What was Paul's Theology?

[Ruthie24]

Hi Ruthie24,

As I was reading your post #117, I was nodding and thinking "Yes! She's got it!" Then I got to your last paragraph:

No no no! It's PAUL who attacks Yeshua and His church by planting a divisive seed. Yeshua consistently said "keep the commandments", but Paul basically said "don't keep the commandments because that's legalism". I can probably give you a dozen examples of something Yeshua said, and Paul contradicting Him.

Then in your later post #119:

That's exactly what I used to think, until I tried to prepare a cross-reference between the gospels and Paul's epistles (Matthew vs. Romans). I got through the first page of Romans with difficulty (because there were so few points of comparison with anything Yeshua said), and then half-way through the second page of Romans I was finding Paul contradicting himself. Say what???

So I flipped through the rest of his writings, and for the first time saw that for every significant doctrine, he presented two opposing points of view. It's impossible to pin him down!

So it's no surprise that Christianity is divided into 30,000+ different denominations. If it's due to anyone it's due to Paul, because his writings can be interpreted in so many ways. The spirit of division comes from him.

I'd always felt uneasy about his slander of the apostles, plus his atrocious treatment of Peter in Galatians. However his doublespeak was the last straw. So I looked at the four criteria for apostleship in Acts 1:21-22, and realised that he didn't meet any of them. The rumours were true - he really was a false apostle, and therefore a liar. And from there his whole house of cards came tumbling down.

By the way, I agree with your observation that he was influenced by the oral law. That's a very astute observation, which we may explore further. But first things first.

I never said that Paul was influenced by the oral law. you mistook my points when I said that the age of the information used in the Epistles came from an oral tradition. The prayers, creeds, and testaments of beliefs appeared to within 2 years of Jesus resurrection in the earliest church.

The Hebrews were an extremely oral culture in which great emphasis was placed on accurate memorization. At that time there wasn't a lot of written documents such as a papyrus and scrolls. So the education, learning, worship, and teaching was done through oral communication and memorization.

Jesus's disciples were extremely capable of committing much more to memory the information in the four Gospels.

So that is how the earliest prayers, creeds, and testaments of faith came about was through this oral tradition of memorization. In fact their memorization was so accurate if they ever said something wrong the community or other apostles were there to correct them.

Acts 1:21-22

There are no criteria for the apostleship. At that time after Judas left to "where he belongs" they needed an apostle that had been with them the whole time the Lord Jesus was with them to be a testament to his resurrection.

This is because they were forming the early church and they needed as many witnesses as possible to be a testament to the resurrection of Jesus Christ so that they can witness to the Jews and Gentiles. In this passage nowhere did they state these are the criteria for the apostles. In fact at this time they did not know Paul except through his persecuting of Christians.

If this was the criteria for apostleship they never would have accepted Paul as an apostle because there were going against their own criteria. Therefore it appears that you are inferring meaning and intention where there is none which appears to be intentional to suit your anti-Paulean agenda, a divisive attempt of the anti-Christ spirit.

Where in Romans chapter 1 does Paul contradict himself?

Paul states in Romans 1:16 "for I am not ashamed of the gospel because it is the power of God that brings salvation to everyone who believes, first to the Jew, and then to the Gentile.

In Romans 1:18 Paul said "the wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all godlessness and wickedness of people who suppress the truth by their wickedness."

He goes on to explain this in detail. Nowhere does he contradict himself.

Paul's treatment of Peter in Galatians:

I have read Galatians. Nowhere in that epistle does Paul mention any mistreatment of Peter. I think this is in a different epistle that I read. When I read this it talked about how Paul had rebuked Peter because he was not in line with Christ teachings on some level and Peter even admitted that he was deserving of rebuke because he was out of line.

 

[TorahMan]

There are no criteria for the apostleship.

I disagree. Yeshua chose twelve apostles, whose names are listed in Matthew 10:2-4. After the death of Judas, when the eleven assembled to find a replacement, they identified the following essential criteria (listed in Acts 1:21-22):

• to have witnessed Yeshua’s baptism;
• to have been present with them during His ministry;
• to have seen Him after His resurrection; and
• to have witnessed His ascension to heaven.

