shdemidemi:

Can you prove Luke wrong?

Personally, I consider Luke the least reliable of all the gospel writers. The historicity of Luke’s depiction of Paul is a huge issue, The Acts describe Paul differently from how Paul describes himself, both factually and theologically. In other accounts Luke made mistakes, here is one;

In Acts 21:38, a Roman asks Paul if he was 'the Egyptian' who led a band of 'Sicarii' (Assassins) into the desert. We know that, In both 'The Jewish Wars' and 'Antiquities of the Jews', Josephus talks about Jewish nationalist rebels called “Sicarii” directly prior to talking about The Egyptian leading some followers to the Mount of Olives, it is easy to see that Luke used Josephus as a source and mistakenly thought that the Sicarii were followers of The Egyptian, there are others too.

From actual historical accounts drawn from Panarion (Against heresies) by Epiphanius, here is what we can piece together;

The first followers of Jesus, under James and Peter, founded the Jerusalem Church after Jesus's death. They were called the Nazarenes, and in all their beliefs they were indistinguishable from the Pharisees, except that they believed in the resurrection of Jesus, and that Jesus was still the promised Messiah. They did not believe that Jesus was a divine person, but that, by a miracle from God, he had been brought back to life after his death on the cross, and would soon come back to complete his mission of overthrowing the Romans and setting up the Messianic kingdom.

The Nazarenes did not believe that Jesus had abrogated the Jewish religion, or Torah. Having known Jesus personally, they were aware that he had observed the Jewish religious law all his life and had never rebelled against it. The Nazarenes were themselves very observant of Jewish religious law. They practiced circumcision, did not eat the forbidden foods and showed great respect to the Temple. The Nazarenes did not regard themselves as belonging to a new religion; their religion was Judaism. They set up synagogues of their own, but they also attended non-Nazarene synagogues on occasion, and performed the same kind of worship in their own synagogues as was practiced by all observant Jews.

The Nazarenes became suspicious of Paul when they heard that he was preaching that Jesus was the founder of a new religion and that he had abrogated the Torah. After an attempt to reach an understanding with Paul, the Nazarenes (i.e. the Jerusalem Church under James and Peter) broke irrevocably with Paul and disowned him.

Are you aware that God confirmed the change Himself through Peter before Pau came on the scene. God had told Peter to eat what was naturally forbidden to Jews, all they ate was kosher but God offered Peter a beast to eat. Peter reluctantly obeyed and visited the Gentiles against the Jewish tradition.

Was this episode forged as well?

Sarassin:

Personally, I consider Luke the least reliable of all the gospel writers. The historicity of Luke’s depiction of Paul is a huge issue, The Acts describe Paul differently from how Paul describes himself, both factually and theologically. In other accounts Luke made mistakes, here is one;

How and where did Paul describe himself differently from how The Acts describe him?

Prove Luke wrong bro.

shdemidemi: Are you aware that God confirmed the change Himself through Peter before Pau came on the scene. God had told Peter to eat what was naturally forbidden to Jews, all they ate was kosher but God offered Peter a beast to eat. Peter reluctantly obeyed and visited the Gentiles against the Jewish tradition.

Was this episode forged as well?

Yes, I am aware, and No, I do not consider the episode forged. If I did then I would say so.
and your point is ??

shdemidemi:

How and where did Paul describe himself differently from how The Acts describe him?

Prove Luke wrong bro.

I have no need to prove Luke wrong he does an admirable job of that himself. I have given you one instance of where he got his facts wrong but obviously because it is an obscure fact, Christians either are unaware of it or gloss over it.

Here is a glaring one. Compare Paul’s account of the Jerusalem Council as he records in his Letter to the Galatians, (Gal. 2) to the account of Luke as recorded in The Acts (Acts. 15)

Two completely differing accounts, Paul records it as a Private meeting, Luke says otherwise, both cannot be right, either Luke got his facts wrong or Paul was a liar. You tell me.

The God and Father of the Lord Jesus, he who is blessed forever, knows that I do not lie. (II Corinthians. 11:31-33).

In what I am writing to you, before God, I do not lie! (Galatians 1:15-20)

For this I was appointed a preacher and apostleI am telling the truth, I am not lying, a teacher of the gentiles in faith and truth (I Timothy 2:7).

I am speaking the truth in Christ, I am not lying (Romans 9:1-3).

Four times here, in the New Testament epistles, that Paul denied that he was lying: to the Corinthians, the Galatians, Timothy, and the Romans. Once, to the Romans, he called the Holy Spirit to witness for him. Twice, to the Corinthians and to the Galatians, he called God to witness for him. Three times, to the Corinthians, Galatians, and to Timothy, the denials were issued concerning his assertions of his calling and apostleship.

These are the words of a man under severe pressure.

Sarassin:

Yes, I am aware, and No, I do not consider the episode forged. If I did then I would say so.
and your point is ??

What Paul came to say wasn't strange to Peter, although he did not fully understand it. God made him see Gentiles obtain the glory that had always been for the Gentiles. Peter had this to say about what had changed?

