real_Berni: @ rhymz,

my statement above;


i mean if anybody is to be blamed to not supporting his comments with scriptures first,after your silence for a week without reply after your earlier claim,its you. (note pls)

Must you use capital letters?

is rhymz there?

waiting for your response please.

@Berni
To be honest, I find your legal summaries and personal opinions about what my arguments uncalled for and diversionary.
Like I have consistently pointed out in my responses, you do not have to agree with me but please, disagress with me with a superior argument or better still, leave it alone. Resorting to dismissive antics and clumping up my point in numbers and paragraph did nothing to counter my arguments any unbias spectator can see that.
Also, leave the summaries as they are, Anonym already did that but is yet to respond to the other issues I raised, prolly taking his time-like I did-to post a response.
About my remarks on many christians being intellectually lazy, I will say; "dont take that literally out of context", it was a comment made for effect, nothing against christians.
Anyway, I await your response to the issue and not some "legal summaries psychoanalyzing" my comments, you are better off giving strong arguments using verifiable sources and the bible to support your claims.

BERNIMOORE: is rhymz there?

waiting for your response please.

Now I am the one waiting endlessly for your response, Mr!!

Mr_Anony:

I will give a detailed answer to this in due time but just to correct the notion of what you are claiming in the meantime. I refer you to Acts 15

@rhymz:
Apologies this has taken quite some time. I have been relatively busy of late but here goes......

.......Now where do I start? You claim you are serious doctrinal disagreements between Paul and the other disciples of Christ especially about circumcision. This I am afraid is not the case. I'll start with a time line from Jesus to Paul so you can judge for yourself.
Part one: Jesus Christ
Jesus Christ was sent to the Jews first but His own didn't receive Him so that those became open to all who would receive Him. John 1:11-12. During Jesus' ministry, there were times when Jesus preached to Gentiles
He was known to travel to Philistine areas like Tyre and Sidon to preach (Mark 7:21).
He preached to and performed miracles amongst Gentiles including
the Syrophoenician woman (Matthew 15:21-28, Mark 7:24-30),
the Roman centurion (Luke 7:1-10, Matthew 8:5-13),
the Samaritan woman and many more Samaritans (John 4:1-42)
and He also talked about the Gentiles coming into the Kingdom of God.
Matthew 8:10-12:When Jesus heard it, He marveled, and said to those who followed, “Assuredly, I say to you, I have not found such great faith, not even in Israel! And I say to you that many will come from east and west, and sit down with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven.But the sons of the kingdom twill be cast out into outer darkness. There will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.”
Jesus also told a number of parables that described the Kingdom of God coming to the non-Jews:
Parable of the marriage feast (Matthew22:1-14)
The last shall be the first (Luke 13:28-30
Also there is the great commission Jesus left His disciples with before ascending into heaven
Luke 24:46-48: Then He said to them, “Thus it is written, and thus it was necessary for the Christ to suffer and to rise from the dead the third day, and that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in His name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. And you are witnesses of these things
Notice He sent His disciples to ALL NATIONS.
See also John 3:16-18, Acts 1:8, Matthew 28:18-20, Mark 16:15-18

Part two: Peter
After the death, resurrection and ascension of Christ, the church was mostly contained amongst the Jews. At this time, the church was heavily persecuted, prominent among the persecutors of the church was Saul. You can read about this in the first eight chapters of the book of Acts.
Interestingly during this time the gospel was preached in places outside Israel i.e. Samaria even an Ethiopian was baptized by Philip (Acts 8:26-40) , there was also a record of squabbles in the church between Greek and Jewish women which brought about the appointments of deacons. This shows that there were Greek Christians before Paul (Acts 6:1).
Now this brings us to Acts 10 where Peter had a vision in which God told him to eat unclean animals because God had cleansed them (Acts 10:9-16). Peter would later go to the house of Cornelius a Roman centurion a Gentile to preach the gospel to his household and all the members of his family received the Holy Spirit. In fact it surprised Peter himself and the disciples that came with him (Acts 10:44-48. Now when Peter got back to Jerusalem those who believed in circumcision questioned him and argued with him over why he should preach to Gentiles but when Peter told them about his experience the glorified God (Acts 11:1-18

