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 ?

I would rather you desist from transposing Islamic jurispundence on Christianity. Please take out time to read the book of the Acts of the Apostle with the progression of Paul from being a persecutor to his conversion. Pay special attention to his integration with the apostle/disciples so as to avoid the crass inaccuracies you are spreading. The council in Jerusalem was principally convened to smoothen out doctrinal questions.

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.

Thankfully, the Bible is ensconced in demonstrable logicality. Paul was specially chosen to play the seminal role as an eminent evangelist, theologian, ecumenist and church leader all rolled into one. You can throw wild accusations here and there, but does that detract from the fact that he conducted himself irreproachably both in words and in action through all his letters? I can understand your frustration...

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.

Oga the joke is on you. Your Islamic prophet Muhammad was inspired by Bahira, an Ebionite monk to project Islam, which to me, is nothing but a hotchpotch of heretical Christianity nurtured by apocryphal writings. Islamic scholars and apologists have been united in their relentless umbrage on Paul whose letters and deeds were among the veritable bastions on which the ïnviolate christian faith is built. Your attempts to discredit and demonise the venerable apostle is not only laughable but evidently ridiculous.

maestroferddi: Your Islamic/Ebionitic/judaisaic shallow fabrications and weak textual analysis are so easy to detect. I will call you out in due course as I go through the comments.

maestroferddi: There was no way my hunches would have failed me here! At last you have come out of the closet to get your Islamic theology some badly needed authentication by stooping to an apocryphal writing. One would have expected that you, for the look of it, should have known better than to build an argument on an apocryphal narrative.

maestroferddi: My Muslim friend, this malaria induced tale you are trying to concoct or quote is at variance with biblical accounts and established history. You are still catching at the straws of badly woven apocryphal narratives. Such a pathetic spectacle...

maestroferddi: I would rather you desist from transposing Islamic jurispundence on Christianity. Please take out time to read the book of the Acts of the Apostle with the progression of Paul from being a persecutor to his conversion. Pay special attention to his integration with the apostle/disciples so as to avoid the crass inaccuracies you are spreading. The council in Jerusalem was principally convened to smoothen out doctrinal questions.

Back in the day, I recall making a similar mistake with the Sarassin's handle. LOL
Not Islamic, not anything remotely close to it nor to do with what Sarassin believes in

Sarassin:


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



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.

Kpele! Paulinists read Christians/believers...

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

Another closet Muslim and or atheist on the prowl! Which bible are you reading? You should, at least, have the integrity to quote scripture with requisite propriety and not slanting them to suit pre-conceived motives.

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, 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."

In the unlikely situation that your examples are correct, the question any rational mind would ask would be whether the slight difference in both accounts is material enough to disprove Paul's encounter. The discrepancies you are trying to ostensibly ferret out, are, at best, supporting evidences being used to prove Paul's case. To completely quash his deposition/submission, you also need to rebut the main thrust of the case which is the instance of an angel independently appearing to prophet Ananias in validation of Paul's encounter. Your failure to do the foregoing would render your argument null and void.

shdemidemi:

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

#endofdiscussion#

So what were you expecting?

maestroferddi: Thankfully, the Bible is ensconced in demonstrable logicality. Paul was specially chosen to play the seminal role as an eminent evangelist, theologian, ecumenist and church leader all rolled into one. You can throw wild accusations here and there, but does that detract from the fact that he conducted himself irreproachably both in words and in action through all his letters? I can understand your frustration...

Paul cannot be "an eminent evangelist, theologian, ecumenist and church leader all rolled into one." He is a self acclaimed liar.Romans 3:7

How do you reconcile the following about Paul?

Romans 7:17 "I want to do good but I cannot do good. I do evil even though I do not want to do evil."

(stealing) "I robbed other churches, taking wages of them, to do you service." II Cor 11:8
(boasting) "Since many are boasting in the way the world does, I too will boast." II Cor 11:18

(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(trickery and deceit) "Yet, crafty fellow that I am, I caught you by trickery!" II Cor 12:16

(Paul decides to consult with Satan, not Jesus, concerning the man he passed judgment on)

"hand this man over to Satan, so that the sinful nature may be destroyed and his spirit saved on the day of the Lord." I Cor 5:5

Do you still think Paul is "an eminent evangelist, theologian, ecumenist and church leader all rolled into one."?

