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.
Paul's teaching does not contradict the recorded teachings of Jesus and most importantly, the apostles fully believed in Pauls teaching, with Peter calling them 'Scripture'.
Therefore, beloved, since you look for these things, be diligent to be found by Him in peace, spotless and blameless, and regard the patience of our Lord as salvation; just as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, wrote to you, as also in all his letters, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction.
Not only does he compare Paul's writing to the other Scriptures, saying they are equal, he also tells us that there are people distorting the Scriptures, which is what is happening in this thread.
I love how the Scripture always provides God's answers so that we need not rely on our own arrogance or lack of wisdom.
If any of you lacks wisdom, you should ask God( or consult your bible)who gives (bible wisdom) generously to all without finding fault, and it be given to you.
Thank you for your response. Although you quote many scriptures, mostly from the gospels, naming Paul as a false prophet is something that is your opinion and nothing that specifically names him in scripture.
I realize there are people who feel the epistles should be stripped out of the bible. I'm obviously not one of them. I think we're getting into the grace vs works area here. Paul wasn't advocating lawlessness, he was explaining the new covenant.
Whenever I hear the argument about grace, I hear "license to sin". It's quite the opposite. 1 Corinthians says the strength of sin is the law. Romans says that sin no longer has any hold over us because we're under grace and not the law. While this may seem to be off topic, it's not. The grace vs law issue is what upset people with Paul back in his day and it continues today.
Jesus said He came to fulfill the law and the purpose of the law is outlined in Galatians. It was to point us to Jesus.
I realize that quoting the epistles may not have weight with you, but they are part of the bible. Putting Paul aside, Jesus was asked by the people what they should do to do the works of God (John 6:28). He didn't answer and tell them to follow the law, do good, etc. He said to believe in Him. Period.
Hebrews is an excellent book for contrasting the old covenant and the new. If we were still under the law, we wouldn't need Jesus or the cross. And before someone jumps all over me, I don't think people will hear grace and run out raping and pillaging because they're under grace. While grace is the favor of God, it's also His power working in people to change them.
So we don't need to do good works? On the contrary. Good works will flow out of people under grace. People under the law do works to try to earn favor and do it out of a sense of obligation, sometimes grudgingly. People under grace enjoying doing good works.
I would disagree that Paul was a false prophet.
While I sometimes have problems with Paul--especially where he contradicts or undermines the words of Jesus (in more than one place)--I think he was a man of faith, one step removed from knowing Jesus in the flesh. He took what he knew and his own salvation experience to launch the greatest evangelistic campaign the world has ever known.
But he was an imperfect man fighting a several thousand year old Jewish religious tradition. I think he sometimes overstated his position.
A further complication is the improper use of Paul's words by those who cling to a dogma of one-time confession salvation. It leaves out many of the more meaningful areas that Paul taught--like we are saved unto good works, which you, Mike930, have indicated above in the bolded sentence. You aren't leaving it out, which means you are understanding ALL of Paul's writing.
I just wish Paul's epistles had maintained their original spot in the Bible of old---behind the catholic epistles of Peter, James, and John.
Paul's teaching does not contradict the recorded teachings of Jesus and most importantly, the apostles fully believed in Pauls teaching, with Peter calling them 'Scripture'.
Therefore, beloved, since you look for these things, be diligent to be found by Him in peace, spotless and blameless, and regard the patience of our Lord as salvation; just as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, wrote to you, as also in all his letters, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction.
Not only does he compare Paul's writing to the other Scriptures, saying they are equal, he also tells us that there are people distorting the Scriptures, which is what is happening in this thread.
I love how the Scripture always provides God's answers so that we need not rely on our own arrogance or lack of wisdom.
Dear Maxx,
Not that Peter (Petros), or his heir, the pope, is anything to write home about, but 2 Peter was not written by Peter, nor is it Scripture. Second Epistle of Peter - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia As for the kingdom of Heaven, it is for babes, and not for "wise and intelligent", and for this Yeshua "praised Thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth" (Mt 11:25).
As for the canon of your bible, the existing canon in use today was originally presented in the year 367 AD by Athanasius, the Roman bishop of Alexandria. The Roman Church was established by the Roman emperor Constantine, at the Council of Nicaea, at which council Athanasius was a scribe who pushed the Trinity doctrine, which was formalized finally in 380 by the Roman emperor Theodosius. Theodosius later convened a church council in 381 which rubber stamped his formal state decree. Your canon and traditions are the product of the state of Rome. The church was established to consolidate Roman power over the populace, and it incorporated the pagan religion traditions into the Roman church. Theodosius I - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia The Roman emperor Theodosius I officially made the "Christian" church the Roman state religion. It was the power of Rome which convened these Church councils, and it was the sword of Rome which controlled them. The Roman church is simply one of the daughters of Babylon which sits on the beast of Revelation 17, which receives its authority from the "dragon" (Rev 17:3). The head of the beast in question is Rome. Your 2 Peter is a writing by an unknown author, canonized by the daughter of Babylon the Great, and esteemed by the daughters of that church, which are the Protestants. Like mother, like daughter. (Ez 16:44)
Scripture is what Yeshua quoted from, and that is the Law and the Prophets. (John 10:35) Paul's writings are the seed of the devil, and were meant to remain among the seed of the son of man until the "end of the age" (Mt 13:37-41). Paul is represented by the Lawlessness (Romans 7:6), and Peter is represented by the Stumbling Blocks (Mt 16:23) which was to be gathered out of his kingdom at the end of the age. (Mt 13:41) Maxx, You put your money on the wrong horse.
