James contradicts Paul's concept of 'faith alone'. Peter warned of how one easily can come up with convenient theories from Paul's double-speak leading to destruction.
Upvote
0
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.
Peter and James both verified Paul's authority.
For example?
James contradicts Paul's concept of 'faith alone'. Peter warned of how one easily can come up with convenient theories from Paul's double-speak leading to destruction.
I don't think so.
Nothing I say will make a difference to you.There cannot be more than twelve apostles, Paul self-claimed additional apostleship without being part of Jesus' ministry and His call of 12 out of many disciples.
There cannot be more than twelve apostles, Paul self-claimed additional apostleship without being part of Jesus' ministry and His call of 12 out of many disciples.
Lord Jesus selected 12 apostles. One died. That was it. Eleven left when Jesus was crucified. Other apostles elected one to replace it afterward.
Why shouldn't Paul be counted as another apostles? The number twelve is set by the number of tribes of Israelites. And this number does not have to match the number of apostles. What would be wrong if there were 15 apostles?
And, what does this have to do with what Paul said in his teaching?
That is questioning the wisdom of Jesus of choosing the twelve!
Lord Jesus also chose Judah. That made only 11 apostles after His death.
Twelve tribes and twelve apostles are NOT related.
That is why the first thing Peter did after resurrection of the Lord was to complete the number 12 in apostleship and to continue with the ministry of Jesus by adding Mathias.
No, that is what you think. Jesus did not do anything offhandedly; everything was done with a purpose with the direction of His Father:
Matthew 19
28 And Jesus said to them, "Truly I say to you, that you who have followed Me, in the regeneration when the Son of Man will sit on His glorious throne, you also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.
Assume what you said is right, then why not Paul, but Mathias?
Christians had the Apostles and ministers that taught the Apostles doctrine right up till around 62 AD, by 70 AD the Apostles were gone and the Canon was complete. They probable knew the Scriptures far better then the millions who own Bibles that gather dust on end tables for years at a time. If we were sheep and church were the troph they would be sick, skinny and weak.Sola Scriptura is overrated, the first christians didn't need it so neither do we.
Well now, never heard that one before.
Faith without 'works is dead'. That would be James.
Now how about Paul:
1 Corinthians 13:
13 And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity.
Now how do you suppose your idea that Paul taught 'faith alone' when he plainly states that 'charity', (works), are more important than 'faith'?
It would seem that you are quite confused about the entire 'foundation' of what it means to 'follow Christ'. I believe that Paul's offerings are more important than the 'gospels' themselves. For without explanation of many things pertaining to Christ, it would be quite difficult to come to proper understanding.
Over and over I have witnessed those that seem to insist upon discrediting Paul. Yet without Paul, our understanding would certainly be 'limited'.
Women can't stand him for what he offered pertaining to the 'woman's place' in the 'church'. Gays can't stand what he offered in Romans pertaining to homosexuality. And then there are those that just don't like the ideas that Paul offered concerning numerous other subjects.
I don't get it. Are opinions to be of more value than the Bible? Is God so impotent that He has been unable to preserve His word? Or is God so week that He has been unable to offer the inspiration to Paul?
How does one that doesn't accept Paul's writings deal with the 'fact' that he was accepted by the 'other twelve apostles'? Accepted by Peter?
No, I believe that all who have been inspired by Paul's words would disagree with any semblance of the 'idea' he was 'not' divinely inspired. I have found absolutely nothing Paul offered that is in conflict with 'anything' offered by Christ or the other apostles. But I often 'do' find conflict in the offerings of those that insist that Paul was 'not' divinely inspired.
Blessings,
Please read Acts chapter 1
Acts 1:21 "Therefore it is necessary that of the men who have accompanied us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us--
22 beginning with the baptism of John until the day that He was taken up from us--one of these must become a witness with us of His resurrection."
23 So they put forward two men, Joseph called Barsabbas (who was also called Justus), and Matthias.
So Paul cannot qualify himself on his own as an apostle. Even James, writer of Hebrews and Jude did not venture to claim such a title.
That was the opinion of the apostles (what else could they do?). It did not come from the Lord.
Paul has his unique qualification which Matthias does not have.
The qualification is arguable after all.
And let's see the fruit. Paul gave some new insights to Christianity. What did Matthias teach? Are you going to trash all Paul's letters from the NT and replace them by what Matthias said?
Whether it is Paul, Peter or John, it is the words of Jesus that matter. Because the Holy Spirit will remind us of Jesus' words. So anything against them is deviation. Scholarly work may be spiritually shallow.
OK. So the problem of Paul is settled.
Now. What is wrong with Sola Scriptura?
OK. So the problem of Paul is settled.
Now. What is wrong with Sola Scriptura?
That's irrelevant to the principle of Sola Scriptura. Of course we have to deal with real Scripture, with the Bible itself--just as the advocates of "Tradition" would say that, in order to be properly guided by that method, you have to follow actual Christian traditions and not some secular folklore. But which language and which translation in particular is not part of Sola Scriptura.Which version of the Bible and in which language you consider for basing your concept of Sola Scriptura?
That's irrelevant to the principle of Sola Scriptura. Of course we have to deal with real Scripture, with the Bible itself--just as the advocates of "Tradition" would say that, in order to be properly guided by that method, you have to follow actual Christian traditions and not some secular folklore. But which language and which translation in particular is not part of Sola Scriptura.
Of course that's true. So get a good one instead of an incorrect one.But, you see, different versions and translations may lead to different understandings deviated from the truth
Of course that's true. So get a good one instead of an incorrect one.
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?