How Paul wrote the old testament.

[Simplelogic]

You might be thinking that I am crazy but bear with me for a second. Paul has a strange habit of quoting scriptures horribly out of context from the original Hebrew text. But whats interesting is that I have found many of Paul's misquotes right there in the Greek LXX!!

Here is one of the most obvious examples of this rewriting of history to promote Pauline logic:

As it is written: "There is none righteous, no, not one; there is none who understands; there is none who seek after God. They have all gone out of the way; they have together become unprofitable; there is none who does good, no not one. Their throat is an open tomb; with their tongues they have practiced deceit; the poison of asps is under their lips; whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness. Their feet are swift to shed blood; destruction and misery are in their ways; and the way of peace they have not known. There is no fear of God before their eyes." Romans 3:10-18

This is Paul's apparent direct quote from Scripture that is supposed to prove to us that no one is righteous, but all are full of evil. Now guess what? No such passage exists! What Paul quotes is a compilation of no less than six separate passages that have been jerked out of their original context from the Psalms and the book of Isaiah, given an interpretation that cannot be found there, and strung together to appear as one quote.

Paul's accuracy in quoting from the Psalms is no better. The first passage he quotes in verses 10-12 comes from Psalm 14. Here is his version again.

As it is written: "There is none righteous, no, not one; there is none who understands; there is none who seeks after God. They have all gone out of the way; they have together become unprofitable; there is none who does good, no, not one." Romans 3:10-12

Now here is the passage quoted accurately, and in its context.

The fool has said in his heart, "there is no God". They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none who does good. The Lord looks down from heaven upon the children of men to see if there are any who understand, who seek God. They have all turned aside, they have together become corrupt; there is none who does good, no, not one. Have all the workers of iniquity no knowledge, who eat up my people as they eat bread, and do not call on the Lord? There they are in great fear, for God is with the generation of the RIGHTEOUS. Psalm 14:1-5

Guess what? In David's picture there are no atheistic fools who do good! This passage is obviously not speaking of every human being, but of a distinct group of people whom David describes as fools, atheists, workers of abominations, corrupt, ignorant, and workers of iniquity. Of course, not one of them do good. And these evil people are contrasted with a second group of real people known as "my people" and "the generation of the righteous". Right there in this very Psalm that Paul quotes from, there are obviously those whom God calls "righteous"! This is hardly the picture Paul wants us to get from this Psalm. Notice also Paul's embellishment of this passage. He would have us believe the phrase, "no, not one" is used twice when it is only used once. The first time Paul uses the phrase is where it doesn't exist, and it is coupled with the word "righteous". This word does not exist in this part of the Psalm, or anywhere near the words "no, not one". The word "righteous" only shows up later in verse 5, and there it directly implies that there are those who are righteous! So much for "no, not one".

In Paul's string of quotes, he continues to take snippets of Scripture out of their context from Psalm 5:9, Psalm 140:3, Psalm 10:7, Isaiah 59:7,8, and Psalm 36:1. In each and every case, the unrighteous individuals spoken of in these passages are specifically evil men, and in the greater context of these passages, the evil men are contrasted with those who are called "the righteous", "the upright", and "the innocent". Please check for yourself. Not only is there no support for Paul's picture in these passages, but in their proper context, the exact opposite is firmly established.

Here comes the controversy!!!

I want to show the the Psalm 14:3 in the Hebrew text one more time:

14:3 They are all gone aside, they are all together become filthy: there is none that doeth good, no, not one.

Even though it has been clearly established that Paul quoted from multiple different scriptures to paint this false picture of righteousness just look at what the LXX (Greek OT) says:

Psalm 14:3 They are all gone out of the way, they are together become good for nothing, there is none that does good, no not one. Their throat is an open sepulchre; with their tongues they have used deceit; the poison of asps is under their lips: whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness; their feet are swift to shed blood: destruction and misery are in their ways; and the way of peace they have not known: there is no fear of God before their eyes.