7 And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe.

8 And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us;

9 And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith.

Sarassin: The God and Father of the Lord Jesus, he who is blessed forever, knows that I do not lie. (II Corinthians. 11:31-33).

In what I am writing to you, before God, I do not lie! (Galatians 1:15-20)

For this I was appointed a preacher and apostleI am telling the truth, I am not lying, a teacher of the gentiles in faith and truth (I Timothy 2:7).

I am speaking the truth in Christ, I am not lying (Romans 9:1-3).

Four times here, in the New Testament epistles, that Paul denied that he was lying: to the Corinthians, the Galatians, Timothy, and the Romans. Once, to the Romans, he called the Holy Spirit to witness for him. Twice, to the Corinthians and to the Galatians, he called God to witness for him. Three times, to the Corinthians, Galatians, and to Timothy, the denials were issued concerning his assertions of his calling and apostleship.

These are the words of a man under severe pressure.

How do you tell a people who had all the historical facts, the oracle, the patriarchs the tradition and rituals that God had moved His post. Do you expect them to just take all he said. This was a man passionate about the mysteries the entire nation couldn't comprehend.

Sarassin:

I have no need to prove Luke wrong he does an admirable job of that himself. I have given you one instance of where he got his facts wrong but obviously because it is an obscure fact, Christians either are unaware of it or gloss over it.

Here is a glaring one. Compare Paul’s account of the Jerusalem Council as he records in his Letter to the Galatians, (Gal. 2) to the account of Luke as recorded in The Acts (Acts. 15)

Two completely differing accounts, Paul records it as a Private meeting, Luke says otherwise, both cannot be right, either Luke got his facts wrong or Paul was a liar. You tell me.

I don't think they contradict each other at all..
Acts 15
4 And when they were come to Jerusalem, they were received of the church, and of the apostles and elders, and they declared all things that God had done with them

Gal 2
2 And I went up by revelation, and communicated unto them that gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but privately to them which were of reputation, lest by any means I should run, or had run, in vain.


Is this what you call contradiction?

shdemidemi:

I don't think they contradict each other at all..
Acts 15
4 And when they were come to Jerusalem, they were received of the church, and of the apostles and elders, and they declared all things that God had done with them

Gal 2
2 And I went up by revelation, and communicated unto them that gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but privately to them which were of reputation, lest by any means I should run, or had run, in vain.


Is this what you call contradiction?

Surely you jest !

In his version of the Jerusalem Council, Paul (writing Gentile converts who accepted his valuation of himself as an Apostle superior in inspiration to the Jerusalem leaders) gives himself a much more higher role than appears from the account in Acts.

Instead of being summoned to Jerusalem to answer charges against him, Paul represents himself as having travelled to Jerusalem "because it had been revealed by God that I should do so." Paul did not (at the Acts 15 Council) reveal his "Universal Jesus" theology to James or the Jerusalem Church. However, now in Galatians, he makes mention that he did!

Paul represents himself as having fully revealed his new doctrines to the Jerusalem leaders, though only in private. Let me assure you that if Paul had openly told James and the Apostles that Jesus' death, in his "gospel," had replaced the Torah for Jews and non-Jews as well, then all hell would have broken loose! He might have been stoned on the spot for such apostasy!

Instead of a tribunal, in which the final decision is delivered by James in his capacity as head of Jesus' movement, Paul gives the impression of a conference between leaders, in which he was treated as of equal status with James. Paul concludes his account of the Council with the grandiose and self-aggrandising statement of Galatians 2:6-10, whereas in the accounts of Luke, he is given only the liberty of no longer requiring Non-Jews to accept all of the Torah and only 7 Noahide laws by James.

I would say those are significant differences, wouldn’t you ?

To present himself as a Greek to the Greeks, Paul must have told them he was a Greek. To present himself as a Jew to the Jews, he must have told them he was a Jew. He lied in this way many, many times. Whatever the occasion demanded, it got. We can clearly perceive here that the man had a serious defect in his character, for he thought that by being dishonest, by lying, he could win men to Jesus, to whom lies are an abomination.

Here are his words :

For though I am free from all men, I have made myself a slave to all, that I might win the more. To the Jews I became as a Jew, in order to win Jews; to those under the law I became as one under the law – though not being myself under the law – that I might win those under the law. To those outside the law I became as one outside the law – not being without law toward God but under the law of Christ – that I might win those outside the law. To the weak I became weak, that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all men, that I might by all means save some. I do it all for the sake of the gospel, that I may share in its blessings. (I Corinthians. 9:19-25).

Regarding Paul’s assertion of being a Pharisee, let us take a close look at his words;

Christ redeemed[b] us[/b] from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us – for it is written, “Cursed be everyone who hangs on a tree.” – that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come upon the Gentiles, that[b] we [/b]might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith. (Galatians 3:13-14).

It is clear that Paul, by use of the first person plural in the last line of this quotation, is classifying himself with the Gentiles, who receive the promise of the Spirit. Was this simply a slip, and inadvertent error, or has he revealed his true nationality? In either case, inadvertent error or inadvertent truth, he is revealing that his word is not inspired by the Spirit, who would surely not permit him to make such an association were it not true – but if it is true, Paul lied.