I can cite more evidence from the Bible that would show you that Paul was not what you think but I demure for now

omonuan:

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.

Must you whimsically truncate scriptures to mislead? Why not avail us with the full outline of requisite scriptures complementary with the author's thought process and contextual meanings? I tire!

maestroferddi: Must you whimsically truncate scriptures to mislead? Why not avail us with the full outline of requisite scriptures complementary with the author's thought process and contextual meanings? I tire!

If the biblical quotes attributed on my threads are cited incorrectly like you alleged, show them in complete form. Otherwise your charges are false. This is a a back door use of the usual defense: "you need to understand the context Paul defenders would say." However, contexts do not help Paul. They make him look worse.

Remember that the Bible is not open to private interpretation 2 Peter 1:20-21: "Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake [as they were] moved by the Holy Ghost."

I am a bible literalist and since the Bible is inspired by God and Paul your hero himself said that God is not the author of confusion, I take the bible as it is written. 1 Corinthians 14:33King James Version (KJV). The bible and truth are my defenses. I believe that since the bible was God inspired, I need no extraneous source to understand the bible.

2 Timothy 3:16: "All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness," Use this as your guideline and refrain from wild accusations. I will be waiting for your biblical citations that support your wild allegations against me.

The Bible says what it means and means what it says. It states that “scripture cannot be broken” (John 10:35) and “Your [God’s] word is truth” (John 17:17). If we are to believe that the Bible is unbreakable truth, then we must believe that lie means lie and truth means truth

PastorAIO: 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.....

I honestly cannot see your point. The primary human validator of Paul's apostleship/discipleship was Ananias, a reputed prophet and, to some extent, Barnabas, an able disciple. Paul's meeting with Peter and the rest cannot be to validate his office as an apostle because we should suppose that the witness and reputation of Ananias ought to have gotten to their knowledge. Paul had a direct instruction of the mode and means of his ministry so I really do not see where the need to be tied to the apron strings of Peter and the rest arose. Paul and Barnabas/Silas met with the rest as the occasion called like the council in Jerusalem.

maestroferddi: I honestly cannot see your point. The primary human validator of Paul's apostleship/discipleship was Ananias, a reputed prophet and, to some extent, Barnabas, an able disciple. Paul's meeting with Peter and the rest cannot be to validate his office as an apostle because we should suppose that the witness and reputation of Ananias ought to have gotten to their knowledge. Paul had a direct instruction of the mode and means of his ministry so I really do not see where the need to be tied to the apron strings of Peter and the rest arose. Paul and Barnabas/Silas met with the rest as the occasion called like the council in Jerusalem.

"And the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and in them the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb."◄ Revelation 21:14 ► Paul was not one of them. There is no 13th appostle.

He knew that he was regarded as a false apostle so he changed and called himself a minister:

"This is how one should regard us, as servants of Christ and stewards of the mysteries of God. Moreover it is required of stewards that they be found trustworthy[or faithful]." (1 Corinthians 4:1-2 RSV).

The names of the twelve apostles are:

Simon Peter (brother of Andrew) - He was active in bringing people to Jesus - Bible writer
James (son of Zebedee and older brother of John) also called "James the Greater" - Bible writer
John (son of Zebedee and brother of James) - Bible writer
Andrew (brother of Simon Peter) - He was active in bringing people to Jesus.
Philip of Bethsaida
Thomas (Didymus)
Bartholomew (Nathaniel) - He was one of the disciples to whom Jesus appeared at the Sea of Tiberias after His resurrection. He was also a witness of the Ascension.
Matthew (Levi) of Capernaum
James (son of Alphaeus) also called "James the Lesser" - Bible writer
Simon the Zealot (the Canaanite)
Thaddaeus-Judas (Lebbaeus), brother of James the Lesser and brother of Matthew (Levi) of Capernaum.
Judas Iscariot, who also betrayed him.
Matthew 10:1-4.