Only two people met all four criteria, of whom the Holy Spirit selected Matthias. This made up twelve apostles once again.

The names of these twelve apostles OF THE LAMB will be written on the twelve foundations of the New Jerusalem, and that when resurrected they will sit on twelve thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel (Matt 19:28; Rev 21:14).

A person is free to add a 13th apostle if they wish, but that puts them under the condemnation of Revelation 22:18. As I've already said (sorry for repeating), this says "whoever adds to the words of the prophecy of this book (Revelation), God will add to him the plagues that are written in this book". The plagues are 7 seal judgements, 7 trumpet judgements, and 7 bowl judgements. Please stop and think about this for a moment. It's no laughing matter!

I never said that Paul was influenced by the oral law.

From your name and post, I thought you were Jewish and knew about the oral law (i.e. Talmud). My apologies. For what it's worth, Paul's epistles are saturated with Talmudic thinking, which is the very thing which riled Yeshua up so often (the 'traditions of the elders'). But that's a whole other issue, and this thread is already all over the place.

You asked where Paul contradicts himself. It's right where I said: "the doers of the law will be justified" (Rom 2:13) vs. "the doers of the law will not be justified" (Rom 3:20). And that's just the start, for those with eyes to see.

I have read Galatians. Nowhere in that epistle does Paul mention any mistreatment of Peter.

That's because it was Paul who was doing the mistreating! And to wreck Peter's reputation as much as possible, he addressed the epistle to all the churches in Galatia (Gal 1:2).

• What gave Paul the right to ignore the law, which says "One witness shall not rise against a man concerning any iniquity or any sin that he is claimed to have committed; by the mouth of two or three witnesses the matter must be established"? (Deut 19:15) Where was the other witness? How is it that Yeshua's witness of himself was not sufficient (John 5:31), but Paul's somehow was?

• What gave Paul the right to disobey Yeshua's commandment to settle disagreements in private whenever possible, going public only as a last resort? (Matt 18:15-17)

• What gave the hypocrite Paul the right to condemn the apostle Peter, who lived an exemplary life compared to Paul? Didn't Yeshua say to first remove the plank from our own eye, before we remove the speck from a brother’s eye? (Matt 7:5) (And Peter really did lead an exemplary life, as is clear from Clement Homilies and Clement Recognitions).

• How could Paul violate even his own commandments, one of which is "Let the elders who rule well (such as Peter) be counted worthy of double honour" (1 Tim 5:17), and another which is "Do NOT receive an accusation against an elder except from two or three witnesses"? (1 Tim 5:19) Remember that Paul wrote both of these commandments.

Sorry but I can't see Paul's attack on Peter as anything but utterly malicious.

 

[TorahMan]

Was Luke a liar too? Acts 14:14
Was Peter hoodwinked? 2 Peter 3:15-16

A careful reading of Acts shows that Luke met Paul in Troas (Acts 16:8-9), because that's where the tense goes from third person (Paul, they) to first person (we). Luke was probably unsaved at that time, and may not even have heard about Yeshua.

Luke abruptly stopped writing about Paul in Acts 28:31. Based on the estimated dates of the various NT writings, this would have been approximately when the gospel of Matthew came out.

I suggest that Luke read Matthew's gospel, realised that Paul was a charlatan, and dumped him like a hot cake. He then went off to discover the facts for himself, and wrote his gospel. This is why it's filled with so much historical detail - he really went out of his way to verify things firsthand, unlike his earlier days when he took what Paul said at face value.

In his gospel, Luke certainly focused on the shortcomings of the Pharisees (of which Paul was one), especially their love of money.

After finishing his gospel, he interviewed Peter (amongst others), and wrote what is now the first part of Acts. From Clement Homilies and Recognitions we learn that Peter took his responsibilities extremely seriously, and would not have assisted Luke unless he was convinced that Luke had dropped Paul.

Then much later, the early church blended Luke's early and late writings together, in what they thought was the correct historical order of events. The result was the book of Acts.

As for 2 Peter, most of this epistle is actually trying to warn us about false apostles like Paul. Therefore, please try this easy experiment. Open your Bible to 2 Peter, and read straight from 3:13 to 3:17. In other words skip verses 3:14-16. What do you see? A beautiful continuity, which is destroyed if you re-insert 3:14-16. So do you still think that Peter wrote these three verses? I suggest they were inserted much later, to defuse the anti-Paul sentiment of Peter's epistle. If so, it was astoundingly successful.

