Luke sure does give Paul support, in no small manner. Plus there are some words from Paul, but Luke is good to use, because they can't say, "those are just Paul's own words", and if they don't trust Luke, then they must omit the gospel of Luke also, if Acts is not inspired in their eyes, then the gospel from Luke taaaaint neeeeither.

So here is ammo, there is more also.





Read this, and tell me if Luke and peter do not does not WITNESS Paul.

Peter called Paul scripture in 2 Peter 3:16.

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

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

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

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

The churches of Judea, praised God, because of Paul, Galatians 1:24, and they weren’t even Gentiles.

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

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 WITNESS there also.

 

[Frogster]

Hi motherprayer, my galatians sister. What's doinnnn?

 

[Faulty]

All good points. Paul's ministry was about as politically incorrect as one can get.

It's difficult to get past his teaching and still indulge in many of today's lusts. So, some have to get rid of him somehow, to make his words of a man only, but it's only a temporary solution. One day they will stand before the One who gave Paul his words and they will be accountable for the willful damage they've done. Sad but true.

 

[someguy14]

Only God giveth the increase.
Glorious God, of whom all goodness comes from, be glory for ever and ever.

 

[Frogster]

All good points. Paul's ministry was about as politically incorrect as one can get.

It's difficult to get past his teaching and still indulge in many of today's lusts. So, some have to get rid of him somehow, to make his words of a man only, but it's only a temporary solution. One day they will stand before the One who gave Paul his words and they will be accountable for the willful damage they've done. Sad but true.

I agree, well said. The thing that maks me laugh, is when they try to put down paul, it is a litmus test of their silliness and lack of insight, because as soon as they say the "have issues" with paul, i say to myself, or them...

Lol! People can spend a lifetime studying one letter he penned rapidly, that is how anointed they are, but this woman has 'issues' with Paul, i want to say, go learn one book after 10 years, with all the revelation in it, then come back and tell me about 'your issues".

 

[Frogster]

Only God giveth the increase.
Glorious God, of whom all goodness comes from, be glory for ever and ever.

 

[Moses Medina]

I gotta admit that Paul is quite awesome and his writings are essential!

 

[Frogster]

I gotta admit that Paul is quite awesome and his writings are essential!

I agree. Thanks for serving our country.

 

[JimB]

I was amazed for a few years in the GT section, at some of the hatred, or bad (untrue) things I heard about Paul. Often in debate, it was easy to take down these arguments though, but I was still suprised. I had heard of it over the years, but there I encountered it. Though, thankfully it was a minority view there.

Some would say things like, "Paul's revelations", in quotes, sarcastically, they did not believe he was given revelations.

Another guy was actually calling Paul a liar.

Some think Paul did not like women, some think his writings are not scripture, and a few more strange notions were mentioned. Another fellow was calling him a false aopstle.


The other night on Les Feldick he spoke of it, and so have the Swaggarts, about the Paul attack. Both are pro-paul though, as I am.


I have also heard about anti Paul things in other churches, and it seems to be interdenominational.

I love our brother Paul, and he gave us so much.

Post #3 has some good info.

I think such statements are typical of self-willed people. When the New Testament does not line up with what they believe, like when Paul says whatever disagrees with their theology, they cop out and say, “Well, that was just Paul’s opinion, and he was just a man,” and then go on living by our own rules. The Apostle Peter felt Paul’s letters, though hard to understand, were when he said, “And remember, our Lord’s patience gives people time to be saved. This is what our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you with the wisdom God gave him—speaking of these things in all of his letters. Some of his comments are hard to understand, and those who are ignorant and unstable have twisted his letters to mean something quite different, just as they do with other parts of Scripture. And this will result in their destruction” (2 Peter 3.15-16). So, even the Apostle Peter would disagree with some of Paul’s critics.

 

[motherprayer]

Hi motherprayer, my galatians sister. What's doinnnn?

All KINDS of goodness and mercy!