Paul's quote was added back into the Greek version of the OT!!!!!

http://www.avpublications.com/avnew/downloads/PDF/q10.pdf
The Truth about the Septuagint
the septuagint...is it a fraud and forgery? can we trust it?
http://www.christianmissionconnection.org/The_Septuagint_A_Critical_Analysis.pdf

 

[Kolibri]

Acts 20:6-12 records Paul in Troas in the spring of 56 C.E.

With the entire congregation as witnesses, Paul resurrected Eu'tychus.
This was during his 3rd missionary tour. By this time he would have penned Galatians, both letters to the Thessalonians, both letters to the Corinthians, and likely in the middle of writing the book of Romans.

Since Paul was able to raise the dead (only possible by means of God's holy spirit) - and there were witnesses to deny this if it were not true - it stands to reason that at this date he was honorable and acting and writing under the influence of the holy spirit.

If Paul's writings, up to this date, truly were a product of holy spirit, then could you perhaps unknowingly be attributing something bad to the holy spirit itself?

Caution is in order. Only one type of sin is unforgivable, and it requires a determined effort to blaspheme the holy spirit.

Another factor calling for respect is found in the Law. The principle certainly still applies.

"You must not curse (or "revile.") God nor curse a chieftain (or "ruler.") among your people." - Ex 22:28

 

[te_lanus]

Attributing it to the HS? Nope, the bible as we have it is a product of man, and the books in it was chosen to fit in with in with what the early RCC was teaching.

 

[Simplelogic]

Acts 20:6-12 records Paul in Troas in the spring of 56 C.E.

With the entire congregation as witnesses, Paul resurrected Eu'tychus.
This was during his 3rd missionary tour. By this time he would have penned Galatians, both letters to the Thessalonians, both letters to the Corinthians, and likely in the middle of writing the book of Romans.

Since Paul was able to raise the dead (only possible by means of God's holy spirit) - and there were witnesses to deny this if it were not true - it stands to reason that at this date he was honorable and acting and writing under the influence of the holy spirit.

If Paul's writings, up to this date, truly were a product of holy spirit, then could you perhaps unknowingly be attributing something bad to the holy spirit itself?

Caution is in order. Only one type of sin is unforgivable, and it requires a determined effort to blaspheme the holy spirit.

Another factor calling for respect is found in the Law. The principle certainly still applies.

"You must not curse (or "revile.") God nor curse a chieftain (or "ruler.") among your people." - Ex 22:28

What witnesses are you referring to?? You are taking Paul's word for it that A. This event even happened….and B. There were actual witnesses present?

But EVEN if you are right about Paul doing this you are still wrong. Miracles are NOT the litmus test that we are to use to discern who is a valid prophet. This may come as a shock because Paul believed his authority rested on his miraculous signs that he did……FALSE.

11I am become a fool in glorying; ye have compelled me: for I ought to have been commended of you: for in nothing am I behind the very chiefest apostles, though I be nothing. 12Truly the signs of an apostle were wrought among you in all patience, in signs, and wonders, and mighty deeds. 2 Cor 12: 11-12

Yeshua said something very different:

21“Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter.22“Many will say to Me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?’23“And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; DEPART FROM ME, YOU WHO PRACTICE LAWLESSNESS.’ Matt 7: 21-23

Yeshua is paraphrasing the Torah which says the same thing:

1“If a prophet or a dreamer of dreams arises among you and gives you a sign or a wonder, 2and the sign or the wonder comes true, concerning which he spoke to you, saying, ‘Let us go after other gods (whom you have not known) and let us serve them,’ 3you shall not listen to the words of that prophet or that dreamer of dreams; for the LORD your God is testing you to find out if you love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul. 4“You shall follow the LORD your God and fear Him; and you shall keep His commandments, listen to His voice, serve Him, and cling to Him. 5“But that prophet or that dreamer of dreams shall be put to death, because he has counseled rebellion against the LORD your God who brought you from the land of Egypt and redeemed you from the house of slavery, to seduce you from the way in which the LORD your God commanded you to walk. So you shall purge the evil from among you. Deut 13: 1-5

 

[Kolibri]

