[REPORT FREE THREAD] staff/member(MJ members) discussion "Discrediting Paul"

[Desert Rose]

By "it's a commentary" I didnt mean "it's not in the Scripture".Those two things are not the same.
Because its obviously is ,literally, a part of it.

Lets say I am asking you to scan a recipe for me from an English cookbook, to make me a copy, and, being a somewhat experienced cook, I say, well, brother, just the list of ingredients,plz, you can omit the second page commentary (i know how to mix/bake it myself). Does that mean its not a part of a recipe or part of a cookbook? No. Its just less important, good, but not vital.

Commentary was a ephemism for "not as important", it's less significant. You can, technically, get saved and live a live of a great christian value and fruit without ever knowing who Paul was, as in examples I brought up.Not that I say we should, ..but i repeat myself

 

[Heber]

Not a good analogy for me to grasp - I don't cook, so the instructions would be more use to me, from which I can then deduce the ingredients.

This, using your timely analogy, shows the importance of Paul's writings.

We are saved by Messiah, of that there is no doubt, and I haven't said otherwise.

 

[Desert Rose]

Not a good analogy for me to grasp - I don't cook, so the instructions would be more use to me, from which I can then deduce the ingredients.

This, using your timely analogy, shows the importance of Paul's writings.

We are saved by Messiah, of that there is no doubt, and I haven't said otherwise.

Yes, that is what we all agree on Amen.

Nope, you cant deduce the ingredients out of instructions, not for any practical purpose, for they dont give you the amounts, just, at best, mention ing. by name, or even "mix all the dry ing. in a ball. Add wet ones"

Interesting to contemplate though.. Can one get all the essence of christianity just by reading Paul's writings? Sounds like a nice bible school quiz question. Maybe one can....As we say literally translated in hebrew "on the edge of the fork", meaning " just to get a taste"

 

[Tishri1]

At what point is "Paul quotes" considered to be not allowed? Let's face it, Paul stated things has given many the view he is anti-torah. I am thinking of...

2 Corinthians 3:7
But if the ministration of death, written and engraven in stones, was glorious, so that the children of Israel could not stedfastly behold the face of Moses for the glory of his countenance; which glory was to be done away:

Are we going to make sure this quote is never used in our part of the forum?

Paul isnt restricted as a topic only the campaign againat him is

What I am saying is the use of Paul's quotes in our forum.... for the purpose of stirring up anti-torah rhetoric... are their pure Paul posts going to be deleted?

no

Thank you, Tishri I appreciate your response! Respectfully though, I do think that the issue of the various canons do apply to this issue regarding Paul. The reason being: some canons include or exclude other books (e.g. Book of Enoch, Hebrews, James, Jude, Revelation, etc.) whereas my canon excludes Paul.

Some here would say that those who do not accept "all" of Scripture or the Bible are to be excluded from fellowship, which is why I brought that up. Which canon is to be the official, accepted canon of the Messianic forum, and why? Or, to be more precise, why is one canon more valid than the others (e.g. my non-Pauline canon)?

no one is excommunicated or excluded here only some topics are that's all, anti Paul topics being one right now

 

[Tishri1]

Originally Posted by Desert Rose

Heber, thank you dearly for explanation, I was a bit lost.
May all our moderators,especially sweet queen of tolerance Tishri be blessed richly and have bottomless pit of patience at their disposal !





But right here I respectfully disagree with you. As Visie already gently hinted The idea only sounds good in principle.

If you dont know how to totally destroy a person, soaking their name in.. what Mrs Truman had said took her 38 years to make her Harry call "fertilizer", without formally attacking a person.... approach a group of chatting, gossipy ladies in the congragation lobby after the sermon and mention to them how much you appreciate another lady , (one not currenly standing with them in the lobby) for her work and godliness, and what a great, examplary mother she is!

