Paul, the False Apostle: Rebuttal of Point 3

[FredVB]

I wish there were more letters from Paul in the NT, he was awesome.
We just need to sit back and relax and let Jesus do everything.
Why would anyone fight against a message like that !?!

Yet there is more to do than sit back and relax. Nothing any would do will affect salvation which is from Christ. Yet Christ shows things to do for those truly following him who is Lord.

 

[Colter]

The OT sacrificial system was ordained by God himself so to say that that was strictly pagan is really missing the bigger picture. John the Baptist said behold the Lamb of God which taketh away the sin of the world. Paul didn't say that!!

* What does "taketh away the sin of the world mean to you?" God was already forgiving, Jesus simply made the way more clear. In fact he revealed the person of the Father in greater detail. Could it be that Jesus offered a more comprehensive path of real forgiveness, whole souled repentance and personal spiritual transformation as opposed to the theoretical forgiveness of sacrifice?

* Blood sacrifice is a well nigh universal evolutionary development among all religions. Is born out of an attempt to manipulate the Gods......and provides a tidy prophet for the shamans as well.

 

[Angelquill]

I have this sort of "rule" that I follow in regard to Paul.

If something Paul says seems to disagree with something that Jesus says, there are only two possibilities.
Either I am misunderstanding Paul...which is entirely possible, I've often admitted, I'm no scholar...
Or, Paul is wrong.

Either way, it is Jesus I am following...and not Paul.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

I have this sort of "rule" that I follow in regard to Paul.

If something Paul says seems to disagree with something that Jesus says, there are only two possibilities.
Either I am misunderstanding Paul...which is entirely possible, I've often admitted, I'm no scholar...
Or, Paul is wrong.

Either way, it is Jesus I am following...and not Paul.

1Co 1:12
What I mean is this: One of you says, “I follow Paul”; another, “I follow Apollos”; another, “I follow Cephas”; still another, “I follow Christ.”
13 Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Were you baptized in the name of Paul?
1Co 3:
4 For when one says, “I follow Paul,” and another, “I follow Apollos,” are you not mere human beings?
5 What, after all, is Apollos? And what is Paul? Only servants, through whom you came to believe—as the Lord has assigned to each his task.




.

 

[Colter]

I prefer to see scriptural proof for such claims, not just unsupported assertions. Can you cite some scripture in-context that proves these assertions about Paul and pagan interpretation?



I don't know about that, I was not "born into Christianity" I was in my mid 20s when I became a Christian and I questioned everything and verified everything for myself from scripture. I formally studied both Biblical languages a few decades ago. While I am not, and do not claim to be, an expert I often know and can always verify for myself what the "Bible really says."

Jesus teaches his original gospel 3+ years before the cross:

Matthew 4:24

23 "And Jesus went about all Galilee, teaching in their synagogues, and preaching the gospel of the kingdom, and healing all manner of sickness and all manner of disease among the people."

1 Corinthians 15:1-4


Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand; [2] By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain. [3] For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; [4] And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:



* Jesus and his apostles taught the good news gospel of the kingdom.

* Paul's new gospel was about Jesus as a final human sacrifice.

....but, God did seem to work with all sorts of beliefs to bring people to Jesus.

 

[Der Alte]

Jesus teaches his original gospel 3+ years before the cross:

Matthew 4:24

23 "And Jesus went about all Galilee, teaching in their synagogues, and preaching the gospel of the kingdom, and healing all manner of sickness and all manner of disease among the people."

1 Corinthians 15:1-4

Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand; [2] By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain. [3] For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; [4] And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:

* Jesus and his apostles taught the good news gospel of the kingdom.

* Paul's new gospel was about Jesus as a final human sacrifice.

....but, God did seem to work with all sorts of beliefs to bring people to Jesus.