You are correct to say that we were warned that powerful works by themselves are not a litmus test (Mt 7:21-23; 24:23-25; 2Th 2:9,10; Re 13:11-13). And, according to Paul's' own writings, 'powerful works' such as "gift of prophecy," "tongues," and special "knowledge" would be done away with once the Bible canon was completed - making the source of powerful works even more suspect after the congregation had left it's infancy. (1Co 13:8-11)

You also speak correctly, that according to the Law, the Israelites were to put to death any "prophet" or "dreamer" that encouraged them to "walk after" and "serve [other gods]" - even when they do give "a sign or a portent." (De 13:1-5) They were to do the same when the prophet "presumptuously speaks a work in [God's] name that [He] did not command him to speak," adding the instructions: "When the prophet speaks in the name of Jehovah and the word is not fulfilled or does not come true, then Jehovah did not speak that word. The prophet spoke it presumptuously. You should not fear him." (De 18:20-22)

And yet, powerful works were not to be taken lightly. Even Jesus used them as authentication of his commission and message. (Joh 5:36-39, 46,47; 10:24-27; 31-38; 14:11; 20:27-29). Jesus even indicated that those that saw those powerful works and failed to respond to the truth were more responsible for their lack of repentance then they would have been otherwise. (Mt 11:20-24; Joh 15:24)

Now in regards the foundation of my last post, that of Paul's being authentically used by the holy spirit; it was based on three things.

1) The Troas congregation were there to witness the resurrection.
2) Luke the writer of the book of Acts reported that he "traced all things from the start with accuracy,...so that you may know fully the certainty of the things that you have been taught orally." He used "eyewitnesses."(Luke 1:2-4).
3) A resurrection is not just any "powerful work." A restoration of life to one already dead goes beyond what the demons can do as they disguise themselves as angels of light. God said that to him "all souls belong." To release one from death thus can only be done with God's permission. (2Co 11:14; Eze 18:4)

You might argue that Eu'tycus was not really dead; that they were all mistaken about what condition he was in when he fell from the third story building after falling asleep. That this was a case of miraculous healing instead of a resurrection. I, for one, am not going to gainsay the testimony of the Troas congregation - especially after being interviewed by a physician. (Col 4:14)

Take it as you will. I fear to speak harshly about Paul. I think of Jesus words at Mt 25:40.

"In reply the King will say to them, 'Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me.'"

 

[Simplelogic]

You are correct to say that we were warned that powerful works by themselves are not a litmus test (Mt 7:21-23; 24:23-25; 2Th 2:9,10; Re 13:11-13). And, according to Paul's' own writings, 'powerful works' such as "gift of prophecy," "tongues," and special "knowledge" would be done away with once the Bible canon was completed - making the source of powerful works even more suspect after the congregation had left it's infancy. (1Co 13:8-11)

You also speak correctly, that according to the Law, the Israelites were to put to death any "prophet" or "dreamer" that encouraged them to "walk after" and "serve [other gods]" - even when they do give "a sign or a portent." (De 13:1-5) They were to do the same when the prophet "presumptuously speaks a work in [God's] name that [He] did not command him to speak," adding the instructions: "When the prophet speaks in the name of Jehovah and the word is not fulfilled or does not come true, then Jehovah did not speak that word. The prophet spoke it presumptuously. You should not fear him." (De 18:20-22)

And yet, powerful works were not to be taken lightly. Even Jesus used them as authentication of his commission and message. (Joh 5:36-39, 46,47; 10:24-27; 31-38; 14:11; 20:27-29). Jesus even indicated that those that saw those powerful works and failed to respond to the truth were more responsible for their lack of repentance then they would have been otherwise. (Mt 11:20-24; Joh 15:24)

Now in regards the foundation of my last post, that of Paul's being authentically used by the holy spirit; it was based on three things.

1) The Troas congregation were there to witness the resurrection.
2) Luke the writer of the book of Acts reported that he "traced all things from the start with accuracy,...so that you may know fully the certainty of the things that you have been taught orally." He used "eyewitnesses."(Luke 1:2-4).
3) A resurrection is not just any "powerful work." A restoration of life to one already dead goes beyond what the demons can do as they disguise themselves as angels of light. God said that to him "all souls belong." To release one from death thus can only be done with God's permission. (2Co 11:14; Eze 18:4)

You might argue that Eu'tycus was not really dead; that they were all mistaken about what condition he was in when he fell from the third story building after falling asleep. That this was a case of miraculous healing instead of a resurrection. I, for one, am not going to gainsay the testimony of the Troas congregation - especially after being interviewed by a physician. (Col 4:14)

Take it as you will. I fear to speak harshly about Paul. I think of Jesus words at Mt 25:40.