Part three: Paul and Barnabas
Now we come to Paul, mind you what they have done so far is to try and give you some background about the message of Christ and who it was preached to before the time of Paul. I wouldn't really going to how Saul a.k.a. Paul got converted I'll start from when Paul first started preaching. Remember Paul was a Pharisee and attacked Christians (he was as Jewish as can be).
When Paul first started preaching, the disciples were afraid of him and didn't trust him but Barnabas was the one who took Paul under his wing and brought him to the disciples. It would interest you that when Paul first started he disputed against the Hellenists (Greeks) and even wanted to kill him (Acts 9:26-29)
By this time the early church had spread because of the persecution and disciples were going as far as Phoenicia, Cyprus, Antioch but they were only preaching to the Jews in these places. In Antioch they preached to the Greeks and they believed. When the news came to the apostles in Jerusalem, they sent Barnabas to Antioch. Barnabas saw Gentiles coming to Christ and he was glad so he went to bring Paul and they preached in Antioch together for a year.
Now Paul and Barnabas took with them a disciple named John Mark to travel with them but he would later abandon them. This would eventually cause a disagreement between Paul and Barnabas because Barnabas wanted to bring John with them again but Paul refused (Acts 12:15,Acts 15:36-41) notice their disagreement wasn't about doctrine.
during Paul and Barnabas' time at Antioch, there was a point when the Jews got jealous because the Gentiles were receiving the gospel and this was what Paul and Barnabas answered
Acts 13:46-47: Then Paul and Barnabas grew bold and said, “It was necessary that the word of God should be spoken to you first; but since you reject it, and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, behold, we turn to the Gentiles. For so the Lord has commanded us: ‘I have set you as a light to the Gentiles, That you should be for salvation to the ends of the earth.’

Part four: The Jerusalem Council
During the ministry of Paul and Barnabas at Antioch there were some people came and said that unless the Gentiles became circumcised they could not be saved. Paul and Barnabas disputed with these brethren so they took up the case to Jerusalem (Acts 15:1-2).
At Jerusalem there was a debate over this issue of circumcision and it was Peter who came to the defence of Paul and Barnabas by describing his own ordeal at the house of Cornelius (Acts 15:7-12). On hearing thier account, James agreed that is not fair to burden the Gentiles with Jewish customs but to tell them not eat meat sacrificed idols, strangled meat, blood and not to have sexual immorality. (Acts 15:13-20)
This was what the church agreed on and wrote in a letter to all the other churches
Acts 15:23-29: They wrote this letter by them: The apostles, the elders, and the brethren, To the brethren who are of the Gentiles in Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia: Greetings. Since we have heard that some who went out from us have troubled you with words, unsettling your souls, saying, “ You must be circumcised and keep the law”—to whom we gave no such commandment— it seemed good to us, being assembled with one accord, to send chosen men to you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul, men who have risked their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. We have therefore sent Judas and Silas, who will also report the same things by word of mouth. For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things: that you abstain from things offered to idols, from blood, from things strangled, and from sexual immorality. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well. Farewell.

So from this I hope you can see that Paul's teaching agrees with Jesus Christ, Peter, and Barnabas.
One more thing you might want to note is that Paul went to preach in Galatia for the first time after the Jerusalem Council had agreed the Gentiles don't have to be circumcised. Paul and Barnabas where together at Antioch. By the time Paul went to Galatia and Corinth (Acts 16:6, Acts 18:1,22) he had already separated from Barnabas.

Part five: Galatians
Paul is here writing a letter to the Galatians in which he details his journey to them while reproving them. In Galatians 2:11-21, Paul does not have a doctrinal disagreement with Peter and Barnabas he is only blaming them for not practicing what they preach and pretending to the Jewish brethren. Remember that Peter and Barnabas agreed that the Gentiles should not be circumcised and even ate together with them but when the Jewish brethren came they pretended so as to please them. Paul wasn't happy about this and rightfully called them hypocrites. Note again, their disagreement was not doctrinal but practical.

@rhymZ,

Part six: Addressing your claims
so far what I have given is a background now I suggest that you carefully good through it and check the Scriptures I have presented so you can judge for yourself.

rhymz: In response to this, I will like to exhausitively point out bible passage that made it very clear that Paul and the disciples of christ never agreed and had serious doctrinal disagreement contrary to popular beliefs.

I think I've been able to show with my previous posts that Paul and the other disciples did not disagree concerning matters of doctrine

When the Apostles in Jerusalem heard that Paul has been preaching a different doctrine in Galatia and Corinthia-Paul was telling them not to follow the law anymore and that they don’t have to eat meat anymore or to be circumcised, these teachings ran contrary to Genesis 17:14, the covenant is broken if there is no circumcision.

This event you just described is not in scripture and you have not provided any historical document that confirms this. Besides, All the apostles agreed that the Gentiles need not be circumcised. (Acts 15)

So the Apostles went to Galatia and Corinthia and convinced everyone that Paul was wrong, when Paul heard about this he went straight back to the cities…
Paul sensing how these Apostles from Jerusalem were making a mockery of his own version of Jesus's teaching had this to say to the Galatians in chapter 1vs6 and I quote: "I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you by the grace of Christ and are turning to a DIFFERENT GOSPEL"
note the capitalized phrase "different gospel", obviously paul's teachings in Galatia and Corinthia were not thesame thing being taught by the desciples and brother of christ James and this disagreement was not minor as the book of Acts tries to paint it as we would come to see later in his letter to Galatia that the disagreement was very serious.