 

[Phantasman]

I doubt any Christian would ask God to give them lies, but how come, many are deceived?

..

Because they see what men have laid out for them. Not God. They say it is God, but see it in spirit, not in what lies physically.

Even though Mark is a representation of Peter, whether the author or interpreter makes a mistake or not, the big picture is still maintained to those who seek knowledge, not to those who follow others who SAY they have knowledge. See the truth:

Mark

6 For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many.
7 And when ye shall hear of wars and rumours of wars, be ye not troubled: for such things must needs be; but the end shall not be yet.
8 For nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom: and there shall be earthquakes in divers places, and there shall be famines and troubles: these are the beginnings of sorrows.
9 But take heed to yourselves: for they shall deliver you up to councils; and in the synagogues ye shall be beaten: and ye shall be brought before rulers and kings for my sake, for a testimony against them.
10 And the gospel must first be published among all nations.


Three points.


Jesus never said they would come as "the" Christ, but as Christ. The Christ is the anointed one. He didn't say son of God, or messiah, but Christ. He was saying many will come saying that they represent him,, but to take heed.


The second is that those who are true will be brought before rulers and kings. Now the catholics were friends with those people, creating a religion by the hand of a ruler. The many that followed with "other" Gospels, wwere hunt down, and many killed by the Romans, as heresy against the state religion.


Thirdly, the gospel (knowledge, good news of Jesus Christ) was to be published among ALL nations. It would appear that when the Bible was created and transformed to Latin only (for 800 years), this was not the case.



Confusion arises from a church who does not know the difference between spiritual truth and physical desires. Think about it. "Mary, Mother of God".


A physical creature mother of a spiritual God? The physical Jesus man, yes. But he became son of God when he became Christ at the Chrism. And God let them know "spiritually" as it "appeared" as a dove in them. There was no dove. There was no rich man and Lazarus. There is no gold streets. There is no milk and honey.


Mary was still a virgin after Jesus. See the spirit, not mens ideas of it.

 

[TorahMan]

How are believers in Christ saved and sanctified? By strict adherence to the law or by faith in Jesus Christ?

According to James, it's both (Jas 2:26).

But why all the focus on 'being saved'? Of course that's the first step, but when discussing these things with Pauline believers, few seem to get beyond that point. It's always 'how little do I have to do to get saved?', and we end up with these dreary arguments about the law vs. faith.

Yeshua's gospel was very different, because His main emphasis was on meeting the needs of other people, and showing our love for God by obeying His commandments. His was a gospel of the Kingdom, because if everyone truly practised it, we really would be bringing the Kingdom of Heaven down to earth. And I see that as a far more important objective than getting saved, which is only the starting point. After that there's still a race to run, as even Paul recognised (Phil 3:12-14). And to do well, effort (i.e. works) is required.

Were John, the apostle's, disciples, Polycarp and Ignatius, and other early church fathers also hoodwinked? ... (from ANF01)

I also have ANF01, and have read much from it. What worries me is the amount of gnostic (i.e. fictional) material it contains, which is mostly (but not always) easy to discern. So far the only parts which I've found reliable are Clement Homilies and Clement Recognitions, plus the letter of Clement to James. There may be a few other books as well, but there's an awful lot to read and it's a hard and generally fruitless slog.

I'm surprised to hear about the endorsement of Paul in Clement's Epistle. Which Clement was this (there were two)? The only one I recognise as reliable is Peter's understudy. As I recall, the other Clement (who came later) was quite unreliable.

 

[TorahMan]

(deleted)

 

[Phantasman]

I also have ANF01, and have read much from it. What worries me is the amount of gnostic (i.e. fictional) material it contains, which is mostly (but not always) easy to discern. So far the only parts which I've found reliable are Clement Homilies and Clement Recognitions, plus the letter of Clement to James. There may be a few other books as well, but there's an awful lot to read and it's a hard and generally fruitless slog.

lol..........if it's fictional, why does it worry you?