Watch them murder her good name in a sneakiest way, without using any forbidden attack methods in about 4 minutes flat.
​

this can be said for CF in general but for the congregational areas we have it sort of pulled in line by using the congregational rule as a universal way to keep all the different forums in here basically safe havens to their RL main stream counter parts at least for the most part....but we will never get it perfect for the same reasons you have stated here

Originally Posted by visionary

From the vote... the only change is "no anti-Torah" which would included abusing Paul's letters and the verses contained within that have been misconstruded..... So let's say the winner is "no anti-torah" in MJ area.. and that will include the controversal passages of Paul.
​

actually I see support for both anti paul and anti torah

 

[anisavta]

Since this thread has been going on for 43 pages and we're starting to repeat ourselves repeat ourselves. Is it time to wrap it up Tish, and move ahead?

 

[Heber]

Yes, that is what we all agree on Amen.

Nope, you cant deduce the ingredients out of instructions, not for any practical purpose, for they dont give you the amounts, just, at best, mention ing. by name, or even "mix all the dry ing. in a ball. Add wet ones"

Interesting to contemplate though.. Can one get all the essence of christianity just by reading Paul's writings? Sounds like a nice bible school quiz question. Maybe one can....As we say literally translated in hebrew "on the edge of the fork", meaning " just to get a taste"

I think that if someone read a book that comprised only Paul's writings they may well get to a point that they want to give their life to Yeshua... and find out more about Him. But their salvation would come by the Spirit at work as they read Paul's words, just as people have given themselves to Yeshua without having seen a Bible - someone has told them about Yeshua. We wouldn't know what we now know about the gifts of the Holy Spirit had it not been for Paul's writings. Luke is very limited in his writings on this subject. To know, Yeshua, (ie to experience him fully), to be a 'rounded' believer in Yeshua, requires all the books of the Bible to be at your disposal.

BTW Now I know why I am not a good cook! But it also illustrates that Paul's writings do not contain everything we need to know, and nor are the things he talks about necessarily in the right order but it is as essential, as is the book, if you cannot cook.

 

[ananda]

You are permitted to ask any question - so put your thoughts into question format. I do not quite understand your last few posts.

I am not sure what question(s) you had regarding my posts, but I'm also glad to answer any questions you had about them.

 

[ananda]

(Seriously, I appreciate and understand your position on the scriptures. I could never agree, but I know where you are coming from..thanks for the clarification, friend)

Thank you CM - I share the same sentiments about your convictions as well. I used to be there myself!

 

[visionary]

Originally Posted by Heber

Vis - You cannot remove Paul from Christianity and still call it Christianity, as I have explained to you quite adequately
​

but what about before the written Latter Testament came into being?
And all the people thru history, under RCC authority, in small villages etc. thatcouldnt read for themselves and had some subliteral semi-clergy for "pastors" that never taught them anything about Paul, etc? You know history better then I do.
I am with Vis, Paul is commentary, Even of course,us,modern smartypants, have no excuse not the consider him.

PS Heber, and you know how immensely I respect and value the fact that you and ContraMundum, being pastors, are here. Usually people of your caliber of theological knowledge dont hang out on online forums.



Paul is here relegated to mere commentary. Commentary is not equal to Scripture. Apart from the post above Vis NEVER refuted my comments that Paul is an integral part of Scripture, to the extent that if there is no Paul then there is no Christianity because he was called by G_d to be one of his people to spread the word.

I note Vis' slight, but very significant, change in what she has said: that Paul's word is IN Scripture - not a distinction she has made before, either in argument or in correction. Of course the Bible is Scripture and Paul's words are IN it - it's called the Bible - G_d's full and complete revelation of himself to us! I said that Paul's words ARE to be seen as Scripture and NOT mere commentary. In other words the whole Bible is Scripture with the words of many writers who are bit-players in the great scheme of things, but they are still Scripture - G_d's word to us. To remove one is to cast doubt on the validity of all the writers, hence my comments that to prove otherwise needs a decent systematic etc etc etc etc.

Chronicles and Kings are also in scripture... a running commentary of what was happening... during the reign of kings.

 

[Heber]

I am not sure what question(s) you had regarding my posts, but I'm also glad to answer any questions you had about them.

You mis-understand what is written. You said something along the lines that you could not really say what you wanted on this fora. To this my response was that you can ask any question you wish to. Therefore, put the things you want to say into question form - job done.