Sarassin:

Surely you jest !

In his version of the Jerusalem Council, Paul (writing Gentile converts who accepted his valuation of himself as an Apostle superior in inspiration to the Jerusalem leaders) gives himself a much more higher role than appears from the account in Acts.

Instead of being summoned to Jerusalem to answer charges against him, Paul represents himself as having travelled to Jerusalem "because it had been revealed by God that I should do so." Paul did not (at the Acts 15 Council) reveal his "Universal Jesus" theology to James or the Jerusalem Church. However, now in Galatians, he makes mention that he did!

Paul represents himself as having fully revealed his new doctrines to the Jerusalem leaders, though only in private. Let me assure you that if Paul had openly told James and the Apostles that Jesus' death, in his "gospel," had replaced the Torah for Jews and non-Jews as well, then all hell would have broken loose! He might have been stoned on the spot for such apostasy!

Instead of a tribunal, in which the final decision is delivered by James in his capacity as head of Jesus' movement, Paul gives the impression of a conference between leaders, in which he was treated as of equal status with James. Paul concludes his account of the Council with the grandiose and self-aggrandising statement of Galatians 2:6-10, whereas in the accounts of Luke, he is given only the liberty of no longer requiring Non-Jews to accept all of the Torah and only 7 Noahide laws by James.

I would say those are significant differences, wouldn’t you ?

If I was to write about you, and you were to write about yourself, do you think our perspective and evaluations would be the same?

Paul said, they added nothing to him. He said what he had to say and left the place. Put yourself in Paul's shoes, you are to face a Jewish church with probably one alibi, which was surprisingly Peter- after a long debate, the council came up with whatever they came up with, will you stay there to die?

Sarassin: To present himself as a Greek to the Greeks, Paul must have told them he was a Greek. To present himself as a Jew to the Jews, he must have told them he was a Jew. He lied in this way many, many times. Whatever the occasion demanded, it got. We can clearly perceive here that the man had a serious defect in his character, for he thought that by being dishonest, by lying, he could win men to Jesus, to whom lies are an abomination.

Here are his words :

For though I am free from all men, I have made myself a slave to all, that I might win the more. To the Jews I became as a Jew, in order to win Jews; to those under the law I became as one under the law – though not being myself under the law – that I might win those under the law. To those outside the law I became as one outside the law – not being without law toward God but under the law of Christ – that I might win those outside the law. To the weak I became weak, that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all men, that I might by all means save some. I do it all for the sake of the gospel, that I may share in its blessings. (I Corinthians. 9:19-25).

Regarding Paul’s assertion of being a Pharisee, let us take a close look at his words;

Christ redeemed[b] us[/b] from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us – for it is written, “Cursed be everyone who hangs on a tree.” – that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come upon the Gentiles, that[b] we [/b]might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith. (Galatians 3:13-14).

It is clear that Paul, by use of the first person plural in the last line of this quotation, is classifying himself with the Gentiles, who receive the promise of the Spirit. Was this simply a slip, and inadvertent error, or has he revealed his true nationality? In either case, inadvertent error or inadvertent truth, he is revealing that his word is not inspired by the Spirit, who would surely not permit him to make such an association were it not true – but if it is true, Paul lied.

My friend Paul did not lie... He was a roman citizen as well as being a Jew. The man used his dual nationality to his advantage. Paul being a. Christian does not stop him from fighting for his freedom.

Blessings that were to come upon the Gentiles was specifically to those who believe in the gospel of Christ. Is Paul also a gentile? Yes, he is a roman citizen. Is he a Jew? Yes. No lies here.

shdemidemi:

My friend Paul did not lie... He was a roman citizen as well as being a Jew. The man used his dual nationality to his advantage. Paul being a. Christian does not stop him from fighting for his freedom.

Blessings that were to come upon the Gentiles was specifically to those who believe in the gospel of Christ. Is Paul also a gentile? Yes, he is a roman citizen. Is he a Jew? Yes. No lies here.

To insist that Paul was a Roman citizen is to also state his father was also a Roman citizen, there is no evidence of this. Further, every Roman citizen had to offer yearly sacrifices to Roman gods, do you think Paul would have done this? If you think the Romans would grant a citizenship and then overlook a lack of obeisance to their gods then you know nothing about the Romans. Nero blamed the great fire of Rome on the Christians claiming they refused to worship Roman gods and sent them to the colosseum. What do you think they would have done to Paul?

There is no such thing as the "Gospel of Christ" it is in fact the Gospel of Paul. Was he a Roman citizen? No, was he a Jew.? Doubtful, he claimed to be from the tribe of Benjamin, that in itself was a source of great mirth, nobody in early Palestine could directly trace their lineage to the original tribes other than the Levites (for their priestly roles) clearly he lied about that, was he a gentile? By his own admission probably...yes.

