If Paul's books are wrong than so are

[Heneni]

Hi

Paul said Jesus appeared to him on the road to Damascus. Most of of Paul’s revelation is undocumented except in his own writings.

He rarely expanded on Jesus teachings that were recorded by others, he probably did not know about them.

However I believe he was off message when it came to Jesus message of love and forgiveness and also when it came to his views on women and marriage.

It is plain that he had a rather poor relationship with James, Who could not get him out of Jerusalem quickly enough. However the upside of this was that it started him on his life’s work amongst the gentiles.

I believe the thing that most stands Paul apart from the other apostles, is that he wrote so much stuff down, and was a very effective missionary.

The Christianity our churches teach today is totally Pauline, only a few people can see the difference between that and the Message Christ Preached.

Jesus is our Saviour and taught us a very simple message. Paul Built a Church and left us with a complex religion.

I think paul had quite a task to reveal the mysteries of god regarding the salvation of the gentiles. I think he did a great job and his books are of great inspiration to me. I have to admit there was a point when not much he said made sense, but im understanding better as i go along and find his writings to be exactly in line with the philosophy of jesus. Love the lord your god, love others, forgive etc...its all in there. Living a pure life, having joy in god, hope, endurance, patience.... all these things that jesus was and jesus taught by demonstration. Sometimes that which is truly simple is hard to understand unless we become like children.

Good talking with you and thanks for your response.
God bless
Heneni

 

[Just_me_Mike]

I think paul had quite a task to reveal the mysteries of god regarding the salvation of the gentiles. I think he did a great job and his books are of great inspiration to me. I have to admit there was a point when not much he said made sense, but im understanding better as i go along and find his writings to be exactly in line with the philosophy of jesus. Love the lord your god, love others, forgive etc...its all in there. Living a pure life, having joy in god, hope, endurance, patience.... all these things that jesus was and jesus taught by demonstration. Sometimes that which is truly simple is hard to understand unless we become like children.

Good talking with you and thanks for your response.
God bless
Heneni

Furthermore, Jesus said plainly there was still a lot of work to be done after Jesus left. He said He would send the comforter or Holy Ghost, and that the gentiles would need to be brought in. It is perfectly in line having Paul do what he did with what Jesus said needed to happen.

 

[gwk230]

Why not?

Because it is the only name that was given by Yah to Moshe at Mt. Sinai for us to know him by…………..
　
Exo 3:13 Moshe said to Elohim, "Look, when I appear before the people of Yisra'el and say to them, 'The Elohim of your ancestors has sent me to you'; and they ask me, 'What is his name?' what am I to tell them?"
Exo 3:14 Elohim said to Moshe, "Well, I live therefore I exist" and added, "Here is what to say to the people of Yisra'el: I Yah has sent me to you.'"
Exo 3:15 Elohim said further to Moshe, "Say this to the people of Yisra'el: The one who gives life, the El of your fathers, the El of Avraham, the El of Yitz'chak and the El of Ya'akov, has sent me to you.'This is my name forever; this is how I am to be remembered generation after generation.
　
It is the only name by which the Levitical priest were commanded to use………..
　
(Deu 18:5) For YAH your Elohim has chosen him out of all your tribes, to stand to minister in the name of YAH, him and his sons for ever.
(Deu 18:7) then he shall minister in the name of YAH his Elohim, as all his brothers the Levites do, who stand there before YAH.
(Deu 21:5) The priests the sons of Levi shall come near; for them YAH your Elohim has chosen to minister to him, and to bless in the name of YAH; and according to their word shall every controversy and every stroke be.
(Deu 25:6) It shall be, that the firstborn whom she bears shall succeed in the name of his brother who is dead, that his name not be blotted out of Yisra'el.
　
It is also said…………
　
Mic 4:5 Indeed all the nations may walk in the name of their gods; but we will walk in the name of YAH our Elohim forever and ever.
　
And as I have already shown we are not even to allow the name of other gods to even come out of our mouths.
　
He has but only one name and it means “Life”. There is no other.
　
Of course this is my belief and understanding. For all of these years that I have studied the word of Yah I have seen no other name that he himself commanded.
　
His name Yah wasn’t even known prior to Sinai. I challenge you to show one instance of anyone, who lived prior to Moshe receiving the name of Yah, that used Yah in there name before having been given it at Mt. Sinai. For instance, Abiah (My father is Yah) Ahiah (Brother of Yah) Adoniyah (My master is Yah) Azariah (Whom Yah helps) Seraiah (Yah has prevailed) Benaiah (Yah has built) Jeremiah (Whom Yah has appointed) Isaiah (Yah has saved) Nehemiah (Yah comforts) Obadiah (Servant of Yah) Zephaniah (Yah has treasured) Zechariah (Yah has remembered) Berachiah (Whom Yah blesses) etc. etc. etc.