Your last three comments in relation to my posts I did not understand, as I said.

 

[ananda]

You mis-understand what is written. You said something along the lines that you could not really say what you wanted on this fora. To this my response was that you can ask any question you wish to. Therefore, put the things you want to say into question form - job done.

You misunderstood me ... I was simply stating that if you had any questions about my posts which you did not understand, I would be glad to answer questions about them.

 

[Heber]

You misunderstood me ... I was simply stating that if you had any questions about my posts which you did not understand, I would be glad to answer questions about them.

As I couldn't understand them I cannot formulate a question, other than to say: pardon?

I was making the point, also, that you can say what you want (almost) on here as long as you make it into a question! Fire away and we can all see if we can answer them.

 

[Lulav]

I've read through this thread and haven't seen a logical reasoning why Paul is off limits regarding the law. If we can't hold him up to it then we put the 'church fathers' above G-d. Is that where we are at right now?

As far as the not speaking against leaders, I notices that the two minister/priests here are the ones voting for that addition to the rules. Why is that, are you infallible? or are you not just men? Who gave that ruling about not speaking against leaders?

Ex 22:28 does not speak of all that say they are leaders. Also if used in the way it has been in this thread it would revoke Deut 13.

We are explicitly told to inquire, search out, and ask diligently about any one that teaches against Torah.

And if Paul was not teaching against Torah then the whole of Christianity has been wrong for almost 2,000 years.

The argument of MJ is that Paul did not teach against Torah, but that alone goes against Mainstream Christian teachings.

You can't have it both ways.

PS, 'Hinney Binn' and others like him are fluent in the 'Do not speak against G-ds anointed' language. Anytime I heard anyone speaking that language, I don't listen to much else they say. If what they are preaching is truly from G-d it can stand on it's own merit without threats.

 

[Heber]

I've read through this thread and haven't seen a logical reasoning why Paul is off limits regarding the law. If we can't hold him up to it then we put the 'church fathers' above G-d. Is that where we are at right now?

As far as the not speaking against leaders, I notices that the two minister/priests here are the ones voting for that addition to the rules. Why is that, are you infallible? or are you not just men? Who gave that ruling about not speaking against leaders?

Ex 22:28 does not speak of all that say they are leaders. Also if used in the way it has been in this thread it would revoke Deut 13.

We are explicitly told to inquire, search out, and ask diligently about any one that teaches against Torah.

And if Paul was not teaching against Torah then the whole of Christianity has been wrong for almost 2,000 years.

The argument of MJ is that Paul did not teach against Torah, but that alone goes against Mainstream Christian teachings.

You can't have it both ways.

PS, 'Hinney Binn' and others like him are fluent in the 'Do not speak against G-ds anointed' language. Anytime I heard anyone speaking that language, I don't listen to much else they say. If what they are preaching is truly from G-d it can stand on it's own merit without threats.

This has been dealt with already, quite extensively, in the thread you have read! CM has not commented much on this thread, so we cannot comment on his views. Both he and I seem to agree that any leader, called by G_d and confirmed by a congregation, should be protected from personal abuse because of what they have been called to do, or say, by G_d.

Who on earth is Hinney Binn?

In fact, had you read the whole thread you would see that neither CM nor I was mentioned as needing protection. The conversation was more about protecting Jewish, Christian and Messianic leaders of congregations - those called by G_d where that call has been confirmed by a congregation - not those who set themselves up as 'leaders'. If you had read the whole thread you MUST have come across comments from me, from Tishri and from Mark et al, pointing out that it prohbits personal attacks but leaves the things leaders have said open to respectful debate - so, no, it is NOT about putting anyone above anyone else, or that anyone leader is more correct than another; in fact it actively encourages just the opposite!!! Plus, it has been a rule on here that you should not attack an individual, but only what he/she says; this rule is being abandoned when it comes to leaders, both from the Bible and right up to date. SO - don't break the rule that's already there and this new one would not be needed!!!