The Ebionites, in documents the church has tried to suppress tell us that Paul was a gentile who turned up in Jerusalem, attached himself to the Sadducees and tried to curry favour by doing their dirty work. He tried to marry the daughter of the High Priest and got himself circumcised....as an adult, on failing to win the girl, fell out with his paymaster and had to leave town in a hurry, probably explaining his antipathy towards women, have you never wondered why Paul never married? in fact counseled against marriage?

He probably realised he had to become a Pharisee to save his neck from the Sadducees, Who probably wanted to teach him a lesson for being so uppity and whilst he was at it, hn the road to Damascus saw the light...or heard a voice....or whichever one it was, nobody quite knows.....and invented Christology. I say blame it all on the woman who should have just married the bloke and saved us all the hassle. Anyway, thats my story.

Sarassin:

To insist that Paul was a Roman citizen is to also state his father was also a Roman citizen, there is no evidence of this. Further, every Roman citizen had to offer yearly sacrifices to Roman gods, do you think Paul would have done this? If you think the Romans would grant a citizenship and then overlook a lack of obeisance to their gods then you know nothing about the Romans. Nero blamed the great fire of Rome on the Christians claiming they refused to worship Roman gods and sent them to the colosseum. What do you think they would have done to Paul?

What they eventually did to him. You have no prove for all the speculations bro.

Sarassin:
There is no such thing as the "Gospel of Christ" it is in fact the Gospel of Paul. Was he a Roman citizen? No, was he a Jew.? Doubtful, he claimed to be from the tribe of Benjamin, that in itself was a source of great mirth, nobody in early Palestine could directly trace their lineage to the original tribes other than the Levites (for their priestly roles) clearly he lied about that, was he a gentile? By his own admission probably...yes.

He knew so much about the law, yet he was a mere gentile to you.

Sarassin:
The Ebionites, in documents the church has tried to suppress tell us that Paul was a gentile who turned up in Jerusalem, attached himself to the Sadducees and tried to curry favour by doing their dirty work. He tried to marry the daughter of the High Priest and got himself circumcised....as an adult, on failing to win the girl, fell out with his paymaster and had to leave town in a hurry, probably explaining his antipathy towards women, have you never wondered why Paul never married? in fact counseled against marriage?

He probably realised he had to become a Pharisee to save his neck from the Sadducees, Who probably wanted to teach him a lesson for being so uppity and whilst he was at it, hn the road to Damascus saw the light...or heard a voice....or whichever one it was, nobody quite knows.....and invented Christology. I say blame it all on the woman who should have just married the bloke and saved us all the hassle. Anyway, thats my story.

Even today, you can't walk into to Israel disguising to be a Jew. How Paul could have creeped into the system being a gentile without anyone mentioning such in the bible is beyond believe.

I believe the bible.. I believe God the father (Old Testament), the son (testator) and the Holy Spirit (Paul's office).

shdemidemi
He knew so much about the law, yet he was a mere gentile to you

What Paul knew about Pharisaical Jewry we could put on a thumbnail, he knew next to nothing about the laws hence he abrogated them.

shdemidemi
Even today, you can't walk into to Israel disguising to be a Jew. How Paul could have creeped into the system being a gentile without anyone mentioning such in the bible is beyond believe.

You would be surprised how easy it is. 17 of the 26 books of the NT canons are either written by Paul, about Paul or in his name, the rest carry no significance according to Paulinists. It is the victors who write history. You should maybe read Paul's comments about "Apollos" (a nice Jewish name, no doubt)to see how a gentile becomes a "true believer" according to Paul. Does anybody actually still believe Paul was a Pharisee ? The last Christian died on the cross.

This OP critique is too long.


I think he is a Christlem by his writing.

shdemidemi:

My friend Paul did not lie... He was a roman citizen as well as being a Jew. The man used his dual nationality to his advantage. Paul being a. Christian does not stop him from fighting for his freedom.

Blessings that were to come upon the Gentiles was specifically to those who believe in the gospel of Christ. Is Paul also a gentile? Yes, he is a roman citizen. Is he a Jew? Yes. No lies here.

Paul himself admitted that he is not committed to truth. Instead, he justifies telling lies to the Philippians: “The important thing is that in every way, whether from false motives or true, Christ is preached.” (Philippians 1:18). Paul claims his lies promote the gospel: “My dishonesty brought (God) glory by pointing up his honesty in contrast to my lies.” (Romans 3:7). He even openly boasts of being a deceiver to the Corinthians: “Crafty fellow that I am, I caught you by trickery!” (2 Corinthians 12:16).

Paul is so unabashedly duplicitous, he admits to being guided by the shady principle of telling people whatever they want to hear: “I have become all things to all men so that by all possible means I might save some.” (1 Corinthians 9:22).

Accusations that he was a liar trailed him everywhere, ensuring that he often resorted to swearing in self-defence: “The God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who is blessed forever, knows that I am not lying.” (2 Corinthians 11:31).

But Jesus expressly cautions against this: “Do not swear at all: either by heaven, for it is God’s throne; or by the earth, for it is his footstool. Simply let your ‘Yes’ be ‘Yes,’ and your ‘No,’ ‘No’; anything beyond this comes from the evil one.” (Matthew 5:34/37).

