Paul the religious zealot

Rens

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 11, 2015
Messages
4,754
Age
53
Gender
Female
Religious Affiliation
Pentecostal
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
In Relationship
Dude, you aren't reading what I wrote. Yes, as a FORMER PHARISEE/CONVERT - Saul/Paul says, in Philippians 3:5-6, that his actions AS A PHARISEE/HEBREW OF HEBREW AND CONCERNING THE LAW - he is BLAMELESS.

In Saul/Paul's world - again - according to him - AS A CONVERT - he says he was BLAMELESS in taking out new Christians from the synagogues - meaning - they were worshiping on Sabbath with the Jews - singling them out - putting them in prison, agreeing to them being stoned, and compelling them to blaspheme.

That is what he says is his "zeal" - persecuting the believers - and by extension he says this is BLAMELESS regarding the "righteousness of the law". There is no law that allowed him to do what he was doing!

So from this verse alone I know he is a liar. The new Christians didn't have their own churches at the time. There is no mention they were doing anything that merited any of the actions Saul/Paul was taking upon them.

Yes, I realize that in the very verses following he says his actions here he "counts for loss". This is not "correcting himself" - it is rather a perfect example of his doublespeak. His actions of murder, imprisonment and compelling to blaspheme innocent people had 0 justification under the law, but he says they do by quoting the "righteousness of the law", then counts it for loss!



Saul/Paul's "blinding light" experience has 0 named witnesses. It's just his story. What's more, in each of the 3 accounts of it the details change. As for "missing out" - I know I am not. I grew up going to Christian churches reading and having read to me the words of Saul/Paul - so I am fairly familiar with them.

He mixes in truth with error - often.



I don't need any external authority to point out what is plainly written and represented as the Word of God penned by someone who claims to be his spokesman.

Here's one example that immediately comes to mind:

Proverbs 14:15 The simple believe anything, but the prudent give thought to their steps.

Yet Saul/Paul calls "believing anything" or "believing all things" an attribute of Love!

1 Corinthians 13:7 Beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things.

You have to read everything he wrote to understand what he's saying. He says confess and believe and you're saved, but he also says murderers won't inherit the Kingdom. It's also in Psalms: it shall happen that anyone who shall call on the Name of the Lord shall be saved. He says believeth all things and also warns for false teachers, so I don't take that as: believe just anything. He was happy with the Bereans who tested with the O.T. if what he preached was true.

It's a good thing what you said though. I had never thought about it like that. I was like: oh wow, look, he was blameless for the law, he didn't even keep the most important one.

http://www.bibleserralta.com/PaulBlameless.html
 
Last edited:

Stravinsk

Composer and Artist on Flat Earth
Joined
Jan 4, 2016
Messages
4,485
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Deist
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Widow/Widower
You have to read everything he wrote to understand what he's saying. He says confess and believe and you're saved, but he also says murderers won't inherit the Kingdom. He says believeth all things and also warns for false teachers, so I don't take that as: believe just anything. He was happy with the Bereans who tested with the O.T. if what he preached was true.

It's a good thing what you said though. I had never thought about it like that. I was like: oh wow, look, he was blameless for the law, he didn't even keep the most important one.

http://www.bibleserralta.com/PaulBlameless.html

That he is referring to "the ritual law" is an interpolation of the author of that article.

Saul/Paul considers "zeal" - "persecuting the church" - as one thing that 'qualifies' him as a bona-fide *true blue* Hebrew of Hebrews, Israelite Pharisee from the tribe of Benjamin.

The new believers he was taking out of the synagogues - they did not have their own churches, they weren't worshiping idols - they were worshiping on the Sabbath with the Jews. All that made them different was a belief in Christ as the Messiah and the teachings of Christ.

Saul/Paul's actions are not justified, and they don't make him a qualified Jew. All they do is qualify him with the Pharisees and Chief priests who hated Yeshua and conspired to murder him.

I know you can say "but he had a change of heart at his conversion...and just read on..."

But the point is - falsely imprisoning, having people put to death solely on a belief in Messiah and compelling them to blaspheme - are not in line with Torah. Saul/Paul was acting in line with people who Yeshua said were blind guides.