Where does Paul say anything about "a final human sacrifice?" I thought the argument was that Paul did not teach about the kingdom. Paul mentions the kingdom of God 9 times, Ro 145:17, 1 Co 4:20, 6:9, 1015:24, 50, Gal 5:21, Col 4:11, 2 Th 1:5. The kingdom of Christ and God Eph 5:5. The kingdom of His dear son, Col 1:13 and His kingdom 1 Th 2;12, 2 Th 4:1, 18. And Paul mentions the gospel 69 times. Gospel is only mentioned 17 times in the 4 gospels.

 

[Colter]

Where does Paul say anything about "a final human sacrifice?" I thought the argument was that Paul did not teach about the kingdom. Paul mentions the kingdom of God 9 times, Ro 145:17, 1 Co 4:20, 6:9, 1015:24, 50, Gal 5:21, Col 4:11, 2 Th 1:5. The kingdom of Christ and God Eph 5:5. The kingdom of His dear son, Col 1:13 and His kingdom 1 Th 2;12, 2 Th 4:1, 18. And Paul mentions the gospel 69 times. Gospel is only mentioned 17 times in the 4 gospels.

* Jesus taught of the "kingdom of heaven" as a present tense reality.

Paul, who was never taught by Jesus but had a spiritual awakening as have millions of followers of Christ, he expresses in his words his atonement theory:


Romans 3


24 Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:

25 Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;

26 To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Paul, the False Apostle: Rebuttal of Point 3

Along with point 1 this seeks to claim that there is no mention of Paul's apostleship in the NT, but of course the author of this anonymous essay knows this is not true, hence in Acts 14:14 we have the statement 'the apostles Barnabas and Paul'. I have outlined the evidence that Paul is recognised to have been apostle in my previous post.
The author is true that there is no record of Barnabas claiming the title for himself, but this is an argument from silence and really proves nothing other than there is no record of Barnabas claiming for himself the title.

Where are the rubbutals to points 1 and 2?

Interesting. Barnabas was a Levite!

Why was Joses name changed to Barnabas ?

NKJV Search Results for "barnabas"

Act 4:36
And Joses, who was also named Barnabas by the apostles (which is translated Son of Encouragement), a Levite of the country of Cyprus,

2500. Ioses perhaps for 2501; Joses, the name of two Israelites:--Joses. Compare 2499.
2501. Ioseph of Hebrew origin (3130); Joseph, the name of seven Israelites:--Joseph.
2499. Iose genitive case of 2500; Jose, an Israelite:--Jose.
921. Barnabas of Chaldee origin (1247 and 5029); son of abas (i.e. prophecy); Barnabas, an Israelite:--Barnabas.

Gal 2:9
and when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that had been given to me,
they gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised.


.










.

 

[Angelquill]

Paul, himself, admits that he is not perfect:

Rom 7:21 I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me.
Rom 7:22 For I delight in the law of God after the inward man:
Rom 7:23 But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members.

and admits his own need of Christ:

Rom 7:24 O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death?
Rom 7:25 I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin.

So, why in the world do so many Christians seem to pay Paul more attention than they do to Jesus?
I honestly do not get it....

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Paul, himself, admits that he is not perfect:


So, why in the world do so many Christians seem to pay Paul more attention than they do to Jesus?
I honestly do not get it....

Do you remember the event when "Saul/Paul" is first mentioned?

http://www.christianforums.com/t6719420-6/#post42547190
Stoning of Stephen against the Law

Young) Acts 7:
58 and having cast him forth outside of the city, they were stoning [him] --and the witnesses did put down their garments at the feet of a young man called Saul--
59 and they were stoning Stephen, calling and saying, `Lord Jesus, receive my spirit;'
60 and having bowed the knees, he cried with a loud voice, `Lord, mayest thou not lay to them this sin;' and this having said, he fell asleep.
8:
1 And Saul was assenting to his death,
and there came in that day a great persecution upon the assembly in Jerusalem,
all also were scattered abroad in the regions of Judea and Samaria, except the apostles;
2 and devout men carried away Stephen, and made great lamentation over him;
3 and Saul was making havoc of the assembly,
into every house entering, and haling men and women, was giving them up to prison;




.

 

[Der Alte]

* Jesus taught of the "kingdom of heaven" as a present tense reality.

