Sarassin:


It is a question of Paul's credibility. The assertion that Paul was a Pharisee is lacking. His claim to expert Pharisee training is suspect, Gamaliel did not teach children therefore Paul would have had to have been educated by Gamaliel as an adult. Even though a strong picture of Paul’s Pharisaical background is presented, there are doubts, for instance Paul claims to have voted against Christians on trial for their lives before the Sanhedrin, when in fact, in the described trial of Peter before the Sanhedrin (Acts 5), the Pharisees, led by Gamaliel, voted for the release of Peter? What kind of Pharisee was Paul, if he took an attitude towards the early Christians which, on the evidence of the same book of Acts, was untypical of the Pharisees? And how is it that this book of Acts is so inconsistent within itself that it describes Paul as violently opposed to Christianity because of his deep attachment to Pharisaism, and yet also describes the Pharisees as being friendly towards the early Christians, standing up for them and saving their lives?

I didn't see pharisee[b]s[/b] being friendly with xtians in that verse.

Sarassin:


The issue for me is not whether Paul received teachings from the Jerusalem disciples, I am concerned mainly with the accuracy of what is portrayed;

"I did not confer with any human being nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me but I went away off to Arabia, and afterwards I returned to Damascus. Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas and I stayed with him fifteen days: but I did not see any of the other apostles except James the Lord's brother in what I am writing to You before God, I am not lying." (Galatians 1:16-20).

This emphatic statement that Paul is not lying should give us pause. He is completely clear. He did NOT consult with others after his conversion, did not see any other apostle for three years, and did not see any except Cephas(Peter) and Jesus' brother James.

This makes the accounts of Acts very interesting, for according to Acts 9, immediately after Paul's conversion he spent time in Damascus "with the disciples", and when he left the city he headed directly to Jerusalem, where he met with the apostles of Jesus (Acts 9:19-30).

On all counts Acts seems to be at odds with Paul. Did he spend time with the other apostles immediately (Acts) or not (Paul)?

From the context, it is clear to me that Paul was stating that his commission didn't stem from any human. He didn't have to consult any human to tell him what to preach as if without them, he couldn't have known what message to preach. Check gal 1:12.

On your question, if we read acts 9:9, we could see that he didn't consult any disciple immediately. Even Ananias invitation was through a revelation.

PastorAIO:


Further more in the same chapter of Galatians Paul says the following:


22And I was still unknown in person to the churches of Judea that are in Christ. 23They only were hearing it said, “He who used to persecute us is now preaching the faith he once tried to destroy.” 24And they glorified God because of me.

Compared with Acts 8:
3But Saul was ravaging the church, and entering house after house,

And:

26And when he had come to Jerusalem, he attempted to join the disciples. And they were all afraid of him, for they did not believe that he was a disciple. 27But Barnabas took him and brought him to the apostles and declared to them how on the road he had seen the Lord, who spoke to him, and how at Damascus he had preached boldly in the name of Jesus. 28 So he went in and out among them at Jerusalem , preaching boldly in the name of the Lord.


Naturally the question on everybody's lips should be, 'Did the christians in Jerusalem know Paul by sight not not?'. He said they didn't but the writer of Acts said he was moving around in and out among them. Or were they blind? Holy God please don't let us suffer from this kind of blindness that you will not recognise what is presented right before your eyes.

They heard that someone who formerly persecuted them had become a xten, but whom that person was is unknown to them. Saul was certainly not the only persecutor. Does that make any sense to you?

JMAN05:


They heard that someone who formerly persecuted them had become a xten, but whom that person was is unknown to them. Saul was certainly not the only persecutor. Does that make any sense to you?

Yes, but Paul went from house to house and another passage said he went in and out amongst them. How is it possible that they didn't know him by face?

Even if there were 20 persecutors they would recognise all of them.

DoctorAlien:
1. According to Paul, who is the Son of GOD?

"Seeing then that we have a great high priest, that is passed into the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our profession." Heb. 4:14

2. According to Paul, did the Son of GOD sin at all?

"For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin." Heb. 4:15

3. Did Paul see himself as a sinner?

"This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief." 1 Tim. 1:5

4. So, Did Paul see himself as the incarnate Son of GOD?

Common sense answers NO!