Paul, knowing that their faith would crumble if subjected to free and critical inquiry, tells his followers to avoid philosophy. Colossians 2:8

The vision in which Paul claims that Jesus gave him an authority to teach in his name is recorded a number of times in the New Testament. If we were to analyze these variant descriptions, made by the same man, as in a court of law, they would be thrown out as fabricated "evidence" because of inconsistencies. For example:

1. Acts (9:3-7)

[3] Now as he journeyed he approached Damascus, and suddenly a light from heaven flashed about him. [4] And he fell to the ground and heard a voice saying to him, "Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?" [5] And he said, "Who are you, Lord?" And he said, "I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting; [6] but rise and enter the city, and you will be told what you are to do."[7] The men who were traveling with him stood speechless, hearing the voice but seeing no one.

In this description, it is stated that only Paul fell to the ground. And, the other men who traveled with him did not see anything but heard a voice. Compare this to the next description:

2. Acts (22:6-9) [6] "As I made my journey and drew near to Damascus, about noon a great light from heaven suddenly shone about me.
[7] And I fell to the ground and heard a voice saying to me, `Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?'
[8] And I answered, `Who are you, Lord?' And he said to me, `I am Jesus of Nazareth whom you are persecuting.'
[9] Now those who were with me saw the light but did not hear the voice of the one who was speaking to me.
In this description, in complete contradiction to the one above, Paul states that those who traveled with him did not hear the voice but saw the light. The previous description said that they did not see anything but heard a voice!

3. Acts (26:14)
[14] And when we had all fallen to the ground, I heard a voice saying to me in the Hebrew language, `Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me? It hurts you to kick against the goads.'In this description, Paul says that they "all" fell to the ground whereas in the previous description, only Paul had fallen to the ground. In any court of law, anywhere in the world where justice is upheld, this testimony of Paul would have been thrown out as fabrication and he would have been prosecuted for perjury.

The brilliant theologian Ernest Renan, said in his book Saint Paul:

"True Christianity, which will last forever, comes from the gospel words of Christ not from the epistles of Paul. The writings of Paul have been a danger and a hidden rock, the causes of the principal defects of Christian theology."

Thomas Jefferson, third president of the United States and author of the Declaration of Independence in his "Letter to William Short":

"Paul was the first corrupter of the doctrines of Jesus."

omonuan:

Paul himself admitted that he is not committed to truth. Instead, he justifies telling lies to the Philippians: “The important thing is that in every way, whether from false motives or true, Christ is preached.” (Philippians 1:18). Paul claims his lies promote the gospel: “My dishonesty brought (God) glory by pointing up his honesty in contrast to my lies.” (Romans 3:7). He even openly boasts of being a deceiver to the Corinthians: “Crafty fellow that I am, I caught you by trickery!” (2 Corinthians 12:16).

Paul is so unabashedly duplicitous, he admits to being guided by the shady principle of telling people whatever they want to hear: “I have become all things to all men so that by all possible means I might save some.” (1 Corinthians 9:22).

Accusations that he was a liar trailed him everywhere, ensuring that he often resorted to swearing in self-defence: “The God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who is blessed forever, knows that I am not lying.” (2 Corinthians 11:31).

But Jesus expressly cautions against this: “Do not swear at all: either by heaven, for it is God’s throne; or by the earth, for it is his footstool. Simply let your ‘Yes’ be ‘Yes,’ and your ‘No,’ ‘No’; anything beyond this comes from the evil one.” (Matthew 5:34/37).

Paul, knowing that their faith would crumble if subjected to free and critical inquiry, tells his followers to avoid philosophy. Colossians 2:8

Context matters ...Now you see some people will go to any end to bring about a little bit more misery for Paul at the time. Some people were actually promoting his Gospel in order to hopefully bring even more harm to him, but it doesn’t matter to him as long as people heard the Gospel of the Grace of God." So even unbelievers can propagate the Gospel, it’s not the best way, but God can use it, and so always remember that the circumstances of this apostle in this prison in Rome is beyond our understanding, but on the other hand we can learn from it , and we can do many of the same things that he did.


1 cor 9:22 does not mean he lies to sustain the gospel. He associated with every one just to save a few. Missionaries don't go to a place to suddenly come in and live with western culture and habits and food. They would never reach anybody. But they have to go into that foreign culture and begin to eat their foreign food. This isn't about lies.

2 cor 11:21

Who do you think he's talking about? The people that are constantly opposing his apostleship. They were Jews! Because they are still not ready to accept the fact that these pagan Gentiles could enter into a salvation experience without becoming a part of Judaism. He says: Are they Hebrews? so am I. Are they Israelites? so am I. Are they the seed of Abraham?

Sarassin:

To insist that Paul was a Roman citizen is to also state his father was also a Roman citizen, there is no evidence of this. Further, every Roman citizen had to offer yearly sacrifices to Roman gods, do you think Paul would have done this? If you think the Romans would grant a citizenship and then overlook a lack of obeisance to their gods then you know nothing about the Romans. Nero blamed the great fire of Rome on the Christians claiming they refused to worship Roman gods and sent them to the colosseum. What do you think they would have done to Paul?