Paul, who was never taught by Jesus but had a spiritual awakening as have millions of followers of Christ, he expresses in his words his atonement theory:

Romans 3

24 Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:

25 Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;

26 To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.

Just ignore my post and respond with one out-of-context proof text.

 

[fozzy]

]* What does "taketh away the sin of the world mean to you?" God was already forgiving, Jesus simply made the way more clear. In fact he revealed the person of the Father in greater detail. Could it be that Jesus offered a more comprehensive path of real forgiveness, whole souled repentance and personal spiritual transformation as opposed to the theoretical forgiveness of sacrifice?

The message of Christ or his version of the gospel was different than Paul. Jesus' entire ministry was still under the old covenant so of course there were more references to the law and commandments. The new covenant had not been ratified yet and the Spirit had not been poured out. He still focused on faith and love and after his ascension he chose Paul as a special instrument to expound the gospel of grace not law.

* Blood sacrifice is a well nigh universal evolutionary development among all religions. Is born out of an attempt to manipulate the Gods......and provides a tidy prophet for the shamans as well.

Blood sacrifice goes back to the garden of eden when God himself killed animals to give Adam and Eve clothing. I guess that was pagan too!!!

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Blood sacrifice goes back to the garden of eden when God himself killed animals to give Adam and Eve clothing.
I guess that was pagan too!!!

Some may view it that way......

Genesis 3:21; 4:4 The First Sacrifice

The tragic story of man's disobedience is told in Genesis chapter three. Adam and Eve were warned out of the loving heart of the LORD God. Immediately after they disobeyed God's command they both realized they were guilty. Adam and Eve tried to cover their guilt and shame from God, but they chose a poor cover up.
Man made solutions for sin and guilt never work. Fig leaves of religious works will never cover the guilty sinner and make him right with God.

God, however, chose skins to cover Adam and Eve (3:21). "And the Lord God made garments of skin for Adam and his wife, and clothed them."

The coats of skin with which the Lord clothed Adam and Eve represent righteousness provided by Him in which they could stand in His holy presence. These coats of skin are a type of what God provided for us in the imputation of His righteousness through Jesus Christ. Behind those garments, that God made for Adam and Eve has been sacrifice and death. No doubt, God had given instructions of some kind about sacrifice........

 

[Colter]

Just ignore my post and respond with one out-of-context proof text.

Did you want more on "the kingdom of heaven"? Jesus inaugurated a spiritual kingdom, it was comprised of those who by faith believed in the Fatherhood of God and the brotherhood of all mankind. It was a very different idea than the erroneous expectations of a Jewish Messiah who would destroy political Israel's enemies, take up David's corrupt, exaggerated seat and rule the earth.

The ideal of the kingdom of heaven IS spiritual, the king is the rule of the will of God in the hearts of ALL mankind.

In the wake of the failure for Jesus' early followers to understand and abide in the fellowship of Jesus' kingdom idea, the institution of the physical church and its religion about Jesus, became a substitute. Thus in concept they put the kingdom off into the future culminating in the "soon returning" Christ to do what the Messiah was supposed to have done in the first place. But their erroneous expectations were in vein, we are 2,000 years into "soon to return" and the sect divided, dyeing church stands as the single greatest obstacle to the original Gospel.

Jesus and his pre cross gospel:

» And Jesus went about all Galilee, teaching in their synagogues, preaching the gospel of the kingdom, and healing all kinds of sickness and all kinds of disease among the people. (Matthew 4:23)


» Now after John was put in prison, Jesus came to Galilee, preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God, and saying, "The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand. Repent, and believe in the gospel." (Mark 1:14-15)

» [Jesus] said to them, "I must preach the kingdom of God to the other cities also, because for this purpose I have been sent." (Luke 4:43)



The gospel that Jesus was preaching was not himself crucified for their sins.

After the death and resurrection, everything changed, the new gospel is about Jesus crucified and risen. Paul taught almost exclusively about the death and risen Christ as opposed to the victorious life of Jesus and how he lived it.