Who replaced Judas Iscariot? The Scriptures tell us it was Matthias, “he was reckoned along with the eleven apostles.” (Acts 1:23-26). Paul was never a true apostle.

BabaGnoni: ^^^
and for any closely following Titus has three chapters in it,
so PastorAIO means Titus 1:10-14
- incidentally the context of those verses is about "Correcting False Teachers"

We really need to cut Apostle Paul some slack. In paganism just like other religions, there abound some moral truths. The question then is whether we expect Apostle Paul and other christian leaders/writers to stand the truth on its head just because a particular religion was the first to make a particular assertion or statement of truth.

Sarassin:
Whilst it is inevitable to attack Paul’s teachings, it is not my intention to state that Paul was a teacher of falsehoods, we should not equate the falsehoods of Paul with his Christology. From my point of view Paul’s teachings were one of several competing for relevance at the turn of the first century, there were any number of them, from the Valentinians to the Ebionites, from the Cerinthians to the Marcionites, none the worse for the wear.

The big issue of course is that by a quirk of fate, Pauline Christology is now the dominant creed, it is therefore pertinent to take a cold-blooded, no holds barred look at the antecedents of Paul. At the very minimum it is fair to say Paul had a predilection for lying, misrepresentation, embellishment and self-aggrandisement. The question is, what if any are the effects of the above character flaws in Paul…on Christianity?

And why, in the name of all that is good do Christians abandon the words of the progenitor of Christianity who actually died for their sins…they claim…,in favour of a self-confessed liar who never actually met Jesus?

Fight your own battles and leave Christians to theirs. Objectivity will nip the seed of discord you are trying to sow in its bud.

omonuan:

Many apostles did not believe Paul's Teachings.

In Acts 9:26, it says "But when Saul had come to Jerusalem he tried to join the disciples; but they were all afraid of him and did not believe that he was a disciple". Oh and then in Acts 15:12-13 the apostle James attended one of Paul's blasphemous sermons, simply because the Lord wanted him to see what a liar Paul was.

It reads, "The whole assembly became silent as they listened to Barnabas and Paul telling about the signs and wonders God had done among the Gentiles through them. When they finished, James spoke up. “Brothers,” he said, “listen to me."

Notice how James says, "Brothers, listen to me". James was trying to tell them something Simon (another true apostle) said, because James knew what a liar Paul and Barnabas were, he was telling the crowds to listen to him and not Paul and Barnabas.He went on to discredit Paul's Teachings including the doctrine that the law has been abolished.

James 2:14-26 called the author of the doctrine of the fact (which is Paul) that we are saved by faith only “o vain man” in v.20?

2nd Peter 3:15-16 affirms that Paul's writings are confusing, then why did the Holy Spirit write confusing things through Paul? How is this compatible with Paul's own teaching that God is not the author of Confusion? 1 Corinthians 14:33

Paul claimed to have encountered Jesus in the desert on the road to Damascus. Jesus said in Matthew 24:26 that when someone claims to see him in the desert we shouldn't believe him. Should we take the advice of Jesus or should we believe Paul?

Paul in Galatians 1 emphasizes his knowledge comes directly from Jesus and not from man. Jesus says in Matthew 24:26 if someone claims to see him in the secret chambers, we should not believe him. Who was telling the truth Paul or Christ?

Must you try too hard?!

maestroferddi: Must you try too hard?!

Try to hard to do what? Nothing on the post you cited was hard. They are easy to find right in your bible so I am not sure what you are alluding to. Read your bible and stop ignoring the obvious. It is not supposed to be used for decorations or to regurgitate the usual feel good dogma.

The bible is my defense and I cite it verbatim. You have leveled several false charges against me yet you cannot substantiate any of your wild charges. Try another one. My biblical citations are ironclad and you know it so you keep engaging on a wild goose chase.

omonuan: The questions that many Christians should answer: is Paul more credible than Christ? If Paul's teaching is in conflict with that of Jesus (which many are) should we take Paul or Jesus at his word?

Paul and the Law:

Romans 3:28
[28] For we hold that a man is justified by faith apart from works of law.

