Paul the heretic??

[W2L]

I agree it is. That is why God needed to give Peter those visions, to show Peter that no food was unclean and he would eat with the Gentiles. Isn't there something about mixing clean and unclean food or something.

I don't know, I'm not torah expert by any means.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

Exodus 12:48New International Version (NIV)

48 “A foreigner residing among you who wants to celebrate the Lord’s Passover must have all the males in his household circumcised; then he may take part like one born in the land. No uncircumcised male may eat it.

Thank you. So it is established. It was against the law given to Moses, it is written in Exodus and everything.

 

[ToBeLoved]

I don't know, I'm not torah expert by any means.

Me either. But I know Peter thought it was against Torah until God showed him several times in a vision. Peter was not easily converted to God's way of thinking.

 

[W2L]

Me either. But I know Peter thought it was against Torah until God showed him several times in a vision. Peter was not easily converted to God's way of thinking.

It was against torah originally, but something changed it seems. Anyway, I don't want to get off topic. Somebody said to get back on topic.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

Me either. But I know Peter thought it was against Torah until God showed him several times in a vision. Peter was not easily converted to God's way of thinking.

Yeah the dietary laws indicated what foods were clean and unclean, these along with the rest of the commandments were given to them "for their good" as it says in deuteronomy. I suppose since they were no longer living on a frontier at the time of the Roman empire .. the danger of certain foods spoiling was no longer a problem so the commandments were no longer necessary.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

It was against torah originally, but something changed it seems. Anyway, I don't want to get off topic. Somebody said to get back on topic.

I threw out a few "on topic" posts but the guy didn't respond to them. So maybe I'll try on topicness again later.

 

[Basil the Great]

I will not address the thesis of Paul being a heretic. However, Paul made a few statements that are very problematical and that is being most generous in my description, especially #1 below.

(1) "Slaves be obedient to your masters." (Ephesians 6:5) Sugar coat it any way you want, this statement is an endorsement of the institution of slavery.

(2) "Women cover your heads lest you shame yourselves". ( 1 Corinthians 11) While this is probably no big deal, I doubt that very few Christian women in 2016 abide by Paul's admonition.

(3) "Wives submit yourselves to your husbands". (Ephesians 5) Sadly, this verse has no doubt been used, both directly and indirectly, to keep some women in abusive relationships.

(4) "As in all the congregations of the saints, women should remain silent in the churches" (1 Corinthians 14: 34-35) Once again, I doubt very many women in 2016 abide by Paul's admonition.

While many Christians would disagree with some or all of the above statements, #1 is far and away the most troubling. I recall hearing a minister on the radio or television years ago try and reconcile Paul's slavery statement by claiming that slavery was an occupation back then and not the kind of slavery that the African slaves experienced in the United States. My response, "dream on, dream on...." Surely there were some benevolent slave masters in the Roman world for whom this might have been true. However, you can bet that there were many others slave masters who were abusive. Sadly, Paul did not make an exception for abused slaves in his slavery statement. Hence, it would seem that if they read Paul's Letter to the Ephesians, they would have felt obligated to remain in their abusive master-slave relationship.

 

[lesliedellow]

Sola scriptura gives room for everyone to prove anything from the bible because the bible has no means of speaking on its own.

As a way of joining A to B, that seems reasonably tenuous.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

As a way of joining A to B, that seems reasonably tenuous.

The churches during that age were an arm of the government's colonialism initiative, many theologies came to be that were simply homage to the royalty back home.

 

[lesliedellow]

The churches during that age were an arm of the government's colonialism initiative, many theologies came to be that were simply homage to the royalty back home.

Indeed, and how exactly are the three solas "homage to the royalty back home?"

Do we forget what the Reformation was all about?

 

[Gregory Thompson]

Indeed, and how exactly are the three solas "homage to the royalty back home?"

As is common for me, I'll post the solas and see what comes to me, maybe I'll agree with you
.
By Scripture alone. - Remember that king who wanted to get re-married and re-married but the Pope wouldn't do it? One king had a bible created so that he could make his own decisions instead of the church making decisions for him.
.
By Faith alone - Like with "grace alone" it removes the need for a sacrament of marriage from the catholic church. Faith and grace alone was part of the departure of the state from being influenced by religion with principles. This departure is what lead to concepts such as the "protestant work ethic" and other capitalist ideas. This is why many churches are right wing in inclination.
.
The reformation was all about state freedom from the Roman Catholic Church, it had nothing to do with religious freedom at all. Without armies to back up the "theology" it wouldn't have happened.

