|
|
Rank: Advanced Member  Joined: 3/3/2008 Posts: 12,985
|
This is from the title page of the website quoted on the bottom of the previous page: About Paul
The whole website is anti-christian and anti-grace.
Purpose of this site
The purpose of this website is to offer what has been accomplished in the writing of Yahshua/Jesus and Judaism versus Paul and Christianity to those who are interested. It is being written because I firmly believe that God's patience with man is fast coming to an end. Yahshua will be returning soon to ascend the throne of his father David and establish the Kingdom of God on earth... the Messianic age foretold by the prophets. The truth needs to be known that Law-less doctrine, as well as presumptuous grace doctrine, will not be tolerated much longer.
Have I now become your enemy by telling you the truth? - Galatians 4:16
|
|
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Joined: 7/1/2008
Posts: 640
|
Yeah. He's Jewish. I didn't take it as anti-Christian. So none of what he wrote is true?
|
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member  Joined: 1/7/2010 Posts: 4,072 Location: WI
|
stevelundgren wrote:TerryD wrote:The original apostles appointed Mathias as the replacement for Judas. No where did they appoint Paul. Nowhere does an apostle refer to Paul as an apostle. Hmm...
Where did you get the idea that apostleship was limited to twelve?
I didn't know about that rule.
Jesus Christ chose the original twelve.
Is he not qualified to chose another?
You have to take Paul's word that Christ chose him. I get the idea that apostleship was limited to twelve because the apostles only appointed one other apostle.
The original apostles appointed Mathias as the replacement for Judas. No where did they appoint Paul. Nowhere does an apostle refer to Paul as an apostle."If a man loses pace with his companions, perhaps it is because he hears a different drummer. Let him step to the music in which he hears, however measured, or far away.” Henry David Thoreau
|
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member Joined: 1/7/2010 Posts: 4,072 Location: WI
|
stevelundgren wrote:How could someone be "masquerading as apostles of Christ" if apostleship was limited to the original twelve?
2 Corinthians 11:12-14 NIV
And I will keep on doing what I am doing in order to cut the ground from under those who want an opportunity to be considered equal with us in the things they boast about. For such men are false apostles, deceitful workmen, masquerading as apostles of Christ. And no wonder, for Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light.
Pot calling the kettle black "If a man loses pace with his companions, perhaps it is because he hears a different drummer. Let him step to the music in which he hears, however measured, or far away.” Henry David Thoreau
|
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member Joined: 3/3/2008 Posts: 12,985
|
TerryD wrote:... No where did they appoint Paul. Nowhere does an apostle refer to Paul as an apostle.[/size] You are putting limits on what constitues an apostle.
Jesus Christ appointed the original twelve. Sent-out ones are still being commissioned today.
Any missionary commissioned to begin a new work is essentially an apostle.
The apostle John wrote that some claimed to be apostles but were not.
If apostleship was firmly limited to the original twelve, no one would even consider such a claim.
A test is for something that can be genuine.
Revelation 2:2 NIV
I know your deeds, your hard work and your perseverance. I know that you cannot tolerate wicked men, that you have tested those who claim to be apostles but are not, and have found them false.
Have I now become your enemy by telling you the truth? - Galatians 4:16
|
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member Joined: 3/3/2008 Posts: 12,985
|
mistero wrote: Yeah. He's Jewish. I didn't take it as anti-Christian. So none of what he wrote is true? He has made some observations about the apostleship of Paul that cast doubt.
This is nothing new. Paul's apostleship was questioned even in his day.
He even responds to some of the questions in his writings.
The basic premise for this whole topic is that the Apostle Paul cannot be trusted.
That his word cannot be believed.
His testimony of what happened to him or the testimony of the apostle Luke is not enough.
In fact that is an interesting point.
The claim is that NONE of the apostles EVER called Paul an apostle. (except Luke)
Hmm... except Luke?
So the apostle Luke is not to be believed either?
Then if Luke is not to be believed, what about Peter?
He claims that Paul wrote "with the wisdom that God gave him."
Since Peter approved of Paul's ministry and message, should he too be discounted?
2 Peter 3:15-16 NIV
Bear in mind that our Lord's patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The apostle John also indicated that apostleship could extend beyond the original twelve.
When he said in Revelation 2:2 that some who claimed to be apostles were tested and found to be false.
Why test something if there is no chance that it is genuine?
This brings John's integrity into question as well, correct?
Suddenly four of the apostles are in question here.
- Paul's apostleship and honesty is in question.
And logically...
- Luke's honesty is in question.
- Peter's honesty is in question.
- John's integrity is in question as well.