"In reply the King will say to them, 'Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me.'"

I would feel the same if I believed Paul was one of Yeshua's brothers. But Yeshua never met Paul. Nor was Paul one of the twelve chosen apostles of the lamb which have authority in New Jerusalem to come.

The Torah tells us very clearly that even if a man does signs and wonders he is to be rejected if he teaches against YHVH's Torah. Which Paul most certainly did:

"Paul is blunt in Ephesians 2:15, Colossians 2:14, 2 Cor. 3:11-17, Romans 7:1-3 et seq, and Galatians 3:19 et seq. The Law is "abolished," "done away with," "nailed to a tree," "has faded away,' and was "only ordained by angels...who are no gods." If we were to cite Paul's condemnations of the Law in one string, the point is self-evident that Paul abrogated the Law for everyone. See Eph. 2:15 ("setting aside in his flesh the law with its commands and regulations"); Col. 2:14 ("having blotted out the bond written in ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us: and he hath taken it out that way, nailing it to the cross;") 2 Cor. 3:14 ("old covenant"); Gal. 5:1 ("yoke of bondage"); Rom. 10:4 ("Christ is the end of the law"); 2 Cor. 3:7 ("law of death"); Gal. 5:1 ("entangles"); Col. 2:14-17 ("a shadow"); Rom. 3:27 ("law of works"); Rom. 4:15 ("works wrath"); 2 Cor. 3:9(ministration of condemnation); Gal. 2:16 ("cannot justify"); Gal. 3:21 (cannot give life); Col. 2:14 ("wiped out" exaleipsas); Gal. 3:19, 4:8-9 ("given by angels...who are no gods [and are] weak and beggarly celestial beings/elements").

Finally, in Romans 7:1-6, Paul claims when Jesus died, the husband died and this dissolved the Law's bonds between the husband (God of Sinai) and wife (God's people). This henceforth made the "law dead to us." (Romans 7:4.) This death-of-God-the-husband released the Jews, Paul contends, and when Christ resurrected the bonds of marriage with the old God were not renewed. (The implication, we contend, was Paul meant a new God emerges or otherwise if the same husband-God resurrected, why wasn't the bond to the Law renewed? Paulinists come near to admitting this is the only logical meaning while even confessing they are uncomfortable with the passage's 'seemingly' polytheistic explanation... Uggh. "

 

[Kolibri]

Regarding Roman 7:1-6, this was not illustrating God as the husband but the Law itself as the husband. The Law died (or "was fulfilled") when the perfect man was sacrificed, removing the need for the blood of animals being poured out repetitively. The exact price of a man's life had finally been paid. Now that the marriage bonds to the Law were removed, these ones could now be collectively presented to the Christ as a bride, and the wifely subjection would be to the Christ's Law. There is another time when Paul likened Jew's by birth to Hagar and Jew's by spiritual birth to Sarah, but that was a different illustration and not used here.

"Can it be that you do not know, brothers, (for I am speaking to those who know law) that the Law is master over a man as long as he lives? For instance, a married woman is bound by law to her husband while he is alive; but if her husband dies, she is released from the law of her husband. So, then, while her husband is living, she would be called an adulteress if she became another man's. (Mt 5:32; 19:9; Mr 10:11,12; Lu 16:18) But if her husband dies, she is free from his law, so that she is not an adulteress if she becomes another man's."

"So, my brothers, you also were made dead to the Law through the body of the Christ, that you might become another's, (2Co 11:2) the one who was raised up from the dead, so that we should bear fruit to God. For when we were living according to the flesh, the sinful passions that were awakened by the Law were at work in our bodies (Lit., "members.") to produce fruit for death. (Jas 1:14,15) But now we have been released from the Law, because we have died to that which restrained us, in order that we might be slaves in a new sense by the spirit, and not in the old sense by the written code." - Romans 7:1-5

At some point I may do the research to show that the Law's ending as a legally binding document was foreshadowed in the Scriptures you do honor and/or the Gospel accounts themselves.