How ironic is it that Yeshua would use such language (blind guides) - and then do a 180 degree turn about (Let's confuse the brethen!) by making Saul/Paul blind before speaking to him and identifying himself - and after opening his eyes - give him all the REAL secret teachings that he never gave the apostles on the earth. Le Sigh. The irony reacheth places off the charts...
 

Rens

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 11, 2015
Messages
4,754
Age
53
Gender
Female
Religious Affiliation
Pentecostal
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
In Relationship
That he is referring to "the ritual law" is an interpolation of the author of that article.

Saul/Paul considers "zeal" - "persecuting the church" - as one thing that 'qualifies' him as a bona-fide *true blue* Hebrew of Hebrews, Israelite Pharisee from the tribe of Benjamin.

The new believers he was taking out of the synagogues - they did not have their own churches, they weren't worshiping idols - they were worshiping on the Sabbath with the Jews. All that made them different was a belief in Christ as the Messiah and the teachings of Christ.

Saul/Paul's actions are not justified, and they don't make him a qualified Jew. All they do is qualify him with the Pharisees and Chief priests who hated Yeshua and conspired to murder him.

I know you can say "but he had a change of heart at his conversion...and just read on..."

But the point is - falsely imprisoning, having people put to death solely on a belief in Messiah and compelling them to blaspheme - are not in line with Torah. Saul/Paul was acting in line with people who Yeshua said were blind guides.

How ironic is it that Yeshua would use such language (blind guides) - and then do a 180 degree turn about (Let's confuse the brethen!) by making Saul/Paul blind before speaking to him and identifying himself - and after opening his eyes - give him all the REAL secret teachings that he never gave the apostles on the earth. Le Sigh. The irony reacheth places off the charts...

Yet he was persecuted by the pharisees all the time. He must have done something good later on. If he had staid the same thry'd have loved him.
 

user1234

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 2, 2017
Messages
1,654
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Other Church
Marital Status
Separated
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
You have to read everything he wrote to understand what he's saying. He says confess and believe and you're saved, but he also says murderers won't inherit the Kingdom. It's also in Psalms: it shall happen that anyone who shall call on the Name of the Lord shall be saved. He says believeth all things and also warns for false teachers, so I don't take that as: believe just anything. He was happy with the Bereans who tested with the O.T. if what he preached was true.

It's a good thing what you said though. I had never thought about it like that. I was like: oh wow, look, he was blameless for the law, he didn't even keep the most important one.

http://www.bibleserralta.com/PaulBlameless.html
Hi Rens!
Your first paragraph was spot on, but please be careful who you're giving credit to here in your last.
I know you know false teachers abound, and you're dealing with a whopper here. Denies half of scripture, calls Paul a liar. We're praying, but I can hear in the background a familiar cooing, ..... Yea, hath God REALLY said??!! .....
And Eve going, Gee thanks, I never quite thought about it like that.
And that deceiver snickering hehehe I've got her nibbling, ..... that's all it takes to let the defenses down. Just armor up and please be careful, ok?

How ironic is it that Yeshua would use such language (blind guides) - and then do a 180 degree turn about (Let's confuse the brethen!) by making Saul/Paul blind before speaking to him and identifying himself - and after opening his eyes - give him all the REAL secret teachings that he never gave the apostles on the earth. Le Sigh. The irony reacheth places off the charts...
Le Sigh??? The deception reacheth the depths .....

Since you've set yourself up as judge over God's Word and determined a great portion of it isn't true, what then, is YOUR source of information.

It wouldn't happen to be some extra-biblical personal revelation, like say, hmmm, those mormons or Jw's you were just pointing fingers at, would it?

Btw, Peter and James and company received Paul as a brother in Christ, you aren't calling them liars as well, are you?

Stravinsk said:
Mark, Luke and Saul/Paul are not eyewitnesses to the life of Christ. Matthew and John are. If one compares Luke (especially Luke) to Matthew and John reading side by side one will see many problems - contradictions in teachings.
Maybe you see many problems and contradictions ..... Millions of people don't, but rather see the beauty and grace of God in His revealed Word to us, the Holy Bible, and received salvation thereby.

By rejecting Paul, Mark and Luke, do you then also reject the book of Acts, and by extension, Peter and James?
What about Jude? Does he pass your test as truth-teller?