Sarassin, stop twisting clauses within Paul's epistles in a bid to teach lies.

You see sir, in your haste to spill your all too obvious bile at me you build yourself a strawman argument and then proceed to make a bonfire out of it. Read my words carefully and then take a step back and read through the thread again, the penny might then drop! I wrote that Paul considered himself an " incarnation of the son of God " and not the "son of God incarnate" there is a difference, I realise it is difficult, but pause and think about it for a second.

Paul presented with stigmata, he presented "his Gospel of atonement not taught by Jesus", he affected the same physical attributes as Jesus of Nazareth, a body racked with infirmity and he believed God revealed his Son to him and through him to the Gentiles. What on earth do you think Paul meant when he stated in Gal. 6:17 'From henceforth let no man trouble me: for I bear in my body the marks of the Lord Jesus'.?

JMAN05:


I didn't see pharisee[b]s[/b] being friendly with xtians in that verse.

Acts 5: 34-40. It was Gamaliel's speech that saved the lives of the Apostles, they got away with just a beating.

Sarassin,

Paul never considered himself the "(re)incarnation of the Son of God" nor did he see himself as "the incarnate Son of God".

I don't blame you for boldly saying that Jesus did not teach that He, through His blood, would atone for the sin of man. I blame whoever wrote the ignorant piece of nonsense you're busy copying and pasting here. It is baffling how people venture to argue about what they do not know. Now let me once again dismantle your claims:

1. Jesus said plainly that all the things written about Him in the Old Testament must be fulfilled. In other words, He came to do what the Scriptures said He would do.

2. What did the Scriptures say Christ would do?

"But He was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities ... All we like sheep have gone astray ... and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all." Isa. 59:5-6

Therefore, the Scriptures said that Christ would atone for our sins and iniquities. And sure, Christ agreed.

Sarassin,

If perhaps you teach that Paul saw himself as the (re)incarnation of the Son of GOD because of Paul's statement in Gal. 6:17, then I must confess you're a good comedian. Perhaps, according to you, Paul was trying to say that he bore the marks of the nails in his hands and feet? I laugh at the thought of that.

Paul said that he bore the marks of the Lord Jesus in his body because he really the bore in his body the marks/evidence of what he had suffered for the gospel of Christ. First and foremost, he never recovered of the eye problem that he got from bright light that flashed on him on the way to Damascus.

"Thrice was I beaten with rods, once was I stone, thrice I suffered shipwreck, a night and a day I have been in the deep;" 2 Cor. 11:26. The is just little of what Paul suffered. Read verses 23-27 for the details.

If na you suffer all those things, tell me, you no carry mark for your body?

DoctorAlien:
Sarassin,

Paul never considered himself the "(re)incarnation of the Son of God" nor did he see himself as "the incarnate Son of God".

I don't blame you for boldly saying that Jesus did not teach that He, through His blood, would atone for the sin of man. I blame whoever wrote the ignorant piece of nonsense you're busy copying and pasting here. It is baffling how people venture to argue about what they do not know. Now let me once again dismantle your claims:

1. Jesus said plainly that all the things written about Him in the Old Testament must be fulfilled. In other words, He came to do what the Scriptures said He would do.

2. What did the Scriptures say Christ would do?

"But He was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities ... All we like sheep have gone astray ... and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all." Isa. 59:5-6

Therefore, the Scriptures said that Christ would atone for our sins and iniquities. And sure, Christ agreed.

You are still begging the obvious. Why would the proclaimed Son of God who had the dispensation to grant forgiveness of sins whilst alive have to die for the very same? And where exactly does Jesus himself, the man who's life was given up actually state that his death was to atone for your sins? Have you simply forgotten that Jesus was sentenced to death for sedition?

DoctorAlien:
Sarassin,

If perhaps you teach that Paul saw himself as the (re)incarnation of the Son of GOD because of Paul's statement in Gal. 6:17, then I must confess you're a good comedian. Perhaps, according to you, Paul was trying to say that he bore the marks of the nails in his hands and feet? I laugh at the thought of that.