 

[Colter]

So what do you follow then? Torah? THe gospel of (fill in blank)? What exactly do you follow?

I follow the spirit of truth. The Jews who rejected Jesus followed the Torah to the letter, they still do. That's what Bibliolatry does to the mind and the heart, it redirects faith in God to faith in the writings and opinions of holy men. The fetish word of authority is a fear-inspiring doctrine, the worst of all tyrants which enslave men. A doctrinal fetish will lead man to betray himself into the clutches of bigotry, fanaticism, superstition, intolerance, and the most atrocious of barbarous cruelties.

 

[Colter]

lol. And how many churches were setup in Jesus time? You think the church was built by no one?

Paul of course is a messenger of Jesus. Paul says the same about himself.

So what's your point Colter?

After Jesus died, your Jesus lost control of the world?

After Jesus returned to his place on high, religious evolution continued, subject to the limitations of man. Had we remained true to the kingdom, believers wouldn't be sect divided as they are today.

The Kingdom of Heaven as Jesus established it failed, it was replaced by a socialized, religious institution; the Christian Church. Had his followers stuck to his original ideals, they would have remained true to the original, Liberating Gospel.

Eventually the original Gospel of The Kingdom of Heaven will be preached to all the world.

 

[lesliedellow]

By Scripture alone. - Remember that king who wanted to get re-married and re-married but the Pope wouldn't do it? One king had a bible created so that he could make his own decisions instead of the church making decisions for him.

In the first place, the Reformation began in Germany, not England, and it was already well under way by the time Henry VIII decided thet he wanted a new wife.

In the second place, even after dispossing of the services of the Pope, Henry remained theologically a catholic, with a small 'c'. He sent more than a few Protestants to the stake, even after his spat with the Pope. The Church of England became Protestant under Edward VI, Catholic again Mary I, and finally a compromise between the two under Elizabeth I.

In the third place, it was James I at the beginning of the seventeenth century, not Henry in the sixteenth, which commisioned a translation of the Bible.
.

By Faith alone - Like with "grace alone" it removes the need for a sacrament of marriage from the catholic church

Again, you are confusing the theology of Luther with the machinations of Henry VIII.

This departure is what lead to concepts such as the "protestant work ethic" and other capitalist ideas. This is why many churches are right wing in inclination.

How exactly?

.

The reformation was all about state freedom from the Roman Catholic Church, it had nothing to do with religious freedom at all. Without armies to back up the "theology" it wouldn't have happened.

The Reformation was actively opposed by the state. In Germany from the outset, and in England under both Henry VIII and Mary I.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I will not address the thesis of Paul being a heretic. However, Paul made a few statements that are very problematical and that is being most generous in my description, especially #1 below.

(1) "Slaves be obedient to your masters." (Ephesians 6:5) Sugar coat it any way you want, this statement is an endorsement of the institution of slavery.

So...in Roman times, what would a Christian slave's "disobedience" have accomplished, either on a personal level for that slave or for the cause of the Christian faith?

(2) "Women cover your heads lest you shame yourselves". ( 1 Corinthians 11) While this is probably no big deal, I doubt that very few Christian women in 2016 abide by Paul's admonition.

Whether people are willing to do something or not doesn't really tell us if the command itself indeed reflects justice and is worthy of our consideration.

(3) "Wives submit yourselves to your husbands". (Ephesians 5) Sadly, this verse has no doubt been used, both directly and indirectly, to keep some women in abusive relationships.

Of course...all kinds of statements, whether in the Bible or in any other writings, can be wrenched from the contexts in which they are placed and misused.

(4) "As in all the congregations of the saints, women should remain silent in the churches" (1 Corinthians 14: 34-35) Once again, I doubt very many women in 2016 abide by Paul's admonition.

Right. Some women just have big mouths and think they need to be heard, no matter what--just like some men.