And indeed, it is a perverse generation which believes that one can serve God with their mind while they also serve the law of sin with their flesh, and giving thanks to God for this opportunity. (Romans 7:25) On the other hand, Yeshua taught that one should beware of the leaven (hypocrisy) of the Pharisees, whereas the "Christian" community, stemming not from Jerusalem, which ousted Paul, but the Greek community of Antioch, has embraced his double minded rants.
This is a rather perverse interpretation of the end of Romans 7. Paul was saying that the flesh is at battle with the mind (heart) that has surrendered to God. I think all, or most of us, would agree that such a war rages constantly within the believer. Or have you reached the point where you are above it all? Your mind has conquered your flesh 100% and you are as pure as the driven snow?
I think not. And if not, then you are exactly like Paul.
And how is it that a man who assisted in persecuting and killing Christians ended up dying as a Christian, and most likely, for BEING a Christian, unless he had experienced being born again as Jesus spoke of?
There are plenty of areas Paul was mistaken in his assessment. There is no doubt he was a self-promoter with regard to his new faith. But to call him evil and false is---well, that is evil and false.
Paul is a child of God and lives today in heaven with the Lord , He`s still alive ...
Dear hc,
Paul is dead, and in the grave along with Peter. You can visit the professed bones of Peter in Rome. There is no pearly gates, and Peter isn't the ticket master. Nor is Mary a virgin, nor is she alive in heaven either. Your prayers to her idol go unanswered. The souls that supposedly dwell under an altar in heaven is imagery. No one wants to live under an altar, especially for a long time with a lot of other people. (Rev 6:9)
I like what William Lane Craig had to say about Paul's writings...
But putting Paul aside, let’s ask about his doctrinal contribution. Again, in one sense you don’t have to believe in Paul’s peculiar doctrinal contribution in order to be a Christian because the central doctrines of the Christian faith are also to be found elsewhere in the New Testament: in the Gospels, the theologically rich book of Hebrews, and the other epistles. The core doctrines of the Christian faith weren’t peculiar to Paul. Really, there’s not very much that you HAVE to believe in order to be a Christian. Essential doctrines would include things like the existence of a holy, loving, all-mighty God; your sinfulness before such a God and need of his forgiveness and moral cleansing; the deity and humanity of Jesus, his atoning death for your sins, and his resurrection from death; and the need for personal repentance and faith to access God’s grace. None of these doctrines is a Pauline idiosyncrasy.
I find this an extremely reasonable position which renders this conflict moot. Although Paul is supported by the apostles and I serve a God which has preserved the Scripture and would not allow it to become corrupted by men.
This is a rather perverse interpretation of the end of Romans 7. Paul was saying that the flesh is at battle with the mind (heart) that has surrendered to God. I think all, or most of us, would agree that such a war rages constantly within the believer. Or have you reached the point where you are above it all? Your mind has conquered your flesh 100% and you are as pure as the driven snow?
I think not. And if not, then you are exactly like Paul.
And how is it that a man who assisted in persecuting and killing Christians ended up dying as a Christian, and most likely, for BEING a Christian, unless he had experienced being born again as Jesus spoke of?
There are plenty of areas Paul was mistaken in his assessment. There is no doubt he was a self-promoter with regard to his new faith. But to call him evil and false is---well, that is evil and false.
Dear Ward,
Was Napoleon evil? Was Hitler evil? Was Caesar evil? Is Barry Hussein Soetoro evil? They are more likely possessed as indicated in Revelation 16:13-14. Just as Peter (Mt 16:23), Paul (2 Cor 12:7), and Judas (John 13:27), the 3 shepherds of Zechariah 11 were possessed.
As for Romans 7:26, there is no battle involved. Paul was foremost of the sinners. (1 Timothy 1:15) And Paul's Romans 7:25 was quite clear. No need for a remedial translator.
Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, on the one hand I myself with my mind am serving the law of God, but on the other, with my flesh the law of sin
As for those who have been born of God, 1 John 3:9,"No one who is born of God practices sin, because his seed abides in him; and he cannot sin, because he is born of God"
As for those who do not heed the message of Yeshua, they can look forward to a great fall (Mt 7::27).
As for the term "Christian", none of the apostles identified themselves as "Christians". Paul was run out of Jerusalem with several cohorts of Roman soldiers as his guard.
I don't think you have a clear understanding of the new covenant. I also think you make some pretty broad assumptions such as calling me a disciple of Paul and saying I rely on him. That's completely incorrect. My reliance is on Christ.
Jesus said He came to fulfill the law. I'll take his word over yours.
The bible is clear that we are no longer under the law. You couldn't possibly keep the law. No one could. I think we'll have to disagree and leave it at that.
Dear Mike,
It is Paul who says you are no longer under the Law. (Romans 7:6) It is not Christ. (Mt 19:17) And Christ came to fulfill the Law and the Prophets, but it has not been fulfilled at this time. A good portion of the OT is about the "Day of the Lord", which has not occurred.
Yeshua also said that those who keep and teaches the commandments (Mt 19:17-19), will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. Paul's name is a reference to least, and not great, which is because he does not keep or teach the commandments. (Mt 5:19)
I have not asked you take my word. I give you testimony from 1st person witness statements from Yeshua and Scripture, to support my position. Your position is based upon the staff Paul, and the traditions of men, which is like a broken reed. (Is 36:6)
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.