Again as far as I can see, you are only making an unfounded assumption that Paul was referring to the disciples when he talked about a different gospel. If you read Acts 15 you would have found out that the apostles were not of the circumcision so Paul could not have been referring to them.

In Galatian 2vs11-21
In this chapter and verses, any unbias reader can tell that there is a fundamental doctrinal misunderstanding between what Paul was teaching and the understanding of Peter and Barnabas of with regards to what Christ's teachings were all about.

There is no doctrinal misunderstanding at all Paul was condemning Peter's and Barnabas' behavior and not their doctrine.

Paul condemns all Jewish Christians including Peter and Barnabas. And let's not forget that all what one has is only Paul’s side of the story but Peter’s recollection of this story is not given to us in the New Testament (perhaps that was conveniently left out for a reason) . Peter truly would have known Jesus better than Paul because Paul with all his claims never met or saw Jesus till he died. Also, there is dispute whether 1 Peter is a letter written by Peter and almost all scholars, ancient and modern agree that 2 Peter is not a letter written by Peter.
In Acts 4:31 luke gives an account of how John and Peter prayed to God for guidance and boldness to preach in the name of christ even after being warned the priests and the other leaders to desist from doing so. Now this account tells us that they were filled with the holy spirit as they prayed, If Peter was filled with the Holy Spirit then why is Paul calling Peter a hypocrite for eating with the Gentiles and then when people came from James he got up.

Paul called Peter a hypocrite simply because he acted like a hypocrite and that does not in any way reduce the Holy Spirit in Peter

James is Jesus’ half brother, he lived and stayed with Jesus. Why did he still think that people still have to eat meat?

I don't understand what you mean here by eating meat. I don't recall Paul telling anyone not to eat meat. Please show me with scripture what you are referring to.

Again we don’t have any account of Peter’s story regarding this incident. Barnabas is also called a hypocrite in verse Galatian2:13.
Look how in verses 15 through 17,
Paul is arguing with them about the law. That means the disciples wanted to follow the law and suggested following it. Otherwise Paul wouldn’t have mentioned it.

Again here you are reading your own meaning into scripture without giving any proper references. There is no indication that Paul is contesting with the apostles in this passage.

How could he say those things to Peter when Jesus said this to Peter in matthew 6vs18: "And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it".

Did you know that Jesus also said to Peter almost immediately after that in matthew 16:23 But He turned and said to Peter, “Get behind Me, Satan! You are an offense to Me, for you are not mindful of the things of God, but the things of men.”
My point isn't that Peter was not credible, he was. My point is that Peter is still capable of mistakes and if he acts like a hypocrite, he should be corrected.

Every time I read this passage, I am always tempted to question the authenticity of Paul's conversion and the belief by today's preachers that Paul got a higher revelation of christ's mission superior to those of his disciples who followed him around, heard his teachings, understood his mission and the his ideologies. It is laughable that anyone will believe that Paul got a spiritually superior message of christ's mission. Notice how he rarely talks about Jesus's teachings but concentrates on very different teachings that boarders on a decine atonement through a belief in death and ressurection of Jesus christ, a teaching very similar the myth of Roman gods Osiri and co. How their violent death brought atonement of sins to those that worshipped them.
How come Jesus was silent about his own mission according to Paul's teachings?

Nobody I know of ever says that Paul's teaching is superior to that of Jesus. As for the atonement through the death and resurrection of Jesus, This is what Christianity is hinged on Christ Himself talked about this, it wasn't Paul's invention. If Christ didn't come to die for our sins, then his death and resurrection was in vain.
The words of Christ in Luke 24:46-48: Then He said to them, “Thus it is written, and thus it was necessary for the Christ to suffer and to rise from the dead the third day, and that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in His name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. And you are witnesses of these things

Everything Paul taught was in complete disagreement with what Jesus is known to have preached. He was a heretic and unfortunately his teachings form the basis of today's faith based christianity, little wonder the majority of christiandom has not made ant serious improvement spiritually cos Pauline's teachings contrated mostly on belief and strongly opposes work.

I think I have sufficiently thrashed this particular issue in previous posts. You will do well to refer to them instead of just repeating this statement all over again.