What's left? Matthew's gospel, John's gospel and three letters, and The Revelation of Jesus Christ. A rather incomplete New Testament, but still enough for you to get saved by, since faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God. I thank Him for His Word, even the parts I struggle with 'like one of them giant-sized Dutch rasslers'. :wink: Peace.
 

Josiah

simul justus et peccator
Valued Contributor
Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 12, 2015
Messages
13,677
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Lutheran
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
I think what tends to make religious persons disconcerting is not their zeal but their lack of love.... The Bible tells us to always speak the truth but to do so with love. No one minds the person who finds comfort, strength, joy, hope in their religion (or any aspect of life) - however baseless we may feel it is. No one finds fault with the person who is eager to unconditionally love, to serve, to bless, to comfort, to forgive. It's the one eager to condemn, hurt, ridicule.


Pax Christi


- Josiah
 

user1234

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 2, 2017
Messages
1,654
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Other Church
Marital Status
Separated
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
I think what tends to make religious persons disconcerting is not their zeal but their lack of love.... The Bible tells us to always speak the truth but to do so with love. No one minds the person who finds comfort, strength, joy, hope in their religion (or any aspect of life) - however baseless we may feel it is. No one finds fault with the person who is eager to unconditionally love, to serve, to bless, to comfort, to forgive. It's the one eager to condemn, hurt, ridicule.


Pax Christi


- Josiah
Exactly. To say, 'in my opinion i think they made a mistake by including Pauls writings in the bible' would be one thing .....
But to just come out and call our brother Paul a liar is another thing altogether.

We're trying to show someone here that God loves them and Jesus died and rose for them, and He won't cast them out if they come to Him by faith. No greater love has no one than that, and that's the greatest message of truth and love, and Paul spoke more of that than just about anyone.

He also warned much about false teachings, as did Jesus, Peter, James, John, Jude etc. We have a great God and Saviour, who so graciously gave us His written Word, from Genesis to Revelation so we could get to know Him even 2000 years later , ppl are still being saved. How awesome is our God! What amazing grace and love! GBU, Josiah.
 

Stravinsk

Composer and Artist on Flat Earth
Joined
Jan 4, 2016
Messages
4,485
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Deist
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Widow/Widower
Hi Rens!
Your first paragraph was spot on, but please be careful who you're giving credit to here in your last.
I know you know false teachers abound, and you're dealing with a whopper here. Denies half of scripture, calls Paul a liar. We're praying, but I can hear in the background a familiar cooing, ..... Yea, hath God REALLY said??!! .....
And Eve going, Gee thanks, I never quite thought about it like that.
And that deceiver snickering hehehe I've got her nibbling, ..... that's all it takes to let the defenses down. Just armor up and please be careful, ok?

:rolleyes:

Le Sigh??? The deception reacheth the depths .....

Since you've set yourself up as judge over God's Word and determined a great portion of it isn't true, what then, is YOUR source of information.

It wouldn't happen to be some extra-biblical personal revelation, like say, hmmm, those mormons or Jw's you were just pointing fingers at, would it?

Btw, Peter and James and company received Paul as a brother in Christ, you aren't calling them liars as well, are you?

The biggest source of information is right in the words used. That and using a critical mind to compare verse to verse.

It's apparently not something you've ever done or are willing to do?

Btw - Have you read James lately? I'm fine with him. Try reading James chapter 2.

Who is the vain/foolish man James is referring to? No name is used, however - a direct comparison is.

The direct comparison is that of the story of Abraham and Isaac that Saul/Paul uses in Romans 4.

James chapter 2 is a direct rebuke to Saul/Paul's teaching - Saul/Paul uses Genesis 22 to defend his "faith alone" doctrine - and James refers to the exact same story to rebuke Saul/Paul's teaching.

You'll probably deny this, saying it's just a wild coincidence.

Further, James does initially accept Saul/Paul in Acts - but then hears he is teaching against the law - so asks him to go through the Nazarite ritual to show that he isn't(Acts 21:21-25). Saul/Paul is never able to complete it because the Jews he was teaching against the law came up and threw him out of the temple. Those Jews are the Ephesus Jews.

The same Jews Jesus acknowledges in Revelation 2:2 for testing apostles.

