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.
Well, according to the New Testament, Paul was a disciple of the resurrected Christ. Everything he learned waqs from Christ and not from the apostels, and he even said of himself that he was the chief apostle. And Peter consented to his authority when he was rebuked by Paul dor preferring the circumcision and teaching the gentiles to observe the Law.
Peace ...
Luke version and how it differs from Paul's...Heard and not saw!
Acts 9:6-7
And he trembling and astonished said, Lord, what wilt thou have me do? And the Lord said unto him,
Arise, and go into the city, and it shall be told thee what thou must do. (this is what was uttered in the hearing of his companion according to Luke.)
7 And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, HEARING a voice, but seeing no man.
Paul's version: Saw but not heard...?
Acts 22:9 And they that were with me SAW indeed the light, and were afraid; but they HEARD NOT the voice of him that spake to me.
Removing the witnesses...???
Finally! Paul's proclamation: Acts 26:14-18
....To open their eyes, and to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins, and inheritance among them which are sanctified by faith that is in me.
But then...we can sit at our computer to no end arguing this point, for it is only one's opinion against another. We will find out soon enough...won't we?
"LOVE" is my compass in skimming through passages of the scripture...
There were 120 disciples (students of Jesus) Acts 1:15 and ONLY 12 Apostles (disciples who became teachers under the tutelage of Jesus) Revelation 21:14 and 3 witnesses of the transfiguration (Peter, James, and John)...the most intimate companions of Jesus.
Thus, when someone mentions the word "Apostles", he could only mean the 12...they had to be under the tutelage of Jesus, as the main criteria of becoming an Apostle...
1: a person who puts on a false appearance of virtue or religion
2: a person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings
I stand by what I said. One can't preach that the law is not to be followed...that it is useless and obsolete and then turn around and take a Nazarite vow which included purification and a sacrifice...and let's not forget the fact that he also circumcised Timothy....this defines Paul as the biggest hypocrite around...lying for Jesus...not a new concept for it's done all the time.
Here is a good answer concerning the Circumcision of Timothy ...
Quote:
He came to Derbe and then to Lystra, where a disciple named Timothy lived, whose mother was a Jewess and a believer, but whose father was a Greek. The brothers at Lystra and Iconium spoke well of him. Paul wanted to take him along on the journey, so he circumcised him because of the Jews who lived in that area, for they all knew that his father was a Greek.
These few verses offer us a big argument: Is Paul's circumcision of Timothy in line with his gospel of grace? Or was it just an empty gesture invented by Luke?
The matter actually goes back a bit further, to the marriage of Timothy's Jewish mother to a Greek father. We can rather quickly get past another of Haenchen's objections, that such a marriage would be illegal under Jewish law (As if that would stop anybody. We have evidence that Jews in this region married into dominant Gentile families, and though the practice was rare, it "still took place often enough." - Haen.AA, 478n; Bruc.AA, 351; Dunn.AA, 216), and move to the basic question of whether Paul would do such a thing as described.
It is commonly supposed that the circumcision of Timothy was a gesture of concession to the Jewish community, Paul's way of "being all things to all men" so that he could save a few. Timothy, whose father was Greek (as Luke is at pains to point out), would be considered an offense and an apostate Jew, and so the circumcision was done to facilitate missionary work among the Jews. [Mun.AA, 155] In fact, the way Luke phrases the matter suggests that Timothy's Christian mission was already being affected by this issue.
The key objections, supported by Haenchen, take these aspects.
First, it is said: "Circumcision without religious significance would simply have made no sense anywhere in Judaism at the time of Paul and in reality could never be considered." [Haen.AA, 480] Haenchen, however, fails to distinguish between "without religious significance" and "with a different religious significance". Paul objects mightily to those who demand circumcision as a sign of salvation, but he has no beef at all with those who practice it (and the other Jewish laws) as a matter of ancestral tradition. [With.AA, 474; Jns.AA, 289]
And this is what the whole deal was about: Showing respect for one's traditions so as not to cause offense among those who still held them in high esteem. Thus, when Haenchen cites various verses showing that "Paul wanted nothing to do with the supplementary circumcision of a Christian" for "it would inevitably awaken the fatal misunderstanding that the true Christian simply must be circumcised," he misses the point. In the wake of the Apostolic decree, there is no way that such a misunderstanding would crop up, except among the terminally stupid - and in fact, that Timothy underwent the procedure even though he technically did not have to would be seen as a tribute to his Jewish side of unimaginable proportions. And, it is not as though the matter would be left unexplained by Paul in the first place.
It is okay if you consider Paul to have been a hypocrite, in fact every person alive on earth is an hypocrite. I believe that it is not a matter of whether or not someone is hypocritical, but the reasons for their hypocrisy.
I personally do not believe that being all things to all people is a bad thing, especially for one at liberty. So long as one accomplishes the work one is commissioned to do.
If we go around expecting everyone else to get on our level, and the refuse to get on their level, we are acting as if we were an island unto ourselves, and we only serve to alienate ourselves.
Sometimes it is necessary to appeal to another persons since of right and wrong, so that you do not cause those who are weaker in faith than yourself to stumble ...
Paul never denied his methods, and he expressly made very good and reasonable apologies for them.
The spirit moves in mysterious way, and causes foolish things to rise up and confound the wisdom of men.
But this is all a very spiritual concept, and i don't expect everyone or even most people to understand it or be able to appreciate it.
"When in Rome" ... Thank God for our liberty in Christ.
What does it matter whether or not there where two or four or two hundred and four robbers and or malefactors crucified with Christ? How does that effect doctrine in any way shape or form?
I understand your argument and i find it very compelling ... I just cant figure out why someone would get upset about it.
My oldest brother is the same way, he always wants to talk about what he believes the scriptures teach and what he has learned recently from his "pastor-teacher", and he always wants to sit on his high horse and preach to me and the rest of my family about why this and why that because we do this or because we dont do that, and he demands that we listen to what he has to say ... but the moment i disagree with him and tell him what i believe he fly's into a rage and tells me i'm an heretic and rebellious and teaching false doctrine etc. , but when it comes to quoting scriptures and debating the facts he refuses to listen to anything i have to say and simply closes off and looks down his nose and enters into his "holier than thou" Mr. religiosity mode ...
Its really sad especially when i catch him contradicting himself or the scriptures and then he really goes irate and says I'm twisting his words, yet he cant say anything to deny it.
Hes not even willing to read the bible any more by himself. He will only read the bible while he listens to his pastor-teacher on audio cd explain it word by word. He has been reading the letter of Romans now for over a year and has not yet gotten past Romans chapter 5 ...
Very sad state of affairs where he is concerned spiritually ... But he's my brother and i have to be patient with him and look past his religious programming and trust God that eventually he will mature enough to start being able to think for himself someday.
Peace ...
Sounds like he is being led around by those like VP and SG...
Well, Matthias was elected by the drawing of straws and not by the election of Christ, so Paul who was elected by Christ was really the 12th apostle after the death of Judas. And Epaphroditus was the delegate of the Christian community at Philippi, and a minister of the apostle Paul, not really an apostle.
Peace ...
The 11 Apostles drew straws trusting that God would make His choice...Do you really think God was not involved in that?...
The 11 Apostles drew straws trusting that God would make His choice...Do you really think God was not involved in that?...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard1965
Well maybe Paul was in fact the Wolf from the Tribe of Benjamin...
A good food for thoughts...
P.S. And what did Saul try to do to David...the anointed of God...?
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.