Should we not also discount the writings of Luke, Peter and John?
Isn't that the next logical step? (We should also check to see if anyone approved of them.)
No to ALL of that! All four are apostles of Jesus Christ in my book.
If you don't agree then shouldn't you tear all those books out of your Bible?
Have I now become your enemy by telling you the truth? - Galatians 4:16
|
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member  Joined: 1/6/2006 Posts: 544
|
Mr BLOW—HARD cried up a storm; ( in fact I heard that crying caused the flooding in the mid west ) and accused me of following him around; which I don’t follow people with that level of mentality, he even threatened to tell daddy. Now he is doing what he cried about me doing.
He states...
Quote:RBKay wrote:
... Paul was taught by Jesus and most likely would have been the better choice...
Hmm...
Seriously?
Try reading an obscure verse like Gal. 1:12 (NIV)
Terry...
Quote:TerryD
The original apostles appointed Mathias as the replacement for Judas. No where did they appoint Paul. Nowhere does an apostle refer to Paul as an apostle.
Mr BLOW—HARD could have used ( 1 ) ONE verse, instead of trying to show he knows something by posting umpteen verses which had nothing to do with your question, which he failed at.
As I said Paul was taught by Jesus and that qualified him to be called an apostle and none of the other apostles referred to each other as an apostle.
Gal. 1:12 I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ.
1Cor. 1:1 Paul, called to be an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God.
Hmm...Seriously? — received from Jesus directly — the Bible tells me so.
RBKay Centipede: An ant built to government specifications.
|
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member Joined: 1/7/2010 Posts: 4,072 Location: WI
|
TerryD wrote:stevelundgren wrote:[quote=TerryD]The original apostles appointed Mathias as the replacement for Judas. No where did they appoint Paul. Nowhere does an apostle refer to Paul as an apostle. Hmm...
Where did you get the idea that apostleship was limited to twelve?
I didn't know about that rule.
Jesus Christ chose the original twelve.
Is he not qualified to chose another?
Acts 1 20 For it is written in the book of Psalms, Let his habitation be made desolate, And let no man dwell therein: and, His office let another take. 21 Of the men therefore that have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and went out among us, 22 beginning from the baptism of John, unto the day that he was received up from us, of these must one become a witness with us of his resurrection. 23 And they put forward two, Joseph called Barsabbas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthias. 24 And they prayed, and said, Thou, Lord, who knowest the hearts of all men, show of these two the one whom thou hast chosen, 25 to take the place in this ministry and apostleship from which Judas fell away, that he might go to his own place. 26 And they gave lots for them; and the lot fell upon Matthias; and he was numbered with the eleven apostles. They could have made both of them apostles. Why didn't they? "If a man loses pace with his companions, perhaps it is because he hears a different drummer. Let him step to the music in which he hears, however measured, or far away.” Henry David Thoreau
|
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member Joined: 3/3/2008 Posts: 12,985
|
TerryD wrote:... They could have made both of them apostles. Why didn't they? That's a good question.
I don't think the answer was because it wasn't allowed.
The idea was to replace Judas. So that would mean only one.
There is some symbolism to the number twelve. (12 tribes of Israel)
That may have fed into this somewhat, although we can't be sure. (scripture does't say)
Have I now become your enemy by telling you the truth? - Galatians 4:16
|
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member Joined: 3/3/2008 Posts: 12,985
|
Hmm...
Do any of the apostles (other than Luke) call Matthias an apostle?
Maybe he isn't an apostle either?
So now five of the apostles are in question here. (following YOUR logic)
- Paul's apostleship and honesty is in question.
And logically...
- Luke's honesty is in question.
- Peter's honesty is in question.
- John's integrity is in question as well.
- Matthias was only confirmed by Luke (like Paul was)
Good work guys.
Have I now become your enemy by telling you the truth? - Galatians 4:16
|
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member Joined: 1/7/2010 Posts: 4,072 Location: WI
|
stevelundgren wrote:Hmm...
Do any of the apostles (other than Luke) call Matthias an apostle?
Maybe he isn't an apostle either?
So now five of the apostles are in question here. (following YOUR logic)
- Paul's apostleship and honesty is in question.
And logically...
- Luke's honesty is in question.
- Peter's honesty is in question.
- John's integrity is in question as well.
- Matthias was only confirmed by Luke (like Paul was)
Good work guys.