Paul said that he bore the marks of the Lord Jesus in his body because he really the bore in his body the marks/evidence of what he had suffered for the gospel of Christ. First and foremost, he never recovered of the eye problem that he got from bright light that flashed on him on the way to Damascus.

"Thrice was I beaten with rods, once was I stone, thrice I suffered shipwreck, a night and a day I have been in the deep;" 2 Cor. 11:26. The is just little of what Paul suffered. Read verses 23-27 for the details.

If na you suffer all those things, tell me, you no carry mark for your body?

Actually the joke is on you, the marks of the Lord are universally accepted as the stigmata. Else every certified criminal roaming the streets of your country after a beating could claim to have received the Marks of the Lord.

Sarassin:


You are still begging the obvious. Why would the proclaimed Son of God who had the dispensation to grant forgiveness of sins whilst alive have to die for the very same? And where exactly does Jesus himself, the man who's life was given up actually state that his death was to atone for your sins? Have you simply forgotten that Jesus was sentenced to death for sedition?

Oga, you have zero(I MEAN ZERO, LIKE "0" understanding of the whole plan of salvation laid out in the Scriptures, hence your question about why Christ had to die for sin when He had the power to forgive sin. I don't blame you though.

"And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me." Luke 24:44

So Christ agrees that what was recorded in the Scriptures apply to Him. Read Mark 8:31; Luke 9:22; 17:25

Modified.

Sarassin,

Jesus Christ indeed knew that He was being killed for the sins of man.

"For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins." Matt. 26:28

"Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you." Luke 22:20

Oh yes! LORD JESUS, you died for my sins. I am forever grateful, most holy Lamb of GOD.

DoctorAlien:


Oga, you have zero(I MEAN ZERO, LIKE "0" understanding of the whole plan of salvation laid out in the Scriptures, hence your question about why Christ had to die for sin when He had the power to forgive sin. I don't blame you though.

"And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me." Luke 24:44

So Christ agrees that what was recorded in the Scriptures apply to Him. Read Mark 8:31; Luke 9:22; 17:25

Modified.

You really make me laugh....

I asked you before and I ask you again where exactly does Jesus, the man who actually died state that his death atones for your sins?

DoctorAlien:
Sarassin,

Jesus Christ indeed knew that He was being killed for the sins of man.

"For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins." Matt. 26:28

"Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you." Luke 22:20

Oh yes! LORD JESUS, you died for my sins. I am forever grateful, most holy Lamb of GOD.

Remission is not atonement!

Sarassin:


Remission is not atonement!

Oga, define remission and atonement for us and differentiate between them in the light of what Christ did for us.

DoctorAlien:


Oga, define remission and atonement for us and differentiate between them in the light of what Christ did for us.

I am not indulging in lexicography, google is your friend, look up the respective meanings and give your understanding of them.

Sarassin:


I am not indulging in lexicography, google is your friend, look up the respective meanings and give your understanding of them.

Good. I understand that Christ shed His blood so that we can be forgiven i.e. so that our sins would be remitted. This is because atonement/reparation for sin must be made, as the Bible records that "without shedding of blood is no remission." Heb. 9:22

DoctorAlien:


Good. I understand that Christ shed His blood so that we can be forgiven i.e. so that our sins would be remitted. This is because atonement/reparation for sin must be made, as the Bible records that "without shedding of blood is no remission." Heb. 9:22

So, let me see now if I understand you correctly, You say that Jesus shed his blood so that you may be forgiven your sins, because as you say ; atonement/reparation for sin is essential and without shedding blood atonement is not feasible and neither is remission.

This is sheer genius at work, in trying to wrangle yourself a get-out-of–jail-card you have conflated the doctrines of Forgiveness and Atonement and created another gospel entirely. It is the words and actions of Jesus that matters the most and nothing else, it should be clear to all that one of the most central themes of the teachings of Jesus was that of forgiveness, in the following verses Jesus directly teaches this; Mat 26:28, Mark 11:25, Mat 11:6-15, 1John 1:9, Luke 17:3-4, Mat 6:14-15.