 

[IchoozJC]

Not sure if you have discussed this view, but when I read the gospels I understand that all to still be Old Covenant living. Jesus said He came to fulfill the law, so is it any wonder that he speaks the way He does?

I also believe that's why he said this:

12 I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now.

13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.

14 He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you.

Because His disciples were still under old covenant mindset, and had not received the new nature that would allow them to walk in the liberty that was to be theirs after the Holy Spirit fell. So even though Christ had began teaching them, at times, of the new way that would come after he was gone, they could not get it through their thick, unregenerate skulls.

 

[Der Alte]

lol..........if it's fictional, why does it worry you?

As if those long buried manuscripts you quote from were not fictional.

 

[Phantasman]

As if those long buried manuscripts you quote from were not fictional.

That's why many, many would have rather died (and did) at the hands of the Romans than to give them up. People believing like you killing them because they didn't believe as you. Christ ordered it.

They tried to silence them. Guess the stones cried out.

 

[Phantasman]

I also believe that's why he said this:

Might as well get rid of verse 12. Most can't bear the truth that followed. So it was eliminated.

 

[Ruthie24]

I disagree. Yeshua chose twelve apostles, whose names are listed in Matthew 10:2-4. After the death of Judas, when the eleven assembled to find a replacement, they identified the following essential criteria (listed in Acts 1:21-22):


[*]to have witnessed Yeshua's baptism;
[*]to have been present with them during His ministry;
[*]to have seen Him after His resurrection; and
[*]to have witnessed His ascension to heaven.

Only two people met all four criteria, of whom the Holy Spirit selected Matthias. This made up twelve apostles once again.

The names of these twelve apostles OF THE LAMB will be written on the twelve foundations of the New Jerusalem, and that when resurrected they will sit on twelve thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel (Matt 19:28; Rev 21:14).

A person is free to add a 13th apostle if they wish, but that puts them under the condemnation of Revelation 22:18. As I've already said (sorry for repeating), this says "whoever adds to the words of the prophecy of this book (Revelation), God will add to him the plagues that are written in this book". The plagues are 7 seal judgements, 7 trumpet judgements, and 7 bowl judgements. Please stop and think about this for a moment. It's no laughing matter!

From your name and post, I thought you were Jewish and knew about the oral law (i.e. Talmud). My apologies. For what it's worth, Paul's epistles are saturated with Talmudic thinking, which is the very thing which riled Yeshua up so often (the 'traditions of the elders'). But that's a whole other issue, and this thread is already all over the place.

You asked where Paul contradicts himself. It's right where I said: "the doers of the law will be justified" (Rom 2:13) vs. "the doers of the law will not be justified" (Rom 3:20). And that's just the start, for those with eyes to see.

That's because it was Paul who was doing the mistreating! And to wreck Peter's reputation as much as possible, he addressed the epistle to all the churches in Galatia (Gal 1:2).


[*]What gave Paul the right to ignore the law, which says "One witness shall not rise against a man concerning any iniquity or any sin that he is claimed to have committed; by the mouth of two or three witnesses the matter must be established"? (Deut 19:15) Where was the other witness? How is it that Yeshua's witness of himself was not sufficient (John 5:31), but Paul's somehow was?


[*]What gave Paul the right to disobey Yeshua's commandment to settle disagreements in private wherever possible, going public only as a last resort? (Matt 18:15-17)


[*]What gave the hypocrite Paul the right to condemn the apostle Peter, who lived an exemplary life compared to Paul? Didn't Yeshua say to first remove the plank from our own eye, before we remove the speck from a brother's eye? (Matt 7:5) (And Peter really did lead an exemplary life, as is clear from Clement Homilies and Clement Recognitions).


[*]How could Paul violate even his own commandments, one of which is "Let the elders who rule well (such as Peter) be counted worthy of double honour" (1 Tim 5:17), and another which is "Do NOT receive an accusation against an elder except from two or three witnesses"? (1 Tim 5:19)


Sorry but I can't see Paul's attack on Peter as anything but malicious.

Once again you are taking these verses out of context with their historical implications. The apostle Matthias was selected because they needed another witness to Jesus' life as they were about to start the new church so that they could testify to the Gentiles and Jews.

