Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
I'm amazed I'd find such silly ideas that "Paul wasn't an apostle" on a "Christian website".
Yes, Drstevej, it is the subjective conclusion I have reached but my point was that Jesus commended the Ephesians for testing the apostles. It is not "silly" to question an apostle even it is Paul. As many have mentioned on this thread, there are legitimate reasons to question him. There is reasonable doubt. Based on the evidence and the way I see it, I find Paul false.
We all come to our own conclusions. We know what we know, we see what we see.
I came to this site to hopefully find others who might "see" things similarly to the way I see them. And I have found some! Clearly, it is an unorthodox view and unpopular. But I am okay with this as I know that the path is narrow and few find it.
Thank you all for your contributions and insight.
Peace to all,
Sheraldo
JesusMartyr said:
Mr. JesusMartyr,
I don't find the way I believe "silly" at all and I take what I know and have been taught from the Holy Spirit very seriously. I don't think Jesus finds it silly either as He says this to the church of Ephesus (the church Paul started):
I know your deeds, your hard work and your perseverance. I know that you cannot tolerate wicked people, that you have tested those who claim to be apostles but are not, and have found them false.
We are all on different legs of the journey but to label a sincere view as "silly" is pretty uncool.
Peace and Grace to you,
Sheraldo
My apologies Brenda for assuming you were male! So not believing in Paul is suicide? Leads to death? How is that? Jesus is the Way, the Truth and the Life not Paul. The law is junk? We are going to have to seriously agree to disagree because the chasm in the way we see things is so completely opposite.
And IchoozJC: Yes, I blame Paul. Peter warns us that his letters are confusing to the unlearned and unestablished. Paul had a thorn in his flesh that he never overcame. John, a true apostle of the lamb, let me know in his letter that sin could be overcome. 1 John 14
Peace to all,
Sheraldo
PAUL said:What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound? God forbid.
So then do not be foolish, but understand what the will of the Lord is. And do not get drunk with wine, for that is dissipation, but be filled with the Spirit,
Jesus said:But when thou doest alms, let not thy left hand know what thy right hand doeth:
Yes, Drstevej, it is the subjective conclusion I have reached but my point was that Jesus commended the Ephesians for testing the apostles. It is not "silly" to question an apostle even it is Paul. As many have mentioned on this thread, there are legitimate reasons to question him. There is reasonable doubt. Based on the evidence and the way I see it, I find Paul false.
We all come to our own conclusions. We know what we know, we see what we see.
I came to this site to hopefully find others who might "see" things similarly to the way I see them. And I have found some! Clearly, it is an unorthodox view and unpopular. But I am okay with this as I know that the path is narrow and few find it.
Thank you all for your contributions and insight.
Peace to all,
Sheraldo
Yes it does: "Paul, an apostle..." (Eph 1:1).
I know your deeds, your hard work and your perseverance. I know that you cannot tolerate wicked people, that you have tested those who claim to be apostles but are not, and have found them false.
No I am not wrong, as you so rudely put it. But since you ask, let's look at the evidence:This verse does not specifically mention Paul. You are wrong. Try again.
No I am not wrong, as you so rudely put it. But since you ask, let's look at the evidence:
The evidence is easy to put together, for anyone with eyes to see. But if you still refuse to accept it, then please tell me who the false apostle was. Paul himself said that "All Scripture is complete", so the answer HAS to be in the Bible.
- Paul introduced himself to the Ephesians as an apostle (Eph 1:1).
- His visit started out well, but after three months there was a huge uproar and they threw him out. Moreover he lost his new converts (Acts 19:8-9).
- He said he had to fight for his life (1 Cor 15:32).
- He said that that everyone turned away from him, even his friends (2 Tim 1:15; 4:10; 4:16).
- He caused such a furore that the Ephesian Jews were still horrified about it over two years later (Acts 21:27-29).
- The Son of Man referred to a character who told the Ephesians he was an apostle, and when they tested him further, they discovered that he was not an apostle and had lied to them (Rev 2:2).
- Paul met none of the four apostolic criteria (Acts 1:21-22).
If the Son of Man thought this was important enough to mention in His final address to the church, not just once but twice, don't you think we owe Him the respect of at least considering what He said? Or was He just blowing hot air, sending us on a wild goose chase after some mystery 'false apostle', who cannot be discovered by any means? If that's the case, why would He have mentioned it at all?
TorahMan
No I am not wrong, as you so rudely put it. But since you ask, let's look at the evidence:
The evidence is easy to put together, for anyone with eyes to see. But if you still refuse to accept it, then please tell me who the false apostle was. Paul himself said that "All Scripture is complete", so the answer HAS to be in the Bible.
- Paul introduced himself to the Ephesians as an apostle (Eph 1:1).
- His visit started out well, but after three months there was a huge uproar and they threw him out. Moreover he lost his new converts (Acts 19:8-9).
- He said he had to fight for his life (1 Cor 15:32).
- He said that that everyone turned away from him, even his friends (2 Tim 1:15; 4:10; 4:16).
- He caused such a furore that the Ephesian Jews were still horrified about it over two years later (Acts 21:27-29).
- The Son of Man referred to a character who told the Ephesians he was an apostle, and when they tested him further, they discovered that he was not an apostle and had lied to them (Rev 2:2).
- Paul met none of the four apostolic criteria (Acts 1:21-22).
If the Son of Man thought this was important enough to mention in His final address to the church, not just once but twice, don't you think we owe Him the respect of at least considering what He said? Or was He just blowing hot air, sending us on a wild goose chase after some mystery 'false apostle', who cannot be discovered by any means? If that's the case, why would He have mentioned it at all?
TorahMan
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?