So you ask my source for questioning the authority of any apostle. My authority is Yeshua. Revelation 2:2.

Maybe you see many problems and contradictions ..... Millions of people don't, but rather see the beauty and grace of God in His revealed Word to us, the Holy Bible, and received salvation thereby.

By rejecting Paul, Mark and Luke, do you then also reject the book of Acts, and by extension, Peter and James?
What about Jude? Does he pass your test as truth-teller?

What's left? Matthew's gospel, John's gospel and three letters, and The Revelation of Jesus Christ. A rather incomplete New Testament, but still enough for you to get saved by, since faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God. I thank Him for His Word, even the parts I struggle with 'like one of them giant-sized Dutch rasslers'. :wink: Peace.

I'm not going to list all the contradictions here. This thread has already gotten off track - the original subject matter takes it for granted that Saul/Paul is an apostle - which I don't believe and have attempted to address - but then, it's still not the subject of the thread.
 

user1234

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 2, 2017
Messages
1,654
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Other Church
Marital Status
Separated
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
*(first off ... apologies for going off topic a bit, but I didn't know how else to address this, and I wanted to make sure it was seen. It DOES touch on zeal, a bit)*
...
~~Hi Stravinsk...Listen, it appears you're pretty convinced regarding your claims of Paul being a liar and your views on much of the New Testament scriptures, and it wouldn't do any good for me to pursue this debate with you, I can only pray for you, and leave it in the Lord's hands.


Meanwhile, I also want you to know that anything I said was not meant personally. Though I may disagree with your stance doctrinally, it doesn't mean I dislike you as a person or wish ill will on you.


Nothing could be further from the truth, and if I came across that way, please forgive me, I do apologize, but please know that wasn't intentional.


I do take many of these discussions seriously, and because so much of what I see as God's Word penned by Paul and the others, I tend to get a bit passionate about it. After all, Jesus is the Living Word, The Bible is His Written Word, and without Him being my God and Saviour, I'd still be a lost, hellbound sinner, but that same word tells me I'm saved by God's grace through faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, as a saved believer I've been given the gift of eternal life, transferred from the kingdom of darkness to the Kingdom of God's Son, God will never leave me or forsake me, and a million other precious promises I couldn't have dreamed up if I tried.


So yes, it's with a bit of zeal or passion I may have as well when some of these subjects are discussed. Perhaps I need to temper my reactions, but I pray I never grow cold or hard-hearted to my Saviour and His Word.
(Maybe I should say, never again, but my life's journey isn't important, except to say thanks be unto God for His unspeakable gift, His love, grace, mercy, long-suffering, and on and on etc.)


But life can be hard, and seeing some of what you've been through, all I can say is sometimes it just kinda sucks (sorry, ladies) .... The circumstances that is, and I do pray you've comfort and consolation, even the good cheer Jesus tells us to have, in spite of tribulations.


Anyway, I will try in the future not to debate or reply back and forth with your posts if it will only cause strife. I'd much rather just try to put forth the gospel of the grace of God, and perhaps my own views on scripture as I hopefully grow in Christ, and try to encourage, learn from, and fellowship with others along those lines in Christ Jesus our Lord.
Mat God bless you richly in His grace and love. Peace, snerfle.
 

Stravinsk

Composer and Artist on Flat Earth
Joined
Jan 4, 2016
Messages
4,485
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Deist
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Widow/Widower
Another nail in the Coffin for Saul/Paul is found right in the Acts passage referred to in the last post.

In Acts 21, starting with verse 18 Paul and company go to visit James.

Read Acts 21:18-25 carefully.

James is saying to Paul that he has heard that Paul is teaching (the Jews) against circumcision and against after walking according to the customs (vs 21). "Customs" can be inferred to be "law" (forsaking Moses Acts 21:21)

The purification ritual is tasked to Paul to take to show that he did not teach these things to the Jews which were among the Gentiles.

Acts 21:24

...and all may know that those things, whereof they were informed concerning thee are nothing; but that thou thyself also walkest orderly, and keepest the law


So at this point, I have to ask - Why didn't Saul/Paul just inform James of what he WAS teaching the Jews who were among the Gentiles?