While many Christians would disagree with some or all of the above statements, #1 is far and away the most troubling. I recall hearing a minister on the radio or television years ago try and reconcile Paul's slavery statement by claiming that slavery was an occupation back then and not the kind of slavery that the African slaves experienced in the United States. My response, "dream on, dream on...." Surely there were some benevolent slave masters in the Roman world for whom this might have been true. However, you can bet that there were many others slave masters who were abusive. Sadly, Paul did not make an exception for abused slaves in his slavery statement. Hence, it would seem that if they read Paul's Letter to the Ephesians, they would have felt obligated to remain in their abusive master-slave relationship.

Actually, Paul does make a statement that, if is it possible, one should not sell one's self into slavery to fellow men:

1 Corinthians 7:
22 For the one who was a slave when called to faith in the Lord is the Lord’s freed person; similarly, the one who was free when called is Christ’s slave. 23 You were bought at a price; do not become slaves of human beings. 24 Brothers and sisters, each person, as responsible to God, should remain in the situation they were in when God called them.​

If we are going to be fair to Paul, we need to take this earlier comment of his into consideration, along with its spiritual implications about the full nature of slavery, when thinking about the later statement he made to the Ephesians.

2PhiloVoid

 

[Colter]

I will not address the thesis of Paul being a heretic. However, Paul made a few statements that are very problematical and that is being most generous in my description, especially #1 below.

(1) "Slaves be obedient to your masters." (Ephesians 6:5) Sugar coat it any way you want, this statement is an endorsement of the institution of slavery.

(2) "Women cover your heads lest you shame yourselves". ( 1 Corinthians 11) While this is probably no big deal, I doubt that very few Christian women in 2016 abide by Paul's admonition.

(3) "Wives submit yourselves to your husbands". (Ephesians 5) Sadly, this verse has no doubt been used, both directly and indirectly, to keep some women in abusive relationships.

(4) "As in all the congregations of the saints, women should remain silent in the churches" (1 Corinthians 14: 34-35) Once again, I doubt very many women in 2016 abide by Paul's admonition.

While many Christians would disagree with some or all of the above statements, #1 is far and away the most troubling. I recall hearing a minister on the radio or television years ago try and reconcile Paul's slavery statement by claiming that slavery was an occupation back then and not the kind of slavery that the African slaves experienced in the United States. My response, "dream on, dream on...." Surely there were some benevolent slave masters in the Roman world for whom this might have been true. However, you can bet that there were many others slave masters who were abusive. Sadly, Paul did not make an exception for abused slaves in his slavery statement. Hence, it would seem that if they read Paul's Letter to the Ephesians, they would have felt obligated to remain in their abusive master-slave relationship.

Relative to the age those opinions of Paul weren't a big deal. But that's the problem, Paul's disciples in subsequent ages converted his opinions into THE WORD OF GOD! What was acceptable practice in one age is offensive to another. The problem is the religious teachers who claim that the writings of other religious teachers were the writings of God. While it may be good for historic preservation, it turns off would be believers for this age, so the Liberal message of Christ is obscured.

Jesus had faith in man having faith in him and his father.

 

[SkyWriting]

How we read and understand the Bible - i.e literally, or in context with exegesis - is a slightly different topic. The subject under discussion in this other thread was, can Paul be trusted or did he preach a different Gospel? Thoughts?

He made mistakes. He was a "Whole Bible" student and teacher rather than a "New Testament" teacher. He was more legalistic and didn't relax his old testament teachings as he should have. It's not that he brought in a different religion, but I agree he was not a pure teacher of Jesus theology of love and equality. Bath water & babies and all that soap, save it all. It's all useful somebody once wrote.

 

[timewerx]

He made mistakes. He was a "Whole Bible" student and teacher rather than a "New Testament" teacher. He was more legalistic and didn't relax his old testament teachings as he should have. It's not that he brought in a different religion, but I agree he was not a pure teacher of Jesus theology of love and equality. Bath water & babies and all that soap, save it all. It's all useful somebody once wrote.

It only proves the Bible Canon wasn't inspired (there was no prophecy about a physical bible in the first place!).

The scriptures that Jesus was referring to isn't the same as the Bible. Sadly, even some of those scriptures that was referred to in the Bible did not make it to canon. The most famous example being the Book of Enoch. Not surprising it wasn't included as it condemns people who are rich and powerful and exalts the poor. It goes against the fabric of society for all time.

 

[objectivechristianity]

I know this topic has been discussed before, but this discussion started on another thread, and rather than derail that one any further, I said I'd start a new thread. So here it is.