 

[Mr Cheese]

Furthermore, Jesus said plainly there was still a lot of work to be done after Jesus left. He said He would send the comforter or Holy Ghost, and that the gentiles would need to be brought in. It is perfectly in line having Paul do what he did with what Jesus said needed to happen.

lol you think Paul was the paraclete?:foot:

 

[Just_me_Mike]

lol you think Paul was the paraclete?:foot:

Your premise is wrong, there is no "one" paraclete.

 

[Storm]

I find it interesting that Storm made a specific accusation that Paul usurped the message of Jesus, and in response to this specific accusation you and others have made the comparison between Paul’s teachings and the OT and to the writings attributed to Peter. This does not address the question. The question is looking for a comparison between the teachings of Paul and the teachings of Jesus.

The most interesting things about Jesus is that his teachings were at the time revolutionary. Not that he contradicted the OT, but that he did reinterpret it and go beyond it. So the question is did Paul continue this revolutionary message of love, compassion and equality, or did he take it in another direction (or revert to the original path).

So did Jesus ever speak of women remaining silent? Did Christ ever speak of women being subservient to their husbands? Did Jesus ever speak of women as being the weaker vessel?

Is there no response to this?

 

[Just_me_Mike]

I find it interesting that Storm made a specific accusation that Paul usurped the message of Jesus, and in response to this specific accusation you and others have made the comparison between Paul’s teachings and the OT and to the writings attributed to Peter. This does not address the question. The question is looking for a comparison between the teachings of Paul and the teachings of Jesus.

The most interesting things about Jesus is that his teachings were at the time revolutionary. Not that he contradicted the OT, but that he did reinterpret it and go beyond it. So the question is did Paul continue this revolutionary message of love, compassion and equality, or did he take it in another direction (or revert to the original path).

So did Jesus ever speak of women remaining silent? Did Christ ever speak of women being subservient to their husbands? Did Jesus ever speak of women as being the weaker vessel?

Jesus certainly let them wash his feet with their tears and treat him like he was to be worshiped. I'd like to see that go over well in today's society.

On another note, Paul teaches so much about Love and compassion it smells of agenda for someone to avoid the books as truth because of a few out of context verses, that have been abused throughout movements against the bible.

Lastly, this thread was only about the whole OT being suspect if Paul's letters are suspect. They all claim to be of God, but because Paul teaches things against Judaism of that day he is not even considered.

The worst thing to do when seeking truth is to shut something out before you digest it, because then you leave no room for growth. By digesting something you can at least make a more informed decision.

 

[Mr Cheese]

Your premise is wrong, there is no "one" paraclete.

oh really , care to exapnd what you mean by this?

 

[Just_me_Mike]

oh really , care to exapnd what you mean by this?

Definitions of paraclete on the Web:

• Holy Ghost: the third person in the Trinity; Jesus promised the Apostles that he would send the Holy Spirit after his Crucifixion and Resurrection ...

Yes, I think Paul was guided by said Paraclete, but there was not one person who was said to be the Only one. Understand?

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Is there no response to this?

You have said some of what I said previously so there was no need for me to comment.

But what ever the divergence ... No Paul... No modern Christianity.