There is no such thing as the "Gospel of Christ" it is in fact the Gospel of Paul. Was he a Roman citizen? No, was he a Jew.? Doubtful, he claimed to be from the tribe of Benjamin, that in itself was a source of great mirth, nobody in early Palestine could directly trace their lineage to the original tribes other than the Levites (for their priestly roles) clearly he lied about that, was he a gentile? By his own admission probably...yes.

The Ebionites, in documents the church has tried to suppress tell us that Paul was a gentile who turned up in Jerusalem, attached himself to the Sadducees and tried to curry favour by doing their dirty work. He tried to marry the daughter of the High Priest and got himself circumcised....as an adult, on failing to win the girl, fell out with his paymaster and had to leave town in a hurry, probably explaining his antipathy towards women, have you never wondered why Paul never married? in fact counseled against marriage?

He probably realised he had to become a Pharisee to save his neck from the Sadducees, Who probably wanted to teach him a lesson for being so uppity and whilst he was at it, hn the road to Damascus saw the light...or heard a voice....or whichever one it was, nobody quite knows.....and invented Christology. I say blame it all on the woman who should have just married the bloke and saved us all the hassle. Anyway, thats my story.

You don kill me with laughter with this your story this morning. All this are pure specualtions that does not hold water.

The documented evidence in scripture is enough for anyone to believe that Paul wasn't a false apostle. Cheers.

omonuan: The vision in which Paul claims that Jesus gave him an authority to teach in his name is recorded a number of times in the New Testament. If we were to analyze these variant descriptions, made by the same man, as in a court of law, they would be thrown out as fabricated "evidence" because of inconsistencies. For example:

1. Acts (9:3-7)

[3] Now as he journeyed he approached Damascus, and suddenly a light from heaven flashed about him. [4] And he fell to the ground and heard a voice saying to him, "Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?" [5] And he said, "Who are you, Lord?" And he said, "I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting; [6] but rise and enter the city, and you will be told what you are to do."[7] The men who were traveling with him stood speechless, hearing the voice but seeing no one.

In this description, it is stated that only Paul fell to the ground.

And what makes you feel 'stood speechless' means they were not on their Knees too?

omonuan:

And, the other men who traveled with him did not see anything but heard a voice. Compare this to the next description:

2. Acts (22:6-9) [6] "As I made my journey and drew near to Damascus, about noon a great light from heaven suddenly shone about me.
[7] And I fell to the ground and heard a voice saying to me, `Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?'
[8] And I answered, `Who are you, Lord?' And he said to me, `I am Jesus of Nazareth whom you are persecuting.'
[9] Now those who were with me saw the light but did not hear the voice of the one who was speaking to me.
In this description, in complete contradiction to the one above, Paul states that those who traveled with him did not hear the voice but saw the light. The previous description said that they did not see anything but heard a voice!

My friend, I think this is all an issue of semantic.... They did not hear 'the voice' but they heard 'a voice'. I don't think they heard what Jesus said to Paul clearly but they knew 'a voice' was engaging with him.

omonuan:
3. Acts (26:14)
[14] And when we had all fallen to the ground, I heard a voice saying to me in the Hebrew language, `Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me? It hurts you to kick against the goads.'In this description, Paul says that they "all" fell to the ground whereas in the previous description, only Paul had fallen to the ground. In any court of law, anywhere in the world where justice is upheld, this testimony of Paul would have been thrown out as fabrication and he would have been prosecuted for perjury.

Paul never said he was the only one who fell to the ground. Luke's description says Paul fell to the ground and the rest 'stood speechless'. Now, can 'stood speechless' not mean astonished or gobsmacked or overwhelmed by the occasion?

shdemidemi:


Context matters ...Now you see some people will go to any end to bring about a little bit more misery for Paul at the time. Some people were actually promoting his Gospel in order to hopefully bring even more harm to him, but it doesn’t matter to him as long as people heard the Gospel of the Grace of God." So even unbelievers can propagate the Gospel, it’s not the best way, but God can use it, and so always remember that the circumstances of this apostle in this prison in Rome is beyond our understanding, but on the other hand we can learn from it , and we can do many of the same things that he did.

1 cor 9:22 does not mean he lies to sustain the gospel. He associated with every one just to save a few. Missionaries don't go to a place to suddenly come in and live with western culture and habits and food. They would never reach anybody. But they have to go into that foreign culture and begin to eat their foreign food. This isn't about lies.

2 cor 11:21

Who do you think he's talking about? The people that are constantly opposing his apostleship. They were Jews! Because they are still not ready to accept the fact that these pagan Gentiles could enter into a salvation experience without becoming a part of Judaism. He says: Are they Hebrews? so am I. Are they Israelites? so am I. Are they the seed of Abraham?

I know that it is hard for some Christians to accept that their idol Paul is a liar. But he acknowledges the fact himself. Even putting his mendacity in context does not make his lying better. Rather contexts make them worse. His assertions about his lies are succinct and unequivocal. Paul self incriminated himself in the Bible.