It was my impression that he was being picked by the 11 original apostles. Matthias didn't make up some story about being appointed by Jesus. Matthias was a witness from the time of Jesus's baptism till his death. Paul was not. "If a man loses pace with his companions, perhaps it is because he hears a different drummer. Let him step to the music in which he hears, however measured, or far away.” Henry David Thoreau
|
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member Joined: 3/3/2008 Posts: 12,985
|
TerryD wrote:It was my impression that he was being picked by the 11 original apostles. Matthias didn't make up some story about being appointed by Jesus. Matthias was a witness from the time of Jesus's baptism till his death. Paul was not. If Luke is a credible witness to the apostleship of Matthias, why isn't he a credible witness to the apostleship of Paul?
Either both Matthias and Paul are apostles or neither are. Fair enough?
Have I now become your enemy by telling you the truth? - Galatians 4:16
|
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member Joined: 3/3/2008 Posts: 12,985
|
Hmm...
Here's another apostle to add to your list.
Acts 14:14 NIV
But when the apostles Barnabas and Paul heard of this, they tore their clothes and rushed out into the crowd, shouting:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
So now six of the apostles are in question here. (following YOUR logic)
- Paul's apostleship and honesty is in question.
And logically...
- Luke's honesty is in question.
- Peter's honesty is in question.
- John's integrity is in question as well.
- Matthias was only confirmed by Luke (like Paul was)
- Barnabas was only confirmed by Luke (like Paul and Matthias were)
Good work guys.
Have I now become your enemy by telling you the truth? - Galatians 4:16
|
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member Joined: 1/7/2010 Posts: 4,072 Location: WI
|
stevelundgren wrote:TerryD wrote:It was my impression that he was being picked by the 11 original apostles. Matthias didn't make up some story about being appointed by Jesus. Matthias was a witness from the time of Jesus's baptism till his death. Paul was not. If Luke is a credible witness to the apostleship of Matthias, why isn't he a credible witness to the apostleship of Paul?
Either both Matthias and Paul are apostles or neither are. Fair enough?
Word of Paul's apostleship came from Paul. Word of Matias's apostleship I assume came from the original 11. If you want to continue to shoot holes in the New Testament be my guest. I have my doubts that it is the word of God to begin with. "If a man loses pace with his companions, perhaps it is because he hears a different drummer. Let him step to the music in which he hears, however measured, or far away.” Henry David Thoreau
|
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member Joined: 3/3/2008 Posts: 12,985
|
TerryD wrote:stevelundgren wrote:TerryD wrote:It was my impression that he was being picked by the 11 original apostles. Matthias didn't make up some story about being appointed by Jesus. Matthias was a witness from the time of Jesus's baptism till his death. Paul was not. If Luke is a credible witness to the apostleship of Matthias, why isn't he a credible witness to the apostleship of Paul?
Either both Matthias and Paul are apostles or neither are. Fair enough? Word of Paul's apostleship came from Paul. Word of Matias's apostleship I assume came from the original 11. If you want to continue to shoot holes in the New Testament be my guest. I have my doubts that it is the word of God to begin with. Word of Paul's apostleship came from Paul? As in... he made it up? Why assume that?
- The original twelve apostles were commissioned by Jesus Christ.
- Paul the Apostle was commissioned by Jesus Christ.
- At least one of the apostles affirmed his apostleship. Luke.
- Luke also affirmed the apostleship of Matthias and Barnabas.
- Apostles are still being commissioned today to begin new works.
No other apostles affirmed the apostleship of Matthias and Barnabas other than Luke.
Should we doubt their apostleship as well?
I'm not shooting holes in the New Testament.
I'm not shooting holes in illogical conclusions.
By denying the apostleship of Paul, the other apostles come into question.
If you can't believe Paul, you can't believe Luke or Peter.
If you can't believe Luke and Peter, why believe Matthew, Mark or John?
The Bible is a take-it-or-leave-it proposition. It works as a whole.
If you start dissecting it and throwing pieces away, it no longer works as a whole.
The fact that the Apostle Paul's writings were cannonized is proof enough of his authority.
Had his apostleship been in question, they would not have been included.
Have I now become your enemy by telling you the truth? - Galatians 4:16
|
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member Joined: 1/7/2010 Posts: 4,072 Location: WI
|
stevelundgren wrote:TerryD wrote:stevelundgren wrote:TerryD wrote:It was my impression that he was being picked by the 11 original apostles. Matthias didn't make up some story about being appointed by Jesus. Matthias was a witness from the time of Jesus's baptism till his death. Paul was not. If Luke is a credible witness to the apostleship of Matthias, why isn't he a credible witness to the apostleship of Paul?
