Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Ridiculous argument. Where else should he be mentioned and why? Paul wasn't an apostle (or even relevant yet) during the events of the gospels, so it's hardly surprising he's not mentioned there. And then we have to throw Acts out since Luke, his "PR man" (rolls eyes) wrote that. And Revelation wouldn't make much sense.
So you're trying to argue that because none of James, Jude, 1/2 Peter, 1/2/3 John, nor the writer of Hebrews specifically call out Paul as an apostle that this is supposed to prove something? Why would they go out of their way to do so? Are you familiar at all with why they were written? (and I'm going to assume you'll entirely discount 2 Pe. 3 for one reason or another I'll disagree with, e.g. pseudopigraphic, not Paul's writings themselves that were being referred to as Scripture, etc.).
What's your point, AW? Just be clear about it. Should we embrace the Ebionites as the true keepers of the Christian faith that the early church suppressed in a grand conspiracy of who knows what? Explain how whatever theory it is you're asserting is plausible from history without resorting to wild speculation and unprovable assertions that would need a lot of coincidences to line up.
RESPONSE:
I thought that was obvious. Pauline Christianty is not the same as the original Christianity. It's a hybrid combining the teachings of Jesus but dominated by the beliefs of Paul.
Please quote for us any scriptural verses by other than Paul himself or Luke that say Paul was an apostle. Can't find any can you?
Paul claimed to be an apostle 20 time in the New Testament. Luke called him an apostle twice. No apostle ever called Paul an apostle.
Gal 1: 11 " For I want you to know, brothers and sisters,* that the gospel that was proclaimed by me is not of human origin; 12for I did not receive it from a human source, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ.
Absolutely anyone (including Ralph) can make that wild claim.
1 Cor 9:2-3 "Are you not my work in the Lord? 2If I am not an apostle to others, at least I am to you; for you are the seal of my apostleship in the Lord."
Paul claimed to be an Apostle. Luke, his PR man, referred to Paul and Barnabus as being apostles. Acts 14:14 But neither Paul nor Barnabus were apostles
The Jerusalem council had set them apart to the Nations...
I thought that was obvious. Pauline Christianty is not the same as the original Christianity. It's a hybrid combining the teachings of Jesus but dominated by the beliefs of Paul.
OK, now can you continue that response in light of the last paragraph in my post? I'll repost if that helps:
Quote:
Ridiculous argument. Where else should he be mentioned and why? Paul wasn't an apostle (or even relevant yet) during the events of the gospels, so it's hardly surprising he's not mentioned there. And then we have to throw Acts out since Luke, his "PR man" (rolls eyes) wrote that. And Revelation wouldn't make much sense.
So you're trying to argue that because none of James, Jude, 1/2 Peter, 1/2/3 John, nor the writer of Hebrews specifically call out Paul as an apostle that this is supposed to prove something? Why would they go out of their way to do so? Are you familiar at all with why they were written? (and I'm going to assume you'll entirely discount 2 Pe. 3 for one reason or another I'll disagree with, e.g. pseudopigraphic, not Paul's writings themselves that were being referred to as Scripture, etc.).
What's your point, AW? Just be clear about it. Should we embrace the Ebionites as the true keepers of the Christian faith that the early church suppressed in a grand conspiracy of who knows what? Explain how whatever theory it is you're asserting is plausible from history without resorting to wild speculation and unprovable assertions that would need a lot of coincidences to line up.
And what's your view of 2 Peter 3 again? Obviously you'll need to shoot it down to make your point, I just want to know which avenue you're taking.
I thought that was obvious. Pauline Christianty is not the same as the original Christianity. It's a hybrid combining the teachings of Jesus but dominated by the beliefs of Paul.
First off, it can't be the same teachings, nor should it be, as what Jesus gave to the **Circumcision** believers who mix grace with law. Believers of the nations have a completely different allotment in the future. We are to go amongst the heavenly regions while Circumcision believers remain on the earth. So why should we of the nations also do the law since we won't be on the earth doing the law with the **Circumcision** believers? Do you know why the believers of Jesus according to the flesh are called "Circumcision"? It is because they circumcise themselves and their children? Why? In order to obey the law of Moses.
Not to mention the fact that Israel was set aside in God's program and grace was given to the nations. (see Romans 9-11).
It actually has teaching from the **risen Christ** and so we do not follow Christ after the flesh or one could say "according to when He walked the earth."
"The rejection of Peter as the writer of 2 Peter is by far the most common opinion today. In fact, the view of the pseudonymity of the epistle is almost universal.1 The term pseudonymity refers to an author assuming the name of another, writing supposedly on his or her behalf—or in his or her name."
First off, it can't be the same teachings, nor should it be, as what Jesus gave to the **Circumcision** believers who mix grace with law. Believers of the nations have a completely different allotment in the future. We are to go amongst the heavenly regions while Circumcision believers remain on the earth. So why should we of the nations also do the law since we won't be on the earth doing the law with the **Circumcision** believers? Do you know why the believers of Jesus according to the flesh are called "Circumcision"? It is because they circumcise themselves and their children? Why? In order to obey the law of Moses.
Not to mention the fact that Israel was set aside in God's program and grace was given to the nations. (see Romans 9-11).
It actually has teaching from the **risen Christ** and so we do not follow Christ after the flesh or one could say "according to when He walked the earth."
RESPONSE:
Once again, please provide the verses to support your claim that apostles recognized Paul as an apostle.
And note in quoting Romans, that Romanswas Paul's writing.
What a convoluted view of basic Christianity you are developing to avoid admitting the fact the Pauline Christianity is the form we have today.
Once again, the original followers of Jesus, the Jerusalem community, were crushed by the Romans in 135 AD and enslaved. What remained were the communities outside Israel. Most were Pauline and they eventually adopted the same teachings such as rejection of Mosaic law, justification by faith, and the acceptance solely of Paul's 'gospel".'
The original Palestinian Christians rejected Paul as an apostate and there are even allusions to this admitted by Luke-Acts.
Paul sought a Gentile audience becasue the Jews rejected him. On the other hand, the Gentiles were not all that familiar with the Old Testament, so Paul's arguments could be accepted.
Last edited by ancient warrior; 07-12-2012 at 02:39 PM..
Reason: addition
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