But there does seem to be something in the cross for every level of understanding and diverse interpretations, it may sound crude but it was a powerful marketing tool which Jesus did voluntarily pass through. That is the majesty of the divine management of destiny and his loving work on behalf of his children on earth.

 

[Colter]

From the universal primitive sacrificial systems to the present tithe, man has rather cleverly institutionalized his attempt to manipulate the Gods to his way of thinking. But the last and most difficult of all paths that man grudgingly arrives at is when he's forced into the realization that he himself needs changing not God.

The original, simple gospel was about the surrender of self and a commitment to personal spiritual growth, "thy will not mine be done." No small clean animals or nice, innocent lamb/humans need to be killed in order to ask for and receive forgiveness from a loving heavenly Father.

 

[drstevej]

From the universal primitive sacrificial systems to the present tithe, man has rather cleverly institutionalized his attempt to manipulate the Gods to his way of thinking. But the last and most difficult of all paths that man grudgingly arrives at is when he's forced into the realization that he himself needs changing not God.

The original, simple gospel was about the surrender of self and a commitment to personal spiritual growth, "thy will not mine be done." No small clean animals or nice, innocent lamb/humans need to be killed in order to ask for and receive forgiveness from a loving heavenly Father.

Oops, there goes the cross.

 

[Colter]

Oops, there goes the cross.

Question, did anyone ever notice that Jesus used a parable to indicate that rejecting and killing him was a very bad thing? Yet, in the Christian religions theology, we need Jesus killed on the cross?

"There was a good man who was a householder, and he planted a vineyard. He set a hedge about it, dug a pit for the wine press, and built a watchtower for the guards. Then he let this vineyard out to tenants while he went on a long journey into another country. And when the season of the fruits drew near, he sent servants to the tenants to receive his rental. But they took counsel among themselves and refused to give these servants the fruits due their master; instead, they fell upon his servants, beating one, stoning another, and sending the others away empty-handed. And when the householder heard about all this, he sent other and more trusted servants to deal with these wicked tenants, and these they wounded and also treated shamefully. And then the householder sent his favorite servant, his steward, and him they killed. And still, in patience and with forbearance, he dispatched many other servants, but none would they receive. Some they beat, others they killed, and when the householder had been so dealt with, he decided to send his son to deal with these ungrateful tenants, saying to himself, `They may mistreat my servants, but they will surely show respect for my beloved son.' But when these unrepentant and wicked tenants saw the son, they reasoned among themselves: `This is the heir; come, let us kill him and then the inheritance will be ours.' So they laid hold on him, and after casting him out of the vineyard, they killed him. When the lord of that vineyard shall hear how they have rejected and killed his son, what will he do to those ungrateful and wicked tenants?"

And when the people heard this parable and the question Jesus asked, they answered, "He will destroy those miserable men and let out his vineyard to other and honest farmers who will render to him the fruits in their season." And when some of them who heard perceived that this parable referred to the Jewish nation and its treatment of the prophets and to the impending rejection of Jesus and the gospel of the kingdom, they said in sorrow, "God forbid that we should go on doing these things."

 

[drstevej]

And God can not accomplish good from the evil deeds of man?

Acts 2:23
... this Man, delivered over by the predetermined plan and foreknowledge of God, you nailed to a cross by the hands of godless men and put Him to death.

 

[Colter]

And God can not accomplish good from the evil deeds of man?

Acts 2:23
... this Man, delivered over by the predetermined plan and foreknowledge of God, you nailed to a cross by the hands of godless men and put Him to death.

If it was a "predetermined plan" then it wasn't the evil deeds of man.

we will need to fix the parable:

......"And still, in patience and with forbearance, he dispatched many other servants, but none would they receive. Some they beat, others they killed, and when the householder had been so dealt with, he decided to send his son to deal with these ungrateful tenants, saying to himself, `They may mistreat my servants, but they will surely show respect for my beloved son.'

It never has been the case that God was double minded.

 

[drstevej]

The Bible affirms both Divine sovereignty and human accountability. You pick and choose.