Let's see further how his teachings continued to contradict his claims of teaching about Jesus.
In Romans 14:20 paul teaches: "Do not destroy the work of God for the sake of food. All food is clean, but it is wrong for a man to eat anything that causes someone else to stumble"
Meanwhile In the Book of Acts 15:29 the Apostles wrote a letter to the gentiles to abstain from certain foods and that not all foods were declared clean: "You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality. You will do well to avoid these things. Farewell".

You have qouted Romans 14:20 out of context. Read the whole chapter and you will see that paul was reproving the Romans on how much they ate and drank and how that affected other Christians. as for all food being clean, yes God said the same to Peter in Acts 10:9-16. I also noticed that you have dubiously decided to overlook Acts 15:24 where the apostles also clearly stated that circumcision was not necessary rather you concentrated on the later part in 29 where they talk about meat. It wouldn't help our discussion if you go around cherry picking scripture like this.

Paul sensing that the Gentiles were begining to listen to the appostles
could'nt hide his anger when in Galatian 3:1-3 he wrote: You foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you? Before your very eyes Jesus Christ was clearly portrayed as crucified. 2I would like to learn just one thing from you: Did you receive the Spirit by observing the law, or by believing what you heard? 3Are you so foolish?
Obviously Paul was having problems convincing people of his very strange teachings. There were people that were disagreeing with him. If Jesus taught that the law was over clearly, then people would not be arguing over this.
It is very evident that there was disagreement even though the christian xhurch likes to paint a different picture.

Well, yes some people were disagreeing with Paul but there is no indication in Galatians that it was any of the apostles, my guess is that it was those of the circumcision who wanted the Gentiles to keep Jewish traditions.
You came to the conclusion that it was Paul vs the other apostles all by yourself. You may need to provide stronger objective evidence to support this claim of yours.

Please I am not interested in repeating myself over and over again. I have diligently taken the time to study what you are saying and respond to you from scripture. I would suggest you do the same. Please read through everything I have put forward and respond to my argument accordingly. Don't just search the bible looking for verses to hurl at me, it won't do us any good. Seek to understand the context in which they were written. All the best.

@rhymz,

I await your response to the issue and not some "legal summaries psychoanalyzing" my comments, you are better off giving strong arguments using verifiable sources and the bible to support your claims.

yet to get your reply now for days!!!

obviously, another round abd round argument that ignores the issue raised and instead attempts to bring his own dimension. Am I supposed to respond to all those pages of what has already been discussed here?

rhymz: brother, lets not forget that Paul was not one of Jesus's disciples. In fact, Paul never met Jesus physically, so it is pertinent that we don't talk about John16:12 and the ensuing verses like Paul was amongst those to which Jesus was telling will recieve the spirit of truth when the holyghost comes upon them. Besides, Jesus would have typically told them that a more different and spiritually superior message would be given to somebody outside of the twelve disciples just like he predicted his betrayal. Let's not forget that Paul's claims of meeting Jesus was actually a private affair that was not substantiated by anyone else besides himself hence the need to validate himself all the time that he was sent by God. Our God does not contradict himself, he can't say to Peter james and co that salvation is by virtue of the observance of the law and by faith in our lord Jesus while he tells Paul that salvation is by virtue of one's faith in him, Jesus christ even if one does not observe the law. Is it not obvious from reading Romans 7 from verse one to the end that Paul's emphasy for the disregard of Judaic laws stemmed from the fact that he had inner morally debasing desires that he struggles with which runs contrary to Judaic laws and even Christ's teachings. If you observe very well with an open mind, U will notice that even though he claims to be spreading the gospel of christ, his teachings always end up going contrary to christ's teachings and dwelled a lot on human emotions that can't be controlled as it concerns the law and man's default sinful nature. Let's not forget that it was Paul that introduced the whole concept of a new convenant with christ and the new testament which erases mosaic laws which is the basis of Judaic laws. Till today, judo christians even though less popular than the Pauline Christians do not agree on the concept and philosophy of faith based salvation which is what the entire christiandom preaches. I would advice that you keep an open mind and especially the second article I posted about Paul being the founder of christianity.

Sir, with all due respect and admiration for your strong rooted claims about paul and his teachings. I disagree with you on some statement
Let's not forget that Paul's claims of meeting Jesus was actually a private affair that was not substantiated by anyone else besides himself hence the need to validate himself all the time that he was sent by God Read acts 9 very well, you will read about Ananias whom, GOD asked to go and meet saul where he is blind. so i guess that settles that.

The way to understand the word of GOD that works for me is comparing verses to verses, although there were times when pauls idea was obviously clouded by hueman emotions. But that remains that he is human and not Jesus Christ. See paul as a vessel used to convene the word of GOD, but the word of GOD was brought to humans By Jesus christ.
Jesus himself said he has not come to cast away what has been written but to add unto it. However, what Jesus brought to us is option of GRACE,or you stick to laws.