Frog, look, there are like 4 threads in which our brethren are being smashed, and I really wish you'd get on there! All under GT (of course) and the worst part? The people doing the smashing are USING Pauls words AGAINST them! Oh Lord! I wish you were there!

 

[SavedByGrace3]

I do think that Paul was a bit arrogant and proud (hence the "messanger from satan").
But I believe the Pauline revelation to be not only true, but integral to the gospel. Without Paul we would not know what happened, what is happening, and what is going to happen regarding the church. Paul fleshed out the new birth, the resurrection, the gifts of the Spirit, the new man... on and on.

I love the epistles of Paul. I spend more time there than anywhere else.

 

[jamadan]

The attacks against Paul are really attacks against Jesus, the Word of God. Nothing new there. It's all about sin and the rebellion of the flesh. What they are saying is they don't trust God, the Holy Spirit, to protect His Word enough to have kept Paul's writings out of what was being considered as Scripture. Just the opposite occurred as Peter validated Paul's writings as being Scripture.

 

[SpiritPsalmist]

I love Paul. Some people completely take him out of context and misquote him but he totally backs up Torah.

 

[Frogster]

I think such statements are typical of self-willed people. When the New Testament does not line up with what they believe, like when Paul says whatever disagrees with their theology, they cop out and say, “Well, that was just Paul’s opinion, and he was just a man,” and then go on living by our own rules. The Apostle Peter felt Paul’s letters, though hard to understand, were when he said, “And remember, our Lord’s patience gives people time to be saved. This is what our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you with the wisdom God gave him—speaking of these things in all of his letters. Some of his comments are hard to understand, and those who are ignorant and unstable have twisted his letters to mean something quite different, just as they do with other parts of Scripture. And this will result in their destruction” (2 Peter 3.15-16). So, even the Apostle Peter would disagree with some of Paul’s critics.

Agreed, and your peter text proves that the confrontation with peter, blew over, and those who try to use that against paul, are overpressing the event, as far as peter being mortally wounded by it, this "great evil paul did".

 

[Frogster]

Then we have the scholar elites, who attack on a higher level, those of the NPP teaching.

They try to act like Paul was not fighting off law justification, but instead he was fighting off Jewish elitism, Jewish pride, supremacy, and ethnocentricity. The NPP people call it the “badge”.

While that may have some truth in it, that is a secondary subordinate truth, that does not take away from the primary proof/truth, that Paul was arguing against law justification primarily in Romans and Galatians..

So in the end, it is an attack on justification, by trying to divert the argument of Paul, to a minor theme, and a theme that has importance, basically racism, but pales to the more important argument, justification by grace, not works.

 

[Frogster]

All KINDS of goodness and mercy!

Frog, look, there are like 4 threads in which our brethren are being smashed, and I really wish you'd get on there! All under GT (of course) and the worst part? The people doing the smashing are USING Pauls words AGAINST them! Oh Lord! I wish you were there!

i know...i saw it! lol..i am just so extra busy now so i can't go there too much for a while, but i am on the 2 gospel thread there, they got no text to support it, just spin and conjecture, but thanks for thinking of me!

 

[Frogster]

I do think that Paul was a bit arrogant and proud (hence the "messanger from satan").
But I believe the Pauline revelation to be not only true, but integral to the gospel. Without Paul we would not know what happened, what is happening, and what is going to happen regarding the church. Paul fleshed out the new birth, the resurrection, the gifts of the Spirit, the new man... on and on.

I love the epistles of Paul. I spend more time there than anywhere else.

Me too. I think in a way, romans 6 might just be one of the most important chapters, along with 5, in the NT.

 

[Frogster]

The attacks against Paul are really attacks against Jesus, the Word of God. Nothing new there. It's all about sin and the rebellion of the flesh. What they are saying is they don't trust God, the Holy Spirit, to protect His Word enough to have kept Paul's writings out of what was being considered as Scripture. Just the opposite occurred as Peter validated Paul's writings as being Scripture.