Paul lied about being an apostle and tries to defend his apostleship in early church. If Paul’s apostleship was not in question, then why does he defend it? 1 Corinthians 9:1-3 Why does he speak in v.3 of those who “try” him unless he was “tried” or judged as Rev 2:2 alleges?

If Paul was not one whom the Ephesians found to be a liar in Rev 2:2, then why does Paul say in 2 Timothy 1:15 that “all they which are in Asia have turned away from me.”?

If Paul’s claim in Galatians 2:16 is true, that we are saved by faith only, then why does James refute this in James 2:14-26 calling the author of this doctrine “o vain man” in v.20?

Paul speaks in Ephesians 6:19 of making known a “mystery of the gospel.” Why wasn’t this mystery shared with the 12 apostles Jesus spent 3 ½ years training? If Paul could be given all knowledge with a single blinding flash, then why did Jesus spend his entire ministry training apostles? Why didn’t he just zap them?

Paul mendacity is exemplified by: Romans 3:7 "If my lie is spreading the truth of God why am I judged a sinner." However, Revelation 22:15 states: "... lovers and makers of lies have their place in hell."

Pharisee Paul is a maker and lover of lies. The Bible clearly teaches that there is no 13th apostle. ( Revelation 21:14 And the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and in them the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.) thus, Proving Paul as the false apostle that the Lord spoke about in Revelation 2:2.

Paul is not only a self acclaimed liar. He boasts too. Little wonder that boasting and lying are the fruits of the same poisonous tree:
speaking NOT on behalf of Lord) "That which I speak, I speak it not after the Lord, but as it were foolishly, in this confidence of boasting" II Cor 11:17

omonuan:

I know that it is hard for some Christians to accept that their idol Paul is a liar. But he acknowledges the fact himself. Even putting his mendacity in context does not make his lying better. Rather contexts make them worse. His assertions about his lies are succinct and unequivocal. Paul self incriminated himself in the Bible.

Paul lied about being an apostle and tries to defend his apostleship in early church. If Paul’s apostleship was not in question, then why does he defend it? 1 Corinthians 9:1-3 Why does he speak in v.3 of those who “try” him unless he was “tried” or judged as Rev 2:2 alleges?

If Paul was not one whom the Ephesians found to be a liar in Rev 2:2, then why does Paul say in 2 Timothy 1:15 that “all they which are in Asia have turned away from me.”?

If Paul’s claim in Galatians 2:16 is true, that we are saved by faith only, then why does James refute this in James 2:14-26 calling the author of this doctrine “o vain man” in v.20?

Paul speaks in Ephesians 6:19 of making known a “mystery of the gospel.” Why wasn’t this mystery shared with the 12 apostles Jesus spent 3 ½ years training? If Paul could be given all knowledge with a single blinding flash, then why did Jesus spend his entire ministry training apostles? Why didn’t he just zap them?

Paul mendacity is exemplified by: Romans 3:7 "If my lie is spreading the truth of God why am I judged a sinner." However, Revelation 22:15 states: "... lovers and makers of lies have their place in hell."

Pharisee Paul is a maker and lover of lies. The Bible clearly teaches that there is no 13th apostle. ( Revelation 21:14 And the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and in them the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.) thus, Proving Paul as the false apostle that the Lord spoke about in Revelation 2:2.

Paul is not only a self acclaimed liar. He boasts too. Little wonder that boasting and lying are the fruits of the same poisonous tree:
speaking NOT on behalf of Lord) "That which I speak, I speak it not after the Lord, but as it were foolishly, in this confidence of boasting" II Cor 11:17

Your lack of understanding gets clearer by every post you make...

#endofdiscussion#

shdemidemi:

Your lack of understanding gets clearer by every post you make...

#endofdiscussion#

You are ashamed of the words as stated by the scripture. No need to assume lack of my understanding. Stand up and face the reality of what is stated in the Bible: I did not write the Bible did I? Or did I misquote what was stated? Your conclusion that I lack understanding is baseless and should apply to you instead.

2 Timothy 2:14-15:
"Keep reminding God’s people of these things. Warn them before God against quarreling about words; it is of no value, and only ruins those who listen. Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a worker who does not need to be ashamed and who correctly handles the word of truth." Handle the truth or slither into the mist of your willful ignorance.

"My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge.” (Hosea 4:6).

You are so full of yourself. I wonder who you took after. Hhhm! Could you be like grandiose Paul who says:
"I wish that all men were as I am." I Cor 7:7. Go on with boasting about your understanding cum my lack of it. You continue like your Hero Paul who says: "I must go on boasting." II Cor 12:1.

striktlymi: If Paul taught and preached falsehood, don't you think the other Apostles who were present in Paul's time would have objected to his teachings?

Thanks my brother. God bless u for this.

Bidam: You don kill me with laughter with this your story this morning. All this are pure specualtions that does not hold water.

The documented evidence in scripture is enough for anyone to believe that Paul wasn't a false apostle. Cheers.