Like here: 1Corinthians 7:18, Galatians 5:2, Galatians 5:3, Romans 4:11, Galatians 5:6 and more (circumcision)

Ephesians 2:15, many many passages in Galatians and Romans (the law)

Why didn't Paul just admit what he was teaching to James and the others gathered?

Instead he goes into the purification ritual to show that HE WAS NOT TEACHING THESE THINGS. Acts 21:24


To put it into perspective - By going through the Purification Ritual, for the reason James and company asks him to(Acts 21:24) - Saul/Paul is taking a Sacred Vow To Almighty God for the purpose of DENYING he was teaching against circumcision and the law to the Jews amongst the Gentiles.

Speaking of a Whopper of a lie! Directly to God in the Temple, no less!
 

Rens

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 11, 2015
Messages
4,754
Age
53
Gender
Female
Religious Affiliation
Pentecostal
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
In Relationship
How I read that text James knew what he was teaching and agreed on it, not only Paul said they didn't have to keep the laws of Moses. It's in the same text and Acts 15, James said that the gentiles didnt have to keep those laws. But those Jews were annoying, so James told Paul to do this so they wouldn't have problems with them.
 

Rens

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 11, 2015
Messages
4,754
Age
53
Gender
Female
Religious Affiliation
Pentecostal
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
In Relationship
Acts 15

And certain men came down from Judea and taught the brethren, “Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved.” 2 Therefore, when Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and dispute with them, they determined that Paul and Barnabas and certain others of them should go up to Jerusalem, to the apostles and elders, about this question.

3 So, being sent on their way by the church, they passed through Phoenicia and Samaria, describing the conversion of the Gentiles; and they caused great joy to all the brethren. 4 And when they had come to Jerusalem, they were received by the church and the apostles and the elders; and they reported all things that God had done with them. 5 But some of the sect of the Pharisees who believed rose up, saying, “It is necessary to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses.”

The Jerusalem Council
6 Now the apostles and elders came together to consider this matter. 7 And when there had been much dispute, Peter rose up and said to them: “Men and brethren, you know that a good while ago God chose among us, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe. 8 So God, who knows the heart, acknowledged them by giving them the Holy Spirit, just as He did to us, 9 and made no distinction between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith. 10 Now therefore, why do you test God by putting a yoke on the neck of the disciples which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear? 11 But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ[a] we shall be saved in the same manner as they.”

12 Then all the multitude kept silent and listened to Barnabas and Paul declaring how many miracles and wonders God had worked through them among the Gentiles. 13 And after they had become silent, James answered, saying, “Men and brethren, listen to me: 14 Simon has declared how God at the first visited the Gentiles to take out of them a people for His name. 15 And with this the words of the prophets agree, just as it is written:

16 ‘After this I will return
And will rebuild the tabernacle of David, which has fallen down;
I will rebuild its ruins,
And I will set it up;
17 So that the rest of mankind may seek the Lord,
Even all the Gentiles who are called by My name,
Says the Lord who does all these things.’
18 “Known to God from eternity are all His works.
19 Therefore I judge that we should not trouble those from among the Gentiles who are turning to God, 20 but that we write to them to abstain from things polluted by idols, from sexual immorality,[d] from things strangled, and from blood. 21 For Moses has had throughout many generations those who preach him in every city, being read in the synagogues every Sabbath.”

The Jerusalem Decree
22 Then it pleased the apostles and elders, with the whole church, to send chosen men of their own company to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas, namely, Judas who was also named Barsabas,[e] and Silas, leading men among the brethren.

23 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.

24 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”[f] —to whom we gave no such commandment— 25 it seemed good to us, being assembled with one accord, to send chosen men to you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul, 26 men who have risked their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. 27 We have therefore sent Judas and Silas, who will also report the same things by word of mouth. 28 For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things: 29 that you abstain from things offered to idols, from blood, from things strangled, and from sexual immorality.[g] If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well.

Farewell.
 

Stravinsk

Composer and Artist on Flat Earth
Joined
Jan 4, 2016
Messages
4,485
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Deist
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Widow/Widower
How I read that text James knew what he was teaching and agreed on it, not only Paul said they didn't have to keep the laws of Moses. It's in the same text and Acts 15, James said that the gentiles didnt have to keep those laws. But those Jews were annoying, so James told Paul to do this so they wouldn't have problems with them.