 

[Simplelogic]

Paul declares the God of Israel dead! | ReligiousForums.com

Your interpretation of Romans 7:1-5 is lacking imho. I have addressed it here:

 

[Simplelogic]

I take it nobody here cares that Paul has abused the Hebrew scriptures. Nor do people care that Paul's quotes were added back into the LXX. Ok then.

 

[Kolibri]

Your interpretation of Romans 7:1-5 is lacking imho. I have addressed it here:

Ok, I have read thru that thread.

You reference Jesus words at Mt 5:17,18 and Lu 16:17 "accomplished" or "fulfilled" has been addressed in #66 of your "arrogant man" thread.

The rest seems to hang some "proof" that the first husband is "God" which I do not follow at all. Just because some else declares besides you declares that it is "God" is no more meaningful then if someone backs up the teaching that it is "the Law." What makes sense? Paul recognized God as "King of eternity"(Ps 10:16; 90:2; Da 6:26) at 1 Timothy 1:17. Certainly Paul, as a lawyer, would not hang his line of reasoning on a such an obvious impossibility of God stopping his own existence.

What else did I miss?(honest question)

 

[Simplelogic]

Ok, I have read thru that thread.

You reference Jesus words at Mt 5:17,18 and Lu 16:17 "accomplished" or "fulfilled" has been addressed in #66 of your "arrogant man" thread.

The rest seems to hang some "proof" that the first husband is "God" which I do not follow at all. Just because some else declares besides you declares that it is "God" is no more meaningful then if someone backs up the teaching that it is "the Law." What makes sense? Paul recognized God as "King of eternity"(Ps 10:16; 90:2; Da 6:26) at 1 Timothy 1:17. Certainly Paul, as a lawyer, would not hang his line of reasoning on a such an obvious impossibility of God stopping his own existence.

What else did I miss?(honest question)

Thank you for the honest question.

2 For the woman (Israel/Jews) which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband. Rom 7:2

There are two things being mentioned here. There is a husband and a law. The woman (or the Jews) were married to this husband Paul says. The husband ends up dying which makes the law become null and void. You see there are two distinct points that Paul is making. One involves the death of the husband, the next involves the abolition of the law BECAUSE OF THE DEATH OF THAT VERY HUSBAND.

I realize how crazy this doctrine may seem. It was however and established view that was adhered to in the 2nd century...Marcionism

 

[Kolibri]

I have a natural suspect for anything purported to be the meaning of scripture written after John. Jesus said there would be imitation Christians and until the time of the harvest the distinction would not be apparent between them and the genuine article. Often the Christian Greek Scriptures either document attempts for this apostasy to take root or referred to a restraint that was still keeping it in check.

For Paul's writings to be respected for what they really say, one needs to keep in mind that anything written after the Apostles had died off is interesting from a historical point of view in the development of different doctrine, but very well may not be a true reflection of what is really there.

 

[Simplelogic]

I have a natural suspect for anything purported to be the meaning of scripture written after John. Jesus said there would be imitation Christians and until the time of the harvest the distinction would not be apparent between them and the genuine article. Often the Christian Greek Scriptures either document attempts for this apostasy to take root or referred to a restraint that was still keeping it in check.

For Paul's writings to be respected for what they really say, one needs to keep in mind that anything written after the Apostles had died off is interesting from a historical point of view in the development of different doctrine, but very well may not be a true reflection of what is really there.

The most obvious issue here is that Yeshua commissioned twelve apostles….not thirteen or fourteen. These twelve were given authority by Yeshua himself.

 

[Kolibri]

The most obvious issue here is that Yeshua commissioned twelve apostles….not thirteen or fourteen. These twelve were given authority by Yeshua himself.

Apostle literally means someone sent forth. The Twelve were sent forth as foundations of the early church build on the cornerstone, that is Christ. It seems obvious that these 12 are the names written on the foundation stones in John's vision of New Jerusalem at Rev 21:14.