Glad you found the funny side of things, swathes of that post were meant to be tongue-in-cheek to lighten things up a bit. But as we all know...where there's smoke, there's fire.

alexleo:

Thanks my brother. God bless u for this.

And what exactly do you propose the Jerusalem council was all about ? a tea gathering ?

shdemidemi:

Your lack of understanding gets clearer by every post you make...

#endofdiscussion#

I don't think it is fair to accuse the poster of a lack of understanding, he has after-all made a number of salient points, also we could all benefit from a persuasive rebuttal.

Perhaps one of the biggest problems in defending Paul is the fact that the best witness for Paul is ...Paul himself, so any response you give is going to be enormously subjective because of Paul's inherent need to present himself in a particular light

Sarassin:

I don't think it is fair to accuse the poster of a lack of understanding, he has after-all made a number of salient points,
also we could all benefit from a persuasive rebuttal.

Perhaps one of the biggest problems in defending Paul is the fact that the best witness for Paul is ...
Paul himself, so any response you give is going to be enormously subjective
because of Paul's inherent need to present himself in a particular light

MUAHAHAHAHAHA...

This thread is very long. I've been reading it with interest cos it contains many points that I've been trying to make over the last few years. However I would not go to the extreme that Sarassin has gone to. I do not think that Paul's teachings were absolute falsehood. I think that they contrast with the teachings of Jesus, but they are not always in stark contradiction. I think it is important to understand where Paul is coming from.

This whole thing about Paul Lying, I think definitely there is the problem of consistency in a lot of biblical accounts. Paul's story is inconsistent with the story in Acts. Acts contradicts itself and it contradicts Paul. Instead of going through a long thing with too many examples I think it is less time consuming to just put up one strong point and argue that point.

For example, instead of putting up a lot of issues that could easily be dismissed as mere speculations I would put up a single incident where the accounts in two part differ remarkably.

Personally I would go for the accounts of Paul's conversion and his early days as a christian. Then Ask questions as to what actually happened historically.

The Book of Acts tells it thus:

8 And Saul arose from the earth; and when his eyes were opened, he saw no man: but they led him by the hand, and brought him into Damascus. 9 And he was three days without sight, and neither did eat nor drink.

10 And there was a certain disciple at Damascus, named Ananias; and to him said the Lord in a vision, Ananias. And he said, Behold, I am here, Lord. 11 And the Lord said unto him, Arise, and go into the street which is called Straight, and enquire in the house of Judas for one called Saul, of Tarsus: for, behold, he prayeth, 12 and hath seen in a vision a man named Ananias coming in, and putting his hand on him, that he might receive his sight. 13 Then Ananias answered, Lord, I have heard by many of this man, how much evil he hath done to thy saints at Jerusalem: 14 and here he hath authority from the chief priests to bind all that call on thy name. 15 But the Lord said unto him, Go thy way: for he is a chosen vessel unto me, to bear my name before the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel: 16 for I will shew him how great things he must suffer for my name’s sake.

17 And Ananias went his way, and entered into the house; and putting his hands on him said, Brother Saul, the Lord, even Jesus, that appeared unto thee in the way as thou camest, hath sent me, that thou mightest receive thy sight, and be filled with the Holy Ghost. 18 And immediately there fell from his eyes as it had been scales: and he received sight forthwith, and arose, and was baptized. 19 And when he had received meat, he was strengthened. Then was Saul certain days with the disciples which were at Damascus.

20 And straightway he preached Christ in the synagogues, that he is the Son of God

23 And after that many days were fulfilled, the Jews took counsel to kill him: 24 but their laying await was known of Saul. And they watched the gates day and night to kill him. 25 Then the disciples took him by night, and let him down by the wall in a basket. 26 And when Saul was come to Jerusalem, he assayed to join himself to the disciples: but they were all afraid of him, and believed not that he was a disciple. 27 But Barnabas took him, and brought him to the apostles, and declared unto them how he had seen the Lord in the way, and that he had spoken to him, and how he had preached boldly at Damascus in the name of Jesus. 28 And he was with them coming in and going out at Jerusalem.

Paul is brought in to the family of christians in Damascus and then introduced to the apostles in Jerusalem where he is welcomed. But what is Paul's own account of what happened?

Galatians 1:15 But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother’s womb, and called me by his grace, 16 To reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen; immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood: 17 Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me; but I went into Arabia, and returned again unto Damascus. 18 Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days.

In galatians Paul is obviously trying to declare that the apostles in Jerusalem have no authority over him and so he denies even conferring with them after his conversion.

The question to ask therefore is: What happened to Paul after the Road of Damascus Conversion? Did he go to Jerusalem to be accepted by those 'which were apostles before me', Or did he go straight to the Arabian desert and confer with no one?


It is obvious that the writer of Acts is trying to place Paul in the context of the Church of Jerusalem, yet Paul himself is trying to remove himself from this context and deny it's authority over him.


Me personally, I would stick on this issue and hammer it over and over again. Otherwise the argument will just go all over the place and 10 pages later there'll be no progress, just a lot of yabis.

I'll be right back on the next post.....