Romans 7:4
[4] Likewise, my brethren, you have died to the law through the body of Christ, so that you may belong to another, to him who has been raised from the dead in order that we may bear fruit for God.

1 Corinthians 10:25
[25] Eat whatever is sold in the meat market without raising any question on the ground of conscience.

Jesus and the law:

Contrary to what Paul taught, Jesus stated that he came to fulfill the Law and not abolish it. He further states that whoever takes the least bit out of the Law will be "the least" in the Kingdom of Heaven. Since Paul took the "whole" law out, according to Jesus' criteria, Paul is the "least" of the "least"! Consider these words of Jesus:

Matthew 5:17-20:

[17] "Think not that I have come to abolish the law and the prophets; I have come not to abolish them but to fulfil them.
[18] For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the law until all is accomplished.

[19] Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but he who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
[20] For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. "

Jesus made it clear in the Sermon on the Mount that the entire Law of Moses would remain absolutely inviolate — not one dot or iota (jot or tittle) would be abrogated until “heaven and earth shall pass away” and “ALL THINGS” have been fulfilled. (Matt 5:17-19).

Paul, in direct opposition to Jesus, proclaimed that Christians were “no longer under the Law” (Romans 3:19-21 and Romans 6:14), even though heaven and earth had not yet passed away and many things, including all the End Times prophecies, had not been fulfilled yet.

The law or not the law, that is the question! Christ is for the law and Paul is not. The conundrum is who do you believe? The self acclaimed liar or the messiah?

Your thesis is replete with basic errors...

maestroferddi: Your thesis is replete with basic errors...

Point out the errors. This is the second time I have asked you to do so. Substantiate your charges or find something else to do. The fact that you don't like what my postings teach you does not mean that they contain errors. Try another wild charge!

As you might have found out already, if you want to debate the bible with me, you must know your bible beyond the basic feel good doctrines. You need in-depth knowledge to challenge me. I am a student of the bible and I learn from it every day. Unlike most people, I don't shy away from the good, the bad and the ugly from the Bible.

Abiagirl777:

you are greatly blessed for dis.a lot of tinz one reads here can mek one denounce his/her faith.
Jesus Forever!Maranatha!

The more reason everyone needs to be well grounded in the bible...

Sarassin:

Most certainly nothing adds up where Paul is concerned, here is the first contradiction;

"When many days had passed, the Jews plotted to kill him, but their plot became known to Saul. They were watching the gates day and night to kill him; but his disciples took him by night and let him down over the wall, lowering him in a basket". (Acts 9:23-25)

"At Damascus, the governor under King Aretas guarded the city of Damascus in order to seize me, but I was let down in a basket through a window in the wall, and escaped his hands". (II Corinthians 11: 32,33)

So, was it the Jews of Damascus from whom Paul fled, or was it from the governor under King Aretas? Further, did they lower him over the wall, or through a window in the wall?

In the accounts you have outlined. First, If Paul had to escape from Damascus either to save his life or to avoid arrest, and then spent time in Arabia, why would he have returned to Damascus where his life would again have been endangered? The reasonable answer is that there was no foray into Arabia, and no return to Damascus.

Here is Paul defending himself before Agrippa;

"Wherefore, O King Agrippa, I was not disobedient to the heavenly vision, but declared first to those at Damascus, then at Jerusalem and throughout all the country of Judea, and also to the Gentiles, that they should repent and turn to God and perform deeds worthy of their repentance" (Acts 26:19,20).

What is conspicuous by its absence is…a mention of Arabia….and a return to Damascus, and definitely we know he was unknown in Judea!

Guy try to think out of the box na. Paul was threatened by the Jews in Damascus who must have instigated for his arrest by King Aretas or the governor. Must he blurt out everything each time? I can see your grouse: how dare Paul declaim that he preached in your beloved Mecca/Arabia...LOL.

BabaGnoni:







Back in the day, I recall making a similar mistake with the Sarassin's handle. LOL
Not Islamic, not anything remotely close to it nor to do with what Sarassin believes in

I am afraid you are not getting it right here. A little research would unmask the fact that most of the submissions @sarassin is making here are blatant regurgitations of Islamic textual criticism of the bible which ironically is the very pedestal they need to authenticate their creed. His moniker alone gives him away...quite easily.

maestroferddi: We really need to cut Apostle Paul some slack.
In paganism just like other religions, there abound some moral truths.
The question then is whether we expect Apostle Paul and other christian leaders/writers to stand the truth on its head just
because a particular religion was the first to make a particular assertion or statement of truth.