"but those Jews were annoying" :rotfl:

In seriousness - you need to read it carefully.

What has James heard concerning Paul?

Acts 21:21 And they are informed of thee, that thou teachest all the Jews which are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, saying that they ought not to circumcise their children, neither to walk after the customs.

Gentiles, or Jews? Jews. Jews among the Gentiles. James has heard that Paul is teaching the Jews among the Gentiles that they ought not to circumcise their children, nor walking according to the law.

It is true that the Disciples (James being their spokesman at this point) *did* teach a separate law for gentiles initially:

Acts 21:25 As touching the Gentiles which believe, we have written and concluded that they observe no such thing, save only that they keep themselves from things offered to idols, and from blood, and from strangled, and from fornication.

The question is - was this meant to be an initial step, or was it meant to be a completely separate and incomplete law for Gentiles for all time? The Gentiles (Romans/Greeks) had a completely different religion that forbade them to observe what Jews observed (Acts 16:21)

This decision to teach a reduced law to the Gentiles was a compromise that came after a lot of heated debate as is described in Acts 15. I suspect the disciples chose it because their laws and ways were so drastically different from the religions of the peoples around them that it would have created a giant culture clash.

-----------------------------------------

But - as to my last post. James did hear that Paul was teaching the Jews among the Gentiles not to circumcise or obey the law. He took something I believe was meant to be an initial step and used it to completely divide Jews from Gentiles. Paul's teachings are very anti-circumcision and very anti law.

So why would Paul agree to take a sacred vow to God that he was not teaching these things? He plainly was. He could have just told James the truth.

Instead he decides to say he wasn't - and swear to God that he wasn't by going through a purification ceremony as a testimony that he wasn't.
 
Last edited:

Rens

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 11, 2015
Messages
4,754
Age
53
Gender
Female
Religious Affiliation
Pentecostal
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
In Relationship
Peter says in Acts 15 why do you want to put a joke on them neither we nor our ancestors could bear?
Peter wasn't keeping those laws either or teaching them.
Only the ones from the sect of the pharisees wanted them to go keep the laws from Moses again and then in public Peter all of a sudden didn't eat with gentiles, got in a fight with Paul, stupid, cause he was doing the same here himself, keeping up appearances.
I don't think Paul caused a seperation between Jews and gentiles, but the sect of the pharisees and later other leaders were antisemetic and changed the sabbath day and took out anything Jewish. You can't blame Paul for that. Then also the apostles. They did the same thing.
Paul never said the moral law wasn't good, if you're lead by the Spirit you fulfill the law, only that the law of Moses, all those rituals, was abolished and the wall of seperation between Jews and gentiles was removed (keeping all the rules). It's somewhere in the Bible that they interpreted what Paul wrote wrong and taught lawlesness, they turned it into lewdness. He didn't though.
 

Stravinsk

Composer and Artist on Flat Earth
Joined
Jan 4, 2016
Messages
4,485
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Deist
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Widow/Widower
Peter says in Acts 15 why do you want to put a joke on them neither we nor our ancestors could bear?
Peter wasn't keeping those laws either or teaching them.
Only the ones from the sect of the pharisees wanted them to go keep the laws from Moses again and then in public Peter all of a sudden didn't eat with gentiles, got in a fight with Paul, stupid, cause he was doing the same here himself, keeping up appearances.
I don't think Paul caused a seperation between Jews and gentiles, but the sect of the pharisees and later other leaders were antisemetic and changed the sabbath day and took out anything Jewish. You can't blame Paul for that. Then also the apostles. They did the same thing.
Paul never said the moral law wasn't good, if you're lead by the Spirit you fulfill the law, only that the law of Moses, all those rituals, was abolished and the wall of seperation between Jews and gentiles was removed (keeping all the rules). It's somewhere in the Bible that they interpreted what Paul wrote wrong and taught lawlesness, they turned it into lewdness. He didn't though.

Peter also denied Christ 3 times.

Peter also said that Christ would never go to the cross - for which Yeshua said "get behind me Satan"

I'm sorry - but Peter doesn't have a great history so as to be considered trustworthy as the leader of early Christianity.

Furthermore - if Peter is calling a law such as Sabbath "a burden" and teaching it is not applicable - then he further denies this: Matthew 19:17. So who is lying? Peter or Yeshua? Take your pick.