This comment was made in that thread.


The comments were then made that if Paul was a heretic, then the Bible contains heresy/untruths because the Holy Spirit allowed Paul's letters to be included in the New Testament. Which prompted this reply.



I have previously heard the view that Paul was a heretic who preached a different Gospel - there was a clip on Youtube a few years ago. There also seem to be people around who think that Christians should follow only the words of Jesus; that they are all that is needed for Christian living. I disagree, and the question is "if that were the case, how could we trust anything in the Bible?" For me, we either accept the Bible as the, written, word of God, or we reject it. If we dismiss half the NT as the work of a heretic/fraud then that means the Holy Spirit made a mistake in allowing those documents to be included, and the Bible is misleading, rather than proclaiming the truth about God.

How we read and understand the Bible - i.e literally, or in context with exegesis - is a slightly different topic. The subject under discussion in this other thread was, can Paul be trusted or did he preach a different Gospel?

Thoughts?

SHALOM!

I find it terrible that you have to "hear it said," and have to consult others to know what is what.

What is it exactly, that you cannot perceive, and what things do you not understand?

What do you think "THE BIBLE" is?

It is a Book compiled by men.

To arrive at "The Bible," Faithful Disciples who had more or less the whole Truth were murdered, so that the survivors might say: "THIS is THE Word of God!" We have only a minute fraction of The Word of God.

The authors of the authentic Scriptures heard The Word of God directly from God.

WHO taught you that YOUR LIFE would have to be DIFFERENT, and you would have to blunder about in Darkness, needing people to lead you by the hand, and coax you by voice: "This way! No- THAT way!"?

You have been TAUGHT to be confused.

To further the interests of your teachers.

YAHSHUA IS THE LORD, OUR MASTER, AND OUR SAVIOUR.

HIS WORDS ARE OUR FOUNDATION.

Whosoever hears his sayings and does them is like a man who built his house, and laid the foundation on a rock.

That means that such a person can withstand ANYTHING raining on them, flooding them, or blowing on them.

Anyone who hears Yahshua's Sayings, but does not do THEM- because somebody told them something different- THEY are like someone who built their house upon the sand. When rained upon, flooded, and blown upon, THEY CAVE IN.

Why are you pretending that you never heard that warning before?

. JOHN 8:30-32.

30. As he spake these Words,
many believed on him.
31. Then said Jesus to those Jews
which believed on him,
"If ye continue in my Word,
(then) are ye my Disciples indeed;
32. "And ye shall know The Truth,
and The Truth shall make you free."

YOU ARE NOT FREE, AND YOU ARE A PRISONER OF DOUBT AND BLINDNESS BECAUSE YOU DID NOT CONTINUE IN YAHSHUA'S WORD. You continued in someone else's word- even Paul's.

Why have you done that?

ORAL ROBERTS once prayed to know: "How can I know Jesus?"

He was answered: "READ MATTHEW, MARK, LUKE, JOHN, and The Book of ACTS-
THREE TIMES IN THIRTY DAYS!"




He did it on his knees.

At the end of the thirty days, he testified that he now
knew Jesus "better than he knew any man on the Face of The Earth!"


. -Kenneth Copeland.

"MOST CHRISTIANS FEED THEIR BODIES THREE HOT MEALS PER DAY,
AND THEIR SOUL- ONE COLD SNACK PER WEEK-
THEN WONDER WHY THEY HAVE NO FAITH FOR HEALING!"

. -F.F. Bosworth.

The first Christian book I remember reading, after I was Saved was THE NEXT STEP FOR GROWING CHRISTIANS, by Jack T. Chick. In it, he directed new converts to follow his Bible Reading Plan, which consisted of dividing The Bible into Ten Sections, and reading ONE CHAPTER from each section every day.

I followed this plan- and, looking back, I now say that IT WAS A STUPID PLAN!

TEN CHAPTERS IS NOWHERE NEAR ENOUGH!

Somehow, I SURVIVED, on that STUPID and SKIMPY diet!

So- when I heard Kenneth Copeland's Testimony of Oral Roberts, I knew that THAT was the way forwards.

I did my best to OVERLOAD MY SOUL with THE WORD OF GOD.

As such, I entered suddenly into a whole new level I never suspected existed...