I asked you to provide one verse in the NT where Jesus alludes to “atonement”, I will help you out. Nowhere in the NT canons does Jesus directly express the view that his death is a vehicle for the atonement of sins, not once does Jesus use the word ‘atonement’ even his disciples taught that the death of Jesus brought about the forgiveness of sins, the distinction is there to be made but most Christians are simply not aware of it.

The doctrine of atonement is a construct of Paul in his writings purely and simply for selfish and egotistical reasons, the shedding of human blood for the sins of others was not Jewish practise the doctrine of atonement was essential to Paul's gospel, it is one of the most important doctrinal discrepancies between the writings of Paul and the Synoptic writers that has perplexed biblical scholars enormously.

You jumped into the middle of this thread bandying wild accusations and snide comments without bothering to read through properly. Let me be clear, I am not teaching anyone anything, these are merely my views. My assertion that Paul considered himself an incarnation of Jesus stands, an incarnation in the sense that he arrogated to himself the ability to divine the nature of Christ, not even on a physical level, because he never met Jesus but in a spiritual and ephemeral sense, that in a nutshell is the essence of what I have been writing about.

PastorAIO:


Yes, but Paul went from house to house and another passage said he went in and out amongst them. How is it possible that they didn't know him by face?

Even if there were 20 persecutors they would recognise all of them.

You and I know that there is nothing here to argue about. The issue is not about recognition, it is about knowing which one had become a xten.

Sarassin:


Acts 5: 34-40. It was Gamaliel's speech that saved the lives of the Apostles, they got away with just a beating.

Exactly my point, Gamaliel - one person. Not pharisees. He was giving a reasonable suggestion.

JMAN05:


Exactly my point, Gamaliel - one person. Not pharisees. He was giving a reasonable suggestion.

It is a mute point, the context of that speech was that Peter was on trial for his life before Caiaphas at the Sanhedrin comprised of the Sadducees and the Pharisees of whom Gamaliel was their most respected leader. The Sadducees wanted Peter dead for preaching Christ, Paul who claimed he was a Pharisee and had been taught by Gamaliel by his own admission apparently voted with the Sadducees, it was Gamaliel who implored for the life of Peter, in this instance the Pharisee votes saved Peter’s skin, in my book that constitutes an act of kindness.

My point was that Paul's claim to Pharisaical Jewry bears a closer inspection, if indeed he was a 'Pharisee' of 'Pharisees' as he claimed and if the dubious claim that he studied under Gamaliel were to be deemed true, would he then cast the only dissenting vote of the Pharisee group in favour of the Sadducees in defiance of his teacher or was he actually a Sadducee, a Herodian prince to begin with?

JMAN05:


From the context, it is clear to me that Paul was stating that his commission didn't stem from any human. He didn't have to consult any human to tell him what to preach as if without them, he couldn't have known what message to preach. Check gal 1:12.

On your question, if we read acts 9:9, we could see that he didn't consult any disciple immediately. Even Ananias invitation was through a revelation.

I have no issues with the context, we both know that Paul was savvy enough and sophisticated enough to develop his own theology independent of the Apostles.

I am not convinced that Paul's account in Galatians is consistent with that of Luke in the Acts.

Sarassin:


I have no issues with the context, we both know that Paul was savvy enough and sophisticated enough to develop his own theology independent of the Apostles.

I am not convinced that Paul's account in Galatians is consistent with that of Luke in the Acts.

And am yet to see the inconsistency.

Sarassin:
...It is the words and actions of Jesus that matters the most and nothing else...

This line alone reveals your sheer ignorance of the Bible. Oga, every single word and letter and even punctuation mark, from Genesis to Revelation, matters! Jesus kept quoting the OT, showing that He recognized it as authoritative.

Mr. ignorant critic of Paul, the very idea of atonement and that it must be with the shedding of blood did not originate with Paul:

"For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul." Lev. 17:11

In Isa. 53, the Bible makes it clear that Christ will be killed to make atonement for our sins. Christ agreed too that His blood was being poured out "for us"(Luke 22:20) so that our sins could be forgiven. Why would his blood be poured out? Because reparation(atonement) for sin must be made.

Get that?