I suggest a reading of John 21:17-35. How is Peter "led" to a place he doesn't want to go? The story of being crucified upside down is just a tradition. Peter's testimony is what everyone uses to point to Paul as an apostle. God knew it would be this way.

-------------------

Aside from this - you are avoiding the main point I was making in the last few posts -

Why does Saul/Paul take a sacred vow and go through purification ritual in the Temple to show James and those with him that he was NOT teaching the Jews against circumcision and the law?
 

Rens

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 11, 2015
Messages
4,754
Age
53
Gender
Female
Religious Affiliation
Pentecostal
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
In Relationship
Peter also denied Christ 3 times.

Peter also said that Christ would never go to the cross - for which Yeshua said "get behind me Satan"

I'm sorry - but Peter doesn't have a great history so as to be considered trustworthy as the leader of early Christianity.

Furthermore - if Peter is calling a law such as Sabbath "a burden" and teaching it is not applicable - then he further denies this: Matthew 19:17. So who is lying? Peter or Yeshua? Take your pick.

I suggest a reading of John 21:17-35. How is Peter "led" to a place he doesn't want to go? The story of being crucified upside down is just a tradition. Peter's testimony is what everyone uses to point to Paul as an apostle. God knew it would be this way.

-------------------

Aside from this - you are avoiding the main point I was making in the last few posts -

Why does Saul/Paul take a sacred vow and go through purification ritual in the Temple to show James and those with him that he was NOT teaching the Jews against circumcision and the law?
660770e7f171f7d1af7e511f3dcc6ed9.jpg


I think to be a Jew for the Jews, he became everything to everyone to save them. Not to convince James, because he knew what he was teaching if you read Acts 15. They were persecuted, they could get killed, so this kept those pharisees quiet who were misleading the saved Jews and helped them not to think: oooh this is against the law, now we don't want Jesus. But that's just an educated guess lol.
 

user1234

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 2, 2017
Messages
1,654
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Other Church
Marital Status
Separated
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
Unfortunately there are some even to this very day , that want to cause separation and strife, a sort of attempt to divide and conquer or neutralize and confuse.

They often do so by bringing little doubts about God's Word and twisting it for their own schemes.

Fortunately, Paul wasn't one of them, but rather, throughout his epistles he taught unity, and spoke the truth in love.

It's so wonderful how God used him to convey His Word to us, and how his zeal for the truth and the heart of God has inspired millions throughout the ages to get into His Word and be saved. Thank you Jesus, for Paul. \o/
 

Rens

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 11, 2015
Messages
4,754
Age
53
Gender
Female
Religious Affiliation
Pentecostal
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
In Relationship
You know what's funny. Jesus is God, He could have written the whole New Testament being perfect and why didn't He rewrite the Old? He wrote nothing. God chose to use imperfect people.
 

Rens

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 11, 2015
Messages
4,754
Age
53
Gender
Female
Religious Affiliation
Pentecostal
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
In Relationship
What a lovely thread. Snerfle must be delighted I invited him to ch. No Snerf really, everyone here is nice to each other, trust me.


John was a sweety too btw.
Better skip the whole Bible. Moses killed an Egyptian.

Now it came to pass, when the time had come for Him to be received up, that He steadfastly set His face to go to Jerusalem, 52 and sent messengers before His face. And as they went, they entered a village of the Samaritans, to prepare for Him. 53 But they did not receive Him, because His face was set for the journey to Jerusalem. 54 And when His disciples James and John saw this, they said, “Lord, do You want us to command fire to come down from heaven and consume them, just as Elijah did?”[e]

55 But He turned and rebuked them,[f] and said, “You do not know what manner of spirit you are of. 56 For the Son of Man did not come to destroy men’s lives but to save them.”[g] And they went to another village.
 

Rens

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 11, 2015
Messages
4,754
Age
53
Gender
Female
Religious Affiliation
Pentecostal
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
In Relationship
-
 
Last edited:

tango

... and you shall live ...
Valued Contributor
Joined
Jul 13, 2015
Messages
14,149
Location
Realms of chaos
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
Ok folks, let's keep it civil. I've pulled a few posts pending review, let's not get personal here.
 
Top Bottom