However there were others sent forth and in a wider sense there could be others with that title without having the same exact purpose for being 'sent forth.'
Paul recognized himself as apostle in that he was directly sent forth to declare the good new to the non-Jews by Jesus. Paul also referred to Jesus as an apostle at Hebrew 3:1
Likewise Paul referred to James the half-brother of Jesus as an apostle at Galatians 1:17-19 when he was clearly not of the Twelve. Likewise at Act 9:26,27, sence it details the same event and merely says apostles, it becomes apparent that besides the Twelve it was common to refer to those 'sent forth' by the Jerusalem congregations as apostles in a wider sense.

Again, as you say, semantics. Apostle was a title given to anyone one sent forth in an official capacity. And yet the Twelve were set apart for the specific purpose of being the foundation laid on the cornerstone of the Christ.

the superfine apostles were claiming official status, but had no credentials to back it up. Paul boasted to draw a contrast so these predators would be exposed as frauds.

 

[Simplelogic]

Apostle literally means someone sent forth. The Twelve were sent forth as foundations of the early church build on the cornerstone, that is Christ. It seems obvious that these 12 are the names written on the foundation stones in John's vision of New Jerusalem at Rev 21:14.

However there were others sent forth and in a wider sense there could be others with that title without having the same exact purpose for being 'sent forth.'
Paul recognized himself as apostle in that he was directly sent forth to declare the good new to the non-Jews by Jesus. Paul also referred to Jesus as an apostle at Hebrew 3:1
Likewise Paul referred to James the half-brother of Jesus as an apostle at Galatians 1:17-19 when he was clearly not of the Twelve. Likewise at Act 9:26,27, sence it details the same event and merely says apostles, it becomes apparent that besides the Twelve it was common to refer to those 'sent forth' by the Jerusalem congregations as apostles in a wider sense.

Again, as you say, semantics. Apostle was a title given to anyone one sent forth in an official capacity. And yet the Twelve were set apart for the specific purpose of being the foundation laid on the cornerstone of the Christ.

the superfine apostles were claiming official status, but had no credentials to back it up. Paul boasted to draw a contrast so these predators would be exposed as frauds.

For sake of the argument, I will concede that apostle (with a little a) could be used to simply mean sent one. However, it is clear to me that Paul did not mean this. Paul states emphatically that he carried the same authority of the twelve. Sometimes he declared that he had more authority!

Besides, the whole reason why people fling the title "apostle" around so freely is because Paul is the one who created the premise that apostle can apply to others outside of the twelve. Yeshua had many disciples but only twelve were his official emissaries. Yet Paul claimed to be a preeminent apostle who had been chosen to take the gospel to the gentiles alone. Even though Peter, and the twelve, had already been commissioned to the gentiles!

8But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth. Acts 1:8

Let me first attempt to demonstrate a couple things which make Yeshua's twelve apostles unique:

Judas Iscariot betrayed Jesus and the 11 remaining Apostles picked the
twelfth according to this criteria in Acts 1:21-22:

Act 1:21 Wherefore of these men which have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, Act 1:22 Beginning from the baptism of John, unto that same day that he was taken up from us, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection.

-Notice the criteria for being one of the twelve. He had to know Yeshua personally and witnessed his entire ministry from "the baptism of John" until the crucifixion! This was how the 11 remaining apostles chose to replace Judas, under the direction of the Holy Spirit as well. This also highlights the difference between the twelve and the rest of the disciples because why was there a need to even replace Judas anyways! Why couldn't their be 11?

Matthias was chosen to replace Judas. In Acts 1:25-26 we read:

Act 1:25 That he may take part of this ministry and apostleship, from which Judas by transgression fell, that he might go to his own place.
Act 1:26 And they gave forth their lots; and the lot fell upon Matthias;
and he was numbered with the eleven apostles.

So we know that Matthias was added as the twelfth. This was necessary because of these previous words of Yeshua:

Mat 19:28 And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.

and

Luk 22:30 That ye may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom, and sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel.