Sarassin:


It is a mute point, the context of that speech was that Peter was on trial for his life before Caiaphas at the Sanhedrin comprised of the Sadducees and the Pharisees of whom Gamaliel was their most respected leader. The Sadducees wanted Peter dead for preaching Christ, Paul who claimed he was a Pharisee and had been taught by Gamaliel by his own admission apparently voted with the Sadducees, it was Gamaliel who implored for the life of Peter, in this instance the Pharisee votes saved Peter’s skin, in my book that constitutes an act of kindness.

My point was that Paul's claim to Pharisaical Jewry bears a closer inspection, if indeed he was a 'Pharisee' of 'Pharisees' as he claimed and if the dubious claim that he studied under Gamaliel were to be deemed true, would he then cast the only dissenting vote of the Pharisee group in favour of the Sadducees in defiance of his teacher or was he actually a Sadducee, a Herodian prince to begin with?

It seems you are adding to the scripture. No vote was held in this instance, they just took his advise and flogged them instead. Acts 5:40

DoctorAlien:


This line alone reveals your sheer ignorance of the Bible. Oga, every single word and letter and even punctuation mark, from Genesis to Revelation, matters! Jesus kept quoting the OT, showing that He recognized it as authoritative.

Mr. ignorant critic of Paul, the idea of atonement and that it must be with the shedding of blood did not originate with Paul:

"For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul." Lev. 17:11

In Isa. 53, the Bible makes it clear that Christ will be killed to make atonement for our sins. Christ agreed too that His blood was being poured out "for us"(Luke 22:20) so that our sins could be forgiven. Why would his blood be poured out? Because reparation(atonement) for sin must be made.

Get that?

Leviticus! I won't even get into that spurious reference of yours. As I said before you really make me laugh I can see that you are itching to descend into your fit of bile and insults because that is where you find your succour but I am not interested. I asked you before and I ask you again, where in the NT canon has Jesus, the man who actually gave up his life, directly stated that he was shedding his blood for the 'atonement' of your sins? Geddit??

If Jesus stated so, then tell us where...
If he did not, then be man enough to state so.. Simples.

Sarassin:


Leviticus! I won't even get into that spurious reference of yours. As I said before you really make me laugh I can see that you are itching to descend into your fit of bile and insults because that is where you find your succour but I am not interested. I asked you before and I ask you again, where in the NT canon has Jesus, the man who actually gave up his life, directly stated that he was shedding his blood for the 'atonement' of your sins? Geddit??

If Jesus stated so, then tell us where...
If he did not, then be man enough to state so.. Simples.

Your arguments are puerile. I have shown you that:

1. Atonement/reparation for sin must be made and it must be with blood.(Lev. 17:11) We cannot be forgiven unless someone pays for our sins.
2. The Scripture foretells that the blood of Christ must be shed to atone/make reparation for our sins(Isa. 53)
3. Jesus Christ agreed that He was about to do what the Scripture said He would do(Luke 22:20; 24:44).

DoctorAlien:


Your arguments are puerile. I have shown you that:

1. Atonement/reparation for sin must be made and it must be with blood.(Lev. 17:11) We may be forgiven, but someone has to pay for the sins.
2. The Scripture foretells that the blood of Christ must be shed to atone/make for our sins(Isa. 53)
3. Jesus Christ agreed that He was about to do what the Scripture said He would do(Luke 22:20; 24:44).

Do you ever actually answer a simple question? indulge my puerility, answer the question.

I go further to post the definition of atonment according to dictionary.com:
"satisfaction or reparation for a wrong or injury; amends."
Sarassin, stop confusing yourself.

JMAN05:


It seems you are adding to the scripture. No vote was held in this instance, they just took his advise and flogged them instead. Acts 5:40

Acts 26:10. Paul makes it clear that he casts his vote against the followers of Jesus on each occasion they were condemned to death.

Sarassin:


Do you ever actually answer a simple question? indulge my puerility, answer the question.

As far as I'm concerned, I have answered every meaningful question you asked. Have you any other meaningful question?

DoctorAlien:
I go further to post the definition of atonment according to dictionary.com:

"satisfaction or reparation for a wrong or injury; amends."

Sarassin, stop confusing yourself.

On the contrary my dear sir, it is you who is confused and it will soon become apparent, answer the question !