We even had the very odd suggestion that Islamic leaders might be protected by this rule suggestion This thread has sure thrown up some really oddball comments as it goes round in circles.

 

[visionary]

No, if you read the thread you will see that it is in order to stay within the Law.

I'm not sure why folk have this paranoia about Paul. The Law applies in respect of every G_d appointed leader - Biblical or not. But their writings can be debated for, or against. In any case, we should not, according to the forum rules, attack anyone, leader or not, so I fail to see the need for all this interrogation. I'm sure G_d knows why he made the Law - we just have to obey it.

and this is the start for the push that religious leaders are a cut above criticism.

 

[Heber]

and this is the start for the push that religious leaders are a cut above criticism.

Strangely, if we are talking about real leaders - servants of the people - that viewpoint is to be found most often in the eyes of those who aren't leaders (and who maybe want to be), and there's not much we can do about that!

A leader that puffs him/her self up and lords it over the people is not, in my opinion, a good leader. So why do you push for something that doesn't exist, at least outside of the minds of most people, or hint at a campaign on here against leaders. Maybe, like Jews, leaders are not wanted on here?

I do not understand Lulav's problem - as she has previously claimed, vehemently, in her own defence, to be or to have been the leader of a congregation, called, trained and served for many years. She clearly cannot distinguish, however, along with a lot of people on this thread, the difference between the person and the person's teaching. Her Biblical analyses and comparison between Leviticus and Deuteronomy is at fault - she is not comparing like with like. If some leaders are as bad as she claims then they are not, clearly, called by God so all the above on this thread doesn't apply to them! Where is the problem in everyone understanding plain simple English - we cannot attack congregation leaders as individuals but we may debate their output, as it measures up against the Bible. CF already has this rule - that you cannot attack an individual - are you all rejecting that rule - seems so to me.

'Fight for the right to trash anyone you choose' seems to be the mantra of the campaign to which you allude, which is illegal on CF.

Perhaps someone should start a thread on 'leaders' - but... on the other hand, given the incredible nonsense that is being posited as serious debate on this thread, no 'leader' would bother taking part!

 

[Heber]

I've read through this thread and haven't seen a logical reasoning why Paul is off limits regarding the law. If we can't hold him up to it then we put the 'church fathers' above G-d. Is that where we are at right now?

As far as the not speaking against leaders, I notices that the two minister/priests here are the ones voting for that addition to the rules. Why is that, are you infallible? or are you not just men? Who gave that ruling about not speaking against leaders?

Ex 22:28 does not speak of all that say they are leaders. Also if used in the way it has been in this thread it would revoke Deut 13.

We are explicitly told to inquire, search out, and ask diligently about any one that teaches against Torah.

And if Paul was not teaching against Torah then the whole of Christianity has been wrong for almost 2,000 years.

The argument of MJ is that Paul did not teach against Torah, but that alone goes against Mainstream Christian teachings.

You can't have it both ways.

PS, 'Hinney Binn' and others like him are fluent in the 'Do not speak against G-ds anointed' language. Anytime I heard anyone speaking that language, I don't listen to much else they say. If what they are preaching is truly from G-d it can stand on it's own merit without threats.

This is a known fact - that is why some of us Messianic folk are called to work in the Church. It enables us to show them the errors of the past 2000 years! If only Messianics would work in the same way in Judaism instead starting their own congregations! Why do you think CM and I spend our time teaching from a Messianic perspective? Because we are 'leaders' - the servants of the people - we are able to counter these errors, over time.

 

[Heber]

I've read through this thread and haven't seen a logical reasoning why Paul is off limits regarding the law. If we can't hold him up to it then we put the 'church fathers' above G-d. Is that where we are at right now?

As far as the not speaking against leaders, I notices that the two minister/priests here are the ones voting for that addition to the rules. Why is that, are you infallible? or are you not just men? Who gave that ruling about not speaking against leaders?

Ex 22:28 does not speak of all that say they are leaders. Also if used in the way it has been in this thread it would revoke Deut 13.

We are explicitly told to inquire, search out, and ask diligently about any one that teaches against Torah.