Then we have the remarkable statement in revelation where Yeshua confirms these twelve ONLY! Whats fascinating about this is that this was AFTER Paul's missionary journeys and epistles! Is it not a little odd that Paul, a man who's letters make up most of the NT and the undisputed apostle in the minds of most Christians is not even mentioned by Yeshua!! In fact the exact opposite happened. Yeshua mentioned false apostles who were going around Asia minor claiming the title:

2I know thy works, and thy labour, and thy patience, and how thou canst not bear them which are evil: and thou hast tried them which say they are apostles, and are not, and hast found them liars Rev 2:2

To be continued…..

 

[Simplelogic]

Now I want to look at some of the obvious examples were Paul claims to be equal or greater to these chosen apostles of Yeshua. My good friend Scott Nelson has down a great job collecting the pertinent verses to reveal this reality:

"Paul, the greatest apostle!

Paul's view of himself as an apostle didn't stop at only claiming to be an apostle. He also did what he could to communicate to his followers that he topped them all. He even had the nerve to belittle the very apostles that Yeshua had called and trained for three and a half years to be his witnesses! Among this braggadocio's self-flattering quotes are the following.

"For I consider that I am not at all inferior to the most eminent apostles". ...."As the truth of Christ is in me, no one shall stop me from this boasting in the regions of Achaia." 2 Corinthians 11:5,10

Sometimes, as though he knew he should be ashamed of challenging the stature of Yeshua's 12, he would preface his boast with a statement of unworthiness. No doubt he hoped people would embrace him as the greatest of apostles because he was so humble.

"For I am the least of the apostles, who am not worthy to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. But by the grace of God I am what I am, and His grace toward me was not in vain; but I labored more abundantly than they all...". 1Corinthians 15:9,10

Aside from the fact that it was a lie to suggest the ministry had been split up between Jews and Gentiles ...as though he had exclusive rights to the Gentiles and the 12 were to stay with the Jews..., Paul even had the gall to condescend specifically on Peter, James, and John when he belittled them to the Galatians.

"But from those who seemed to be something - whatever they were, it makes no difference to me; God shows personal favoritism to no man- for those who seemed to be something added nothing to me. But on the contrary, when they saw that the gospel for the uncircumcised had been committed to me, as the gospel for the circumcised was to Peter (for He who worked effectively in Peter for the apostleship to the circumcised also worked effectively in me toward the Gentiles), and when James, Cephas (Peter), and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that had been given to me, they gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised." Galatians 2:6,7,9

This is nothing but an arrogant lie. A couple verses later, Paul takes another cheap-shot at Peter. With Peter nowhere around to defend himself, Paul brags to the Galatians how he had determined Peter was a hypocrite, and how he had put him down before the entire church of Antioch.

"But when Peter had come to Antioch, I withstood him to his face, because he was to be blamed; for before certain men came from James, he would eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing those who were of the circumcision. And the rest of the Jews played the hypocrite with him so that even Barnabas was carried away with their hypocrisy. But when I saw that they were not straight forward about the truth of the gospel, I said to Peter before them all, "if you being a Jew, live in the manner of Gentiles and not as the Jews, why do you compel Gentiles to live as Jews?" Galatians 2:11-14

Earlier, in Galatians 1:8,9, Paul commanded his followers to consider "accursed" anyone who preaches a different gospel than his. There is little doubt that Paul wanted the Galatians to think this way toward Peter, if not James, and John as well. It is obvious to anyone reading the book of Galatians that Paul was demanding the Galatian church follow no one but him, not even the original apostles back in Jerusalem.

Aside from Paul's incredible arrogance, I also need to point out that Paul himself was the ultimate hypocrite for condemning Peter for accommodating Gentiles when he was around Gentiles and acting like a Jew around Jews. Here is what he claimed to do, and commanded the Corinthians to do as well.