Well I've no axe to grind with the Paul or the thread title,
merely just an observer and watching to see how the thread will pan out
As per first to make assertions etc
well someone has to be first or has to start first with someone, isn't it?

maestroferddi:
I am afraid you are not getting it right here.
A little research would unmask the fact that most of the submissions @sarassin is making here
are blatant regurgitations of Islamic textual criticism of the bible which ironically is the very pedestal they need to authenticate their creed.
His moniker alone gives him away...quite easily.

That is exactly what you aren't getting
- same conjecture I earlier made back then
The monicker has nothing to do with Islam nor the Arabs at the time of the Crusades
The seemingly similar sound or pronunciation of the handle and the Arabian crusader is accidental or coincidental
LOL throws you off the scent, albeit not deliberately planned that way, I think
I bet he's nursing a smug smile at this display of not knowing this fact.

omonuan:

Paul cannot be "an eminent evangelist, theologian, ecumenist and church leader all rolled into one." He is a self acclaimed liar.Romans 3:7

How do you reconcile the following about Paul?

Romans 7:17 "I want to do good but I cannot do good. I do evil even though I do not want to do evil."

(stealing) "I robbed other churches, taking wages of them, to do you service." II Cor 11:8
(boasting) "Since many are boasting in the way the world does, I too will boast." II Cor 11:18

(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(trickery and deceit) "Yet, crafty fellow that I am, I caught you by trickery!" II Cor 12:16

(Paul decides to consult with Satan, not Jesus, concerning the man he passed judgment on)

"hand this man over to Satan, so that the sinful nature may be destroyed and his spirit saved on the day of the Lord." I Cor 5:5

Do you still think Paul is "an eminent evangelist, theologian, ecumenist and church leader all rolled into one."?

I can cite more evidence from the Bible that would show you that Paul was not what you think but I demure for now

The sound of my laughter is disturbing my neighbourhood. You see the problem with being a superficial critic? You are not doing your homework at all, my guy. Paul in that Romans chapter 3 was addressing a Jewish audience while driving home his points with questions and answers. You just excised verse 7 without doing the needful by taking the chapter from the beginning. Paul was actually admonishing against lying to do God a favour (V7). He was establishing that it is God that establishes right or wrong through the conviction of the holy spirit. For the avoidance of verbosity, please go through that chapter again from 1-9 so that you can understand the full import of what he was trying to communicate. The same applies to the rest of your examples unless you have elected to wallow in ignorance...

omonuan:

If the biblical quotes attributed on my threads are cited incorrectly like you alleged, show them in complete form. Otherwise your charges are false. This is a a back door use of the usual defense: "you need to understand the context Paul defenders would say." However, contexts do not help Paul. They make him look worse.

Remember that the Bible is not open to private interpretation 2 Peter 1:20-21: "Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake [as they were] moved by the Holy Ghost."

I am a bible literalist and since the Bible is inspired by God and Paul your hero himself said that God is not the author of confusion, I take the bible as it is written. 1 Corinthians 14:33King James Version (KJV). The bible and truth are my defenses. I believe that since the bible was God inspired, I need no extraneous source to understand the bible.

2 Timothy 3:16: "All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness," Use this as your guideline and refrain from wild accusations. I will be waiting for your biblical citations that support your wild allegations against me.