These are not the set criteria for all of the apostles except in that given time or they would not have all accepted Paul as one of their own apostles. You are not looking at the historical formation of the early church as Paul was not even in the picture until 32AD when he had his own miraculous conversion.

In Matthew 19:28 that verse was explicitly for those 12 apostles at that time because they were direct witnesses to his life and suffered because of their testimony. Jesus did not say there would be no other apostles. You are basically inferring that you know the mind of God.

Matthew goes on to say in 19:29 "and everyone who has left houses or brothers or fathers or mothers or wives or children or fields for my sake will receive 100 times as much and will inherit eternal life. This includes Paul and every one of the followers of Christ.

In Revelations 21:14 once again these are the apostles that he personally chose to be a testimony of his life in the formation of his new church. This does not discount all of the Apostles acceptance of Paul as a man of Christ who dutifully taught his teachings to the Gentiles and the Jews.

The apostles themselves, all of them, even beloved John shows Paul to be an apostle You are directly misquoting Revelations 22:18 and inferring that the apostles condemned themselves as well as anyone else who believes in Paul's teachings (which are directly from Christ himself). I am not condemned because I believe in Christ teachings and all of the Apostles. You are basically saying that all of the Apostles are wrong for choosing Paul and that just basically negates Christ choosing them as apostles in the first place.

Ruthie is the name of my beloved 19 year old cat who is sleeping just next to me. No I am not Jewish, I'm Christian. When I spoke about oral tradition I was directly speaking about Paul using oral traditions of the earliest Church in his epistles. Paul is actually anti law in fact and in Galatians he expounds on this as why the law is no longer necessary because we are all new creations in Christ Jesus.

 

[Ruthie24]

Torahman:

Romans 2:13

I think it's important to determine WHO Paul was talking to in Romans.

According to Matt Slick from Carm.org:

"Verse 13 is often used by people (Roman Catholics, Mormons, etc.) to say that we must keep the Law (along with faith in Jesus) to be saved, but this isn't so. Paul was talking to the Jews (Romans 2:17) about their judging of the Gentiles, and then points them to their own Law (standard of judgment) and hypocrisy and tells them that the doers of the Law are just before God (v. 13).

The standard they wanted to keep was the Law. Paul was telling them that they could be justified before God by keeping it. So, keep the Law. Keep all of it, but if you don't you're in trouble. It is the doers of the Law who are justified before God. He tells them that the Gentiles who didn't have the Law according to the knowledge of the Jews were instinctively keeping the Law (v. 14) and will be judged accordingly. How much more the Jews?

Paul was showing the self-righteous Jews who judged the Gentiles that they were not able to keep a perfect standard. They were hypocrites. This is why Paul tells us in the very next chapter, in Romans 3:28, that we are justified by faith apart from the works of the Law - which includes the Law of loving God (Deut. 6:5), and loving your neighbor (Lev. 19:18). No one is able to keep the Law. If you fail even once, then you become guilty of it all.

James 2:10, "For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles in one point, he has become guilty of all." Gal. 3:10, "For as many as are of the works of the Law are under a curse; for it is written, "Cursed is everyone who does not abide by all things written in the book of the law, to perform them."

The Jews (and anyone else) can be justified before God by keeping the Law, but he or she has to be perfect. A person can't fail even once, ever. But since all fail, that is why we have the gospel that tells us Jesus kept the Law perfectly (1 Pet. 2:22), and that we can be justified before God by faith in Him (Romans 4:3,5; 5:1; John 1:12; 3:16)."

 

[timewerx]

Dr. Blomberg points out that had the early Christians listened more closely to the gospels there would be no need for the divisiveness with Paul as he directly uses the scriptures in his epistles.

Maybe the early Christians where not as close as possible to the Gospel...

...But they are still much closer to the Gospel as we are now....


So how come, the early Christians who were closer to the Gospel than we are now (due to worldliness and materialism) were more divisive regarding Paul?

 

[Phantasman]

Maybe the early Christians where not as close as possible to the Gospel...

...But they are still much closer to the Gospel as we are now....


So how come, the early Christians who were closer to the Gospel than we are now (due to worldliness and materialism) were more divisive regarding Paul?