What Gnostic's might wonder is where Mary Magdalene fitted into the spread of Christianity.
But she was written out when the Early Church accepted Paul's view about women.
She was instrumental in pressing the appostles to taking up thier work.
(See Gospel of Mary)

 

[gwk230]

So we want a comparison between the teachings of Yahshua and that of Shaul's do we? I am afraid that no matter what one offers here it will be ridiculed as all the other offerings made but the plain fact of the matter no one can discredit what is written with their own blown up thoughts and feelings. It is what it is and that being said I offer..........


Yahshua said.........


Mat 19:17 And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? [there is] none good but one, [that is], Elohim: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.


Shaul said ...............


1Cr 7:19 Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but the keeping of the commandments of God.


Yahshua said ................


Mat 22:39 And the second [is] like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.


And Shaul said.................


Rom 13:8 Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law.


And Yahshua in no way shape or form "reinterpreted" the Torah. He simply explained it as it has always meant to be in its true and existing intent. Man is who defiled the truth by his own puffed up thoughts and feelings.


As far as Yahshua speaking on women, He didn't have to. The Torah was very clear on this matter and if man wishes to pervert the Torah and make it seem that woman is somehow his slave then they will answer for that evil. Yahshua as well as Shaul both said for us to love one another as we would ourselves………….


Eph 5:25 Husbands, love your wives, even as the Anointed also loved the assembly, and gave himself up for it;


Col 3:19 Husbands, love your wives, and don't be bitter against them.


There is nothing new under the sun. The only difference is when men with their puffed up minds pervert the truth by taking what is clearly written out of the correct context.

 

[Riverwolf]

His name Yah wasn’t even known prior to Sinai. I challenge you to show one instance of anyone, who lived prior to Moshe receiving the name of Yah, that used Yah in there name before having been given it at Mt. Sinai. For instance, Abiah (My father is Yah) Ahiah (Brother of Yah) Adoniyah (My master is Yah) Azariah (Whom Yah helps) Seraiah (Yah has prevailed) Benaiah (Yah has built) Jeremiah (Whom Yah has appointed) Isaiah (Yah has saved) Nehemiah (Yah comforts) Obadiah (Servant of Yah) Zephaniah (Yah has treasured) Zechariah (Yah has remembered) Berachiah (Whom Yah blesses) etc. etc. etc.

I cannot accept the challenge you've issued for a couple of reasons.

One, because I accept the Documentary hypothesis, which states that the Torah we have now was written, edited, and compiled much later from four primary sources dated after the time period the Exodus supposedly takes place.

And two, because different cultures used different names for God, depending on the culture; the Tetragrammaton name (which you understandably shorten to Yah), as far as I can tell, is used solely in Hebrew writings.

Other than that, I understand your points; I was not aware of those verses...

Which translation do you use?

 

[Riverwolf]

They all claim to be of God...

Um... no they don't. Only a few of them actually make the claim to be divinely inspired.

The worst thing to do when seeking truth is to shut something out before you digest it, because then you leave no room for growth. By digesting something you can at least make a more informed decision.

AMEN!!

 

[gwk230]

I cannot accept the challenge you've issued, because I accept the Documentary hypothesis, which states that the Torah we have now was written, edited, and compiled much later from four primary sources dated after the time period the Exodus supposedly takes place.

　
Being it is all we have, I accept Torah as it is.
　

I also can't accept the challenge, because different cultures used different names for God, depending on the culture; the Tetragrammaton name (which you understandably shorten to Yah), as far as I can tell, is used solely in Hebrew writings.

　
That is completely o.k. with me. I speak only of my own culture. It’s the culture that was handed down by Yah unto Moshe at Mt. Sinai. We call it Sinaiticism. One of the largest mistakes made by those that take the so called four letter word “tetragrammaton” and say it is the name of Yah is that they do not understand that it is only merely and explanation of the name. It again simply means “The one who gives life” or “The existing One”.
　

Other than that, I understand your points; I was not aware of those verses...

　
Not a problem.
　

Which translation do you use?

　
Most of the time I stick to KJV but sometimes I use either the RNEB or the CJB. If it seems out of context then we just use biblical Hebrew into English unless of course it stems from a Greek translation from the Hebrew then it must be a Greek into English translation.