"For though I am free from all men, I have made myself a servant to all, that I might win the more; and to the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might win Jews; to those who are under the law, as under the law, that I might win those who are under the law; to those who are without the law as without law... that I might win those who are without law; to the weak I became weak, that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all men, that I might by all means save some." 1Corinthians 9:19-22

"Therefore, whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God. Give no offense, either to the Jews or to the Greeks or to the church of God,just as I also please all men in all things, not seeking my own profit, but the profit of many, that they may be saved. Imitate me, just as I also imitate Christ." 1Corinthians 10:31-33

When Paul says, "Imitate me, just as I also imitate Christ" we should do as he says... because in no way did he imitate Yeshua! Can anyone imagine Yeshua playing chameleon and saying anything like "I have become all things to all men" or "I please all men in all things"?

So here we have Paul, claiming to be greater than any other apostle, belittling Peter, James, and John by saying they only "seemed" to be pillars of the church, and that they "added nothing" to him. Then he brags about how he told off Peter... calling him a hypocrite, and he subtly curses the apostles by telling the Galatians to consider accursed anyone who differs with him. All this, while in fact, he was being the greatest hypocrite of all! The superstitious belief that Paul's words are infallible is so thick that people can't see the forest for all the trees that are in the way! If anyone else had even begun to do and say the things that Paul did, we would have recognized their incredible conceit and rejected them a long time ago. Here is something relevant that Solomon said.

"Let another man praise you, and not your own mouth; A stranger, and not your own lips." Proverbs 27:2"
Paul the false apostle

 

[outhouse]

. My good friend Scott Nelson has down a great job collecting the pertinent verses to reveal this reality:

His website is not only worthless and has no credibility at all, but it is apologetic biased in nature and follows nothing taught in any university, and follows no modern scholarship.

 

[Kolibri]

Regarding post #15. Good work. Yes, the Twelve were set apart. When they died faithfully, there is no indication whatsoever that they were replaced. Regarding Paul's boasts, again I do not believe it was at all directed towards the Twelve, but towards 'superfine apostles' that were claiming official status and using it to promote a fusion between Jewish Law and Christian Faith as a way to avoid such intense persecution as was common in those days. Anyhow I will get to the post regarding the book of Galatians today or tomorrow I am expecting.

Regarding Peter and the Twelve, they did indeed preach to both Jews and Greeks, as did Paul. But the focus, or bulk of their work was in working with different communities. As an "apostle to the nations" Paul was extensively used to preach quite a bit in areas where the Jews were not the dominate culture.

And it is not out of line to suggest that perhaps, Paul received the 'short-end of the stick' when it came to the amount of near-death trials he suffered. Also, many of the Twelve receive little or no direct mention after Pentecost 33 C.E. That does not mean they were not the foundation - merely that they may have been the pillars of a strong congregation, the ones that are always there and always supporting theocratic arrangements - Each made the congregation firm by being used according to the gifts and willing spirit given to them.

 

[Simplelogic]

Regarding post #15. Good work. Yes, the Twelve were set apart. When they died faithfully, there is no indication whatsoever that they were replaced. Regarding Paul's boasts, again I do not believe it was at all directed towards the Twelve, but towards 'superfine apostles' that were claiming official status and using it to promote a fusion between Jewish Law and Christian Faith as a way to avoid such intense persecution as was common in those days.

Why would you believe these "superfine" apostles were different from James, John and Peter whom Paul rails against in Galatians and Corinthians?

 

[Simplelogic]

5For I consider myself not in the least inferior to the most eminent apostles. 2 Cor 11: 5

Let me make an attempt to narrow down who these apostles were. Lets skip down a few verses to see the rest of the information about these men:

But in whatever respect anyone else is bold—I speak in foolishness—I am just as bold myself. 22Are they Hebrews? So am I. Are they Israelites? So am I. Are they descendants of Abraham? So am I. 23Are they servants of Christ?—I speak as if insane—I more so; in far more labors, in far more imprisonments, beaten times without number, often in danger of death. 2 Cor 11: 21-23

Paul admits that these men were teaching "another Yeshua". Didn't Paul say the same thing about the circumcision party in Galatians? Doesn't Paul also admit in Galatians the this circumcision party were in fact "men from James"?

4For if one comes and preaches another Jesus whom we have not preached, or you receive a different spirit which you have not received, or a different gospel which you have not accepted, you bear this beautifully. 2 Cor 11:4

These men were Hebrews and also servants of Yeshua. Why should we believe these men are not the apostles?