Either both Matthias and Paul are apostles or neither are. Fair enough? Word of Paul's apostleship came from Paul. Word of Matias's apostleship I assume came from the original 11. If you want to continue to shoot holes in the New Testament be my guest. I have my doubts that it is the word of God to begin with. Word of Paul's apostleship came from Paul? As in... he made it up? Why assume that?
- The original twelve apostles were commissioned by Jesus Christ.
- Paul the Apostle was commissioned by Jesus Christ.
- At least one of the apostles affirmed his apostleship. Luke.
- Luke also affirmed the apostleship of Matthias and Barnabas.
- Apostles are still being commissioned today to begin new works.
No other apostles affirmed the apostleship of Matthias and Barnabas other than Luke.
Should we doubt their apostleship as well?
I'm not shooting holes in the New Testament.
I'm not shooting holes in illogical conclusions.
By denying the apostleship of Paul, the other apostles come into question.
If you can't believe Paul, you can't believe Luke or Peter.
If you can't believe Luke and Peter, why believe Matthew, Mark or John?
The Bible is a take-it-or-leave-it proposition. It works as a whole.
If you start dissecting it and throwing pieces away, it no longer works as a whole.
The fact that the Apostle Paul's writings were cannonized is proof enough of his authority.
Had his apostleship been in question, they would not have been included.
I question the whole Bible, But I question Paul the most. Luke was not a witness to Paul's appointment. As far as I know, he was not a witness to Matthias's appointment. or any of the 12 apostles appointments or to Jesus. He just wrote what he was told after his conversion. Since Paul was the biggest influence on Luke I question Luke. It's no surprise that Paul's writings were canonized since paganism had made it's way into Christianity by that time. "If a man loses pace with his companions, perhaps it is because he hears a different drummer. Let him step to the music in which he hears, however measured, or far away.” Henry David Thoreau
|
|
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Joined: 7/1/2008
Posts: 640
|
stevelundgren wrote:
Suddenly four of the apostles are in question here.
- Paul's apostleship and honesty is in question.
And logically...
- Luke's honesty is in question.
- Peter's honesty is in question.
- John's integrity is in question as well.
Should we not also discount the writings of Luke, Peter and John?
Isn't that the next logical step? (We should also check to see if anyone approved of them.)
If you don't agree then shouldn't you tear all those books out of your Bible?
K. If you say so. Wait a minute. You're the one that's claimed, multiple times, that I neither have or read the Bible. Make up your mind.
|
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member Joined: 3/3/2008 Posts: 12,985
|
TerryD wrote:I question the whole Bible, But I question Paul the most. Luke was not a witness to Paul's appointment. As far as I know, he was not a witness to Matthias's appointment. or any of the 12 apostles appointments or to Jesus. He just wrote what he was told after his conversion. Since Paul was the biggest influence on Luke I question Luke. It's no surprise that Paul's writings were canonized since paganism had made it's way into Christianity by that time. Luke was a witness to the transformation that occurred in Paul's life.
What do you suppose happened on the road to Damascus?
Here is a description of the man that began that journey and the man at the end of the journey.
What do suppose happened in between?
Acts 9:1-2, 8-9, 19-22 NIV
Meanwhile, Saul was still breathing out murderous threats against the Lord's disciples. He went to the high priest and asked him for letters to the synagogues in Damascus, so that if he found any there who belonged to the Way, whether men or women, he might take them as prisoners to Jerusalem...
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Saul got up from the ground, but when he opened his eyes he could see nothing. So they led him by the hand into Damascus. For three days he was blind, and did not eat or drink anything...
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
... Saul spent several days with the disciples in Damascus. At once he began to preach in the synagogues that Jesus is the Son of God. All those who heard him were astonished and asked, "Isn't he the man who raised havoc in Jerusalem among those who call on this name? And hasn't he come here to take them as prisoners to the chief priests?" Yet Saul grew more and more powerful and baffled the Jews living in Damascus by proving that Jesus is the Christ.
Have I now become your enemy by telling you the truth? - Galatians 4:16
|
|
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Joined: 7/1/2008
Posts: 640
|
Paul had an anger management problem and possibly was bi-polar and untreated. That's just what I think but don't
quote me on it. I'm just saying. That's my observation.
|
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member Joined: 3/3/2008 Posts: 12,985
|
mistero wrote: K. If you say so.
Wait a minute. You're the one that's claimed, multiple times, that I neither have or
read the Bible. Make up your mind. No.
My recollection is that you have a Bible and you claim to have read at least some of it.
The challenge is to accept the Bible as a whole.
My reply to your post was intended for the whole reading audience.
As far as I know, you accept the Bible as God's word.
Have I now become your enemy by telling you the truth? - Galatians 4:16
|
|
|