And if Paul was not teaching against Torah then the whole of Christianity has been wrong for almost 2,000 years.

The argument of MJ is that Paul did not teach against Torah, but that alone goes against Mainstream Christian teachings.

You can't have it both ways.

PS, 'Hinney Binn' and others like him are fluent in the 'Do not speak against G-ds anointed' language. Anytime I heard anyone speaking that language, I don't listen to much else they say. If what they are preaching is truly from G-d it can stand on it's own merit without threats.

1) Precisely, so the proposed rule allows us to debate the incorrect teachings, without trashing the individual person, who happens to lead a congregation (IT DOESN'T APPLY TO THOSE WHO ARE NOT CONGREGATIONAL LEADERS - THEY ARE COVERED BY A MORE GENERAL CF RULE THAT WE TRASH NO ONE), and we debate what the person has said to decide whether it will stand up with what the Bible says. All the rule proposes is that we do not trash the individual whilst being free to say that his/her teaching is not in accord with Scripture. Where's the problem? It is what we should be doing anyway, as the rules state.

2) As already said - there are leaders and there are leaders. I have always encouraged the congregation in the churches I have served to challenge ANYTHING I have taught and, if they can show that what I have said is against anything in the Bible, then I am in error must stand corrected. Oh, and I have several lay preachers and another minister in my congregation so I err at my peril!

 

[ContraMundum]

I've read through this thread and haven't seen a logical reasoning why Paul is off limits regarding the law. If we can't hold him up to it then we put the 'church fathers' above G-d. Is that where we are at right now?

It's really not about Paul. It's about the canon of scripture, its inspiration and protecting that.

Most people read Paul and have no problem with him in the light of the rest of scripture. The few that don't like him bring prejudices of their own to the argument, and it's just not helpful to have any kind of religious discussion with someone when we can't even agree about what authority we come from.

As far as the not speaking against leaders, I notices that the two minister/priests here are the ones voting for that addition to the rules. Why is that, are you infallible? or are you not just men? Who gave that ruling about not speaking against leaders?

I have never been a protected species on this forum. In fact, I have a great big target on me that people constantly snipe at. My character is constantly dragged through the mud here (by the same character or two- never you, Lulav), and sometimes my beliefs are (which is refreshing when it happens) If I stand up for myself, I get slandered. If others do, nobody bats an eyelid. Does it bother me? No. I don't need protection.

However, there has to be limits. When posters have more rights here than leaders do, I think there is an unfair balance. My experience here over the years has led me to come to the conclusion that most of the posters here are teaching in one way or another. Why should an ordained teacher be open slather and another poster - who is teaching via posts- be protected?

I voted in favor of a scripture-based clause not for myself, but for leaders in scripture like Paul, as well as ancient church leaders and magisterial churchmen from all traditions- including the MJ movement.

This means we can debate content and doctrine rather than character assassinate people- which has got to end. I'm sick and tired of people second guessing the character of people they have never met and not discussing the content of their opinion or teaching. It's already against the rules, but few here follow it, so I say enshrine it!

And if Paul was not teaching against Torah then the whole of Christianity has been wrong for almost 2,000 years.

The argument of MJ is that Paul did not teach against Torah, but that alone goes against Mainstream Christian teachings.

You can't have it both ways.

I don't think that is a good understanding of the doctrine of Paul or the Church, but there is nothing more to add to it as there is no point, as I have said, we have different religions and Bibles. We don't have enough in common to share a sane discussion on the matter. It's like talking to a Muslim about Bible characters- they have a different story and they think what I believe in is based on falsehoods. They rely on a radical conspiracy theory to discredit my Bible. I don't talk to them, so I don't talk to Paul deniers either. It's a waste of time.

PS, 'Hinney Binn' and others like him are fluent in the 'Do not speak against G-ds anointed' language. Anytime I heard anyone speaking that language, I don't listen to much else they say. If what they are preaching is truly from G-d it can stand on it's own merit without threats.

People can say what you like about me within the rules. I don't care. Everyone is answerable to God for his or her words.

If I haven't mentioned this before- you have always had a civil tone, and I deeply appreciate it.