From my understanding, Peter and Paul were divisive. But James (Jesus brother) and Paul were more on the same page. James was supposed to be the leader Jesus left in charge.

 

[ananda]

Not sure if you have discussed this view, but when I read the gospels I understand that all to still be Old Covenant living. Jesus said He came to fulfill the law, so is it any wonder that he speaks the way He does?

I also believe that's why he said this:

Because His disciples were still under old covenant mindset, and had not received the new nature that would allow them to walk in the liberty that was to be theirs after the Holy Spirit fell. So even though Christ had began teaching them, at times, of the new way that would come after he was gone, they could not get it through their thick, unregenerate skulls.

Yes, Messiah came to fulfill the prophecies in the Law concerning His first coming. He did not come to get rid of the Law. Two different things.

Secondly, Messiah in the gospels are not teaching the "Old Covenant" life. This is proved by Messiah's statement recorded in Mt 28:18-20, after His resurrection, where He commanded His twelve apostles to go forth and teach the Gentiles everything He taught them to observe!

The liberty is found in the Law, not outside of the Law. What happens when someone breaks man's law? They suffer penalties and loss of liberty. It is the same with YHVH's Law.

 

[ananda]

... Paul is actually anti law in fact and in Galatians he expounds on this as why the law is no longer necessary because we are all new creations in Christ Jesus.

So, would you agree that the Apostle John disagrees on this point with Paul? "For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous." 1Jn 5:3

 

[ananda]

The Jews (and anyone else) can be justified before God by keeping the Law, but he or she has to be perfect. A person can't fail even once, ever. But since all fail, that is why we have the gospel that tells us Jesus kept the Law perfectly (1 Pet. 2:22), and that we can be justified before God by faith in Him (Romans 4:3,5; 5:1; John 1:12; 3:16)."

No, YHVH's Law does not demand perfection ... only diligence: For example, "Ye shall diligently keep the commandments of the LORD your God, and his testimonies, and his statutes, which he hath commanded thee. " Deu 6:17 or "Thou hast commanded us to keep thy precepts diligently." Psa 119:4

 

[Ruthie24]

Maybe the early Christians where not as close as possible to the Gospel...

...But they are still much closer to the Gospel as we are now....

So how come, the early Christians who were closer to the Gospel than we are now (due to worldliness and materialism) were more divisive regarding Paul?

You asked why the early Christians in the church were so divisive. I think it can be directly linked to the crucifixion of Christ and those Jewish factions at that time who were responsible for his death. I believe that the Antichrist Spirit dwells in those people and they were the same ones who persecuted most of the Apostles at that time along with other factions who were against Christianity.

I think it can be fairly assumed that anyone who believed in Jesus Christ in those days and professed the faith as well as teaching it could guarantee themselves being hunted down tortured and put to death in very heinous ways. So I believe the mindset of many of those early Christians possessed a very real fear of being murdered for professing their faith.
So my guess is like every persecuted faction of people they were afraid to publicly practice and may have also contributed to the divisiveness out of that fear of being killed.

What I find very interesting in Acts is that during the persecution of Stephen he actually addresses the Jews who persecuted Jesus Christ. They were called the "synagogue of the freedmen". I do not think it is any coincidence in the connection between the freedmen (who could very well have evolved into) and the Free Masons who have very strong ties to the Illuminati and the Synagogue of Satan today.

I don't want to get off track here but I see a direct link between the synagogue of the freedmen who clearly were possessed of the Antichrist spirit and those divisive elements within the Christian Church that seek to destroy it from within. Remember that in Genesis it is stated that the serpent was the most subtle and cunning of beasts in the entire Kingdom. So to me it is this subtle demonically inclined strategic effort of the anti-Pauleans and other factions who wish to destroy all of Christianity from both within and without.

 

[Ruthie24]

So, would you agree that the Apostle John disagrees on this point with Paul? "For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous." 1Jn 5:3

No, you are taking what I said and what Paul is saying in Galatians out of context. In each of his epistles he is speaking to a certain group of people. In every epistle we have to look at what is he saying to this group of people. For example in Romans he is addressing the Jews in Rome. When Paul is discussing the law he is talking to the Jews who were self righteous and who sought to persecute the Christians. Paul nor the other 12 apostles conflict with one another.