The Bible says what it means and means what it says. It states that “scripture cannot be broken” (John 10:35) and “Your [God’s] word is truth” (John 17:17). If we are to believe that the Bible is unbreakable truth, then we must believe that lie means lie and truth means truth

The sticking point here is whether you are ready to learn or whether you are jet set in your ways. There is more to knowing the bible than to be dropping scriptures ad nauseam. Nobody is asking you to introduce extra-scriptural materials in order to understand the bible but to observe basic objectivity. Most portions of the bible are written as a set of instructions or teachings inter-linked. A neophyte can easily pull out a particular verse and hit town with same alleging inconsistencies whilst a broad approach can easily make the meaning of the verse/chapter self-evident. It like if the bible is saying, for instance, in a virtual chapter: v1: "I didn't say...." then after other parenthetical information says in, say, v5: "kill the man that steal from you..." Now someone would start sounding off on how the bible is inconsistent whereas a full exegesis of the verse/chapter would have removed any ambiguity.

omonuan:

"And the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and in them the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb."◄ Revelation 21:14 ► Paul was not one of them. There is no 13th appostle.

He knew that he was regarded as a false apostle so he changed and called himself a minister:

"This is how one should regard us, as servants of Christ and stewards of the mysteries of God. Moreover it is required of stewards that they be found trustworthy[or faithful]." (1 Corinthians 4:1-2 RSV).

The names of the twelve apostles are:

Simon Peter (brother of Andrew) - He was active in bringing people to Jesus - Bible writer
James (son of Zebedee and older brother of John) also called "James the Greater" - Bible writer
John (son of Zebedee and brother of James) - Bible writer
Andrew (brother of Simon Peter) - He was active in bringing people to Jesus.
Philip of Bethsaida
Thomas (Didymus)
Bartholomew (Nathaniel) - He was one of the disciples to whom Jesus appeared at the Sea of Tiberias after His resurrection. He was also a witness of the Ascension.
Matthew (Levi) of Capernaum
James (son of Alphaeus) also called "James the Lesser" - Bible writer
Simon the Zealot (the Canaanite)
Thaddaeus-Judas (Lebbaeus), brother of James the Lesser and brother of Matthew (Levi) of Capernaum.
Judas Iscariot, who also betrayed him.
Matthew 10:1-4.

Who replaced Judas Iscariot? The Scriptures tell us it was Matthias, “he was reckoned along with the eleven apostles.” (Acts 1:23-26). Paul was never a true apostle.

I just can't see the point for your needless bickering. Paul was the apostle of the Gentiles while the Twelve Apostles were basically for the Jews from whom salvation came. The revelational account also spoke of the twelve tribes of Israel...

omonuan:

Try to hard to do what? Nothing on the post you cited was hard. They are easy to find right in your bible so I am not sure what you are alluding to. Read your bible and stop ignoring the obvious. It is not supposed to be used for decorations or to regurgitate the usual feel good dogma.

The bible is my defense and I cite it verbatim. You have leveled several false charges against me yet you cannot substantiate any of your wild charges. Try another one. My biblical citations are ironclad and you know it so you keep engaging on a wild goose chase.

Just like I said-see vide-you are absolutely misguided. The bible is your defence and you are quoting it out of context;saying what it did not say...

omonuan:

Point out the errors. This is the second time I have asked you to do so. Substantiate your charges or find something else to do. The fact that you don't like what my postings teach you does not mean that they contain errors. Try another wild charge!

As you might have found out already, if you want to debate the bible with me, you must know your bible beyond the basic feel good doctrines. You need in-depth knowledge to challenge me. I am a student of the bible and I learn from it every day. Unlike most people, I don't shy away from the good, the bad and the ugly from the Bible.

First and foremost, try and internalise the nuggets of suggestions I have mooted in sundry cases above. I am sure your predilection for contradictions would be reasonably tempered thereafter...

BabaGnoni:

That is exactly what you aren't getting
- same conjecture I earlier made back then
The monicker has nothing to do with Islam nor the Arabs at the time of the Crusades
The seemingly similar sound or pronunciation of the handle and the Arabian crusader is accidental or coincidental
LOL throws you off the scent, albeit not deliberately planned that way, I think
I bet he's nursing a smug smile at this display of not knowing this fact.

The handle/moniker is of peripheral importance here, in any case. I have however situated the trajectory of his argument/thesis so that there should be nothing hazy, as it were...

maestroferddi: The handle/moniker is of peripheral importance here,
in any case. I have however situated the trajectory of his argument/thesis so that there should be nothing hazy, as it were...

^^^

BabaGnoni:
^^^

Can I reasonable assume you are not Sarassin?