When I heard any teaching, I automatically sensed the Scriptures that addressed what was being said- corroborating or refuting it.


. LUKE 16:1-15.

AND he said also unto his Disciples,

"There was a certain rich man,

which had a steward;

and the same was accused unto him

that he had wasted his goods."

2. "And he called him, and said unto him,

'HOW IS IT THAT I HEAR THIS OF THEE?
GIVE AN ACCOUNT OF THY STEWARDSHIP;
FOR THOU MAYEST BE NO LONGER STEWARD.'

3. "Then the steward said within himself,

'WHAT SHALL I DO?
FOR MY LORD TAKETH AWAY FROM ME THE STEWARDSHIP:
I CANNOT DIG; TO BEG I AM ASHAMED.
4. 'I AM RESOLVED WHAT TO DO,
THAT, WHEN I AM PUT OUT OF THE STEWARDSHIP,
THEY MAY RECEIVE ME INTO THEIR HOUSES.'

5. "So he called every one of his lord's debtors unto him,
and said unto the first,

'HOW MUCH OWEST THOU UNTO MY LORD?'

6. "And he said,

'AN HUNDRED MEASURES OF OIL.'

And he said unto him,

'TAKE THY BILL,
AND SIT DOWN QUICKLY,
AND WRITE FIFTY.'

7. "Then said he to another,

'AND HOW MUCH OWEST THOU?'

And he said,

'AN HUNDRED MEASURES OF WHEAT.'

And he said unto him,

'TAKE THY BILL, AND WRITE FOURSCORE.'

8. "And the lord commended the Unjust Steward,
because he had done wisely:
for the Children of This World are in their Generation
wiser than the Children of Light."
9. "And I say unto you,

'MAKE TO YOURSELVES FRIENDS
OF THE MAMMON OF UNRIGHTEOUSNESS;
THAT, WHEN YE FAIL,
THEY MAY RECEIVE YOU
INTO EVERLASTING HABITATIONS.'

10. "He that is faithful in that which is least is faithful also in much:
and he that is unjust in the least is unjust also in much.
11. "If therefore ye have not been faithful
in the Unrighteous Mammon,
who will commit to your trust the True Riches?
12. "And if ye have not been faithful
in that which is another man's,
who shall give you that which is your own?
13. "No servant can serve two masters:
for either he will hate the one,
and love the other;
or else he will hold to the one,
and despise the other.
Ye cannot serve God and mammon.
14. "And the Pharisees also, who were covetous,
heard all these things: and they derided him."
15. And he said unto them,
"Ye are they which justify yourselves before men;
but God knoweth your hearts:
for that which is highly esteemed among men
is Abomination in the Sight of God."

YOU KNOW THAT THE FALSE STEWARD DEVALUES THE DEBT OF DUTY TO THE LORD, TO GAIN ACCEPTANCE AND SUPPORT. You don't need Yahshua to finish the Parable, to know how this course of action ends!

PAUL KILLED OFF EVERYONE WHO WOULD HAVE BEEN WILLING TO CONTRADICT HIM, THEN GUTTED THE GENTILE CHURCH WITH HIS LIES. For which he was handsomely and willingly paid. (Nobody talks about this!)

Integral to his teaching is the idea that a Christian can serve MULTIPLE MASTERS:

GOD AND SATAN.
THE LAW OF GOD AND THE FLESH.
"JESUS" AND HIMSELF.

Who taught you to worship a BOOK?

Who taught you that every swallowable thing made by God is edible?


. MATTHEW 13:47-48

47. "Again, The Kingdom of Heaven is like unto a net,
that was cast into the Sea, and gathered of every kind:
48. "Which, when it was full, they drew to shore,
and sat down, and gathered the Good into vessels,
but cast the Bad away."

THEREFORE, JUST BECAUSE THE DISCIPLES TRIED TO BURY MOST OF THE LORD'S UTTERANCES IN THE EARTH WITH THEM- THAT MAKES PAUL A NEW MASTER FOR US?

Paul is nothing but the SOWER OF TARES, who deliberately brought The Ten Emperor Persecution upon The Church.

 

[lesliedellow]

It's not that he brought in a different religion, but I agree he was not a pure teacher of Jesus theology of love and equality.

I just love it when people try to reduce the entire Gospel to the Sermon on the Mount:

"For even the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many."