Paul a.k.a. Saul of Tarsus

[paarsurrey]

According to Christian mythology, Paul clearly contradicted

Matthew 24:23

He believed and pointed to the messiah when told he was not supposed to.

Paul is not an apostle at all , but a complete fraud.

Paul is not an apostle at all , but a complete fraud.

Very truly said, right, please?
I have rated it a "winner".

Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

You might imagine that Paul as a follower of Christ would have jumped at the chance to learn from the twelve men who lived with and learned from Jesus in the flesh but that’s not what Paul did. It was a full decade after Jesus’s death that Paul first met Peter in Jerusalem then he went out preaching and teaching his own gospel in Asia Minor for another ten years before making a return trip to Jerusalem around 50 AD. It was only then 20 years after the crucifixion that Paul
met the rest of the Apostles for the first time. Paul did not preach the same thing as the Twelve Apostles and there was constant friction between him and the Jerusalem church about one issue in particular the law. Tensions eventually boiled over and cause Peter and Paul to come to blows.
When Peter visited Antioch he clashed with Paul over whether or not Gentile Christians needed to uphold the law. We only get to hear Paul’s side of the story of course but if we take his epistle at its word the two men came to an agreement. Paul would go forth as an apostle to the Gentiles while Peter would preach to the circumcised but there is a problem there. The agreement which Paul speaks of contradicts the book of Acts which states that Peter not Paul was chosen by God to minister to the Gentiles. In Acts chapter 15 verse 7 Peter said:

“Brothers, you know that some time ago God made a choice among you that the Gentiles

might hear from my lips the message of the gospel and believe.”

~ Acts 15:7

Nevertheless, Paul claimed to have a different gospel than Peter and the other apostles, the
gospel of the uncircumcised a gospel which he

“Didn’t receive from any man nor was he taught it”

~Galatians 1:12

His gospel came purely from revelation and therefore couldn’t be verified by anyone as truthful and yet Paul’s new gospel spilt the religion of Christianity into two distinct confessions. One rooted in Judaism and a version tailored for the Gentiles. Concluding this chapter of Galatians, Paul argues that his way is the correct way because eventhough Jesus said:

“ Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord,Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the

one who does the will of my Father…”

~ Matthew 7:21

You might imagine that Paul as a follower of Christ would have jumped at the chance to learn from the twelve men who lived with and learned from Jesus in the flesh but that’s not what Paul did.

Correctly said.

Regards

 

[1213]

....You might assume that a vision of Jesus would be memorable enough to stick in someone’s memory but the so-called Apostle Paul tells three different versions of his operation on the road to Damacus recorded in the book of Acts. In Acts chapter 9 verse 7 we find one account where Paul claims that his travel companions did not see Jesus but heard his voice. And in Acts chapter 22 verse 9 we find another version of the story they:

“Saw the light, but they did not understand the voice of him who was speaking to me”
~ Acts 22:9

Sorry for late answer, I just noticed that I had missed this.

I don't think there is a contradiction between the stories. Seeing the light is not the same as seeing Jesus. And hearing a voice doesn't mean they understood it.

So imagine the confusion of the 12 disciples when years later Paul came along and inserted himself into the equation as the thirteen disciple....

By what is told in the Bible, there are a lot of disciples of Jesus. Everyone who is baptized as Jesus told, is a disciple of Jesus. And the word Christian means a disciple of Jesus. So, calling Paul a disciple should not be a problem. But, I can agree that Paul is not in the same level as the 12.

Go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teach-ing them to observe all things that I commanded you. Behold, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.” Amen.
Matt. 28:19-20
…The disciples were first called Christians in Antioch.
Acts 11:26

Basically, Paul argued that when Jesus died so too did the law. The old covenant between God and man was overturned in favor of a new one. One by which all sins are forgiven of the one who simply says I believe

I think Paul argued that people are not under the law. Meaning, earlier people obeyed the law, because they had to. It was against their will. And after Jesus there happens change and people obey law because they understand it is good and they love God and want to do his will voluntarily.

So, as Paul says, law is good. And as Jesus tells, the law is valid. But, people should not obey it because they are forced to do so, but because they understand it is good and they love God. That is the thing I think Jesus and Paul wanted to correct.

For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments. His commandments are not grievous.
1 John 5:3
“For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel. After those days,” says the Lord; “I will put my laws into their mind, I will also write them on their heart. I will be their God, and they will be my people. They will not teach every man his fellow citizen, and every man his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ for all will know me, from their least to their greatest. For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness. I will remember their sins and lawless deeds no more.
Heb. 8:10-12 (Jer. 31:31-34)

 

[Ebionite]

And hearing a voice doesn't mean they understood it.

Someone understood it because in Acts 9 it wasn't Paul who recounted what was said.

But, I can agree that Paul is not in the same level as the 12.

The appropriate term here is apostle, not disciple. Also, Paul would disagree with your position:

For I suppose I was not a whit behind the very chiefest apostles.
2 Corinthians 11:5

So, as Paul says, law is good. And as Jesus tells, the law is valid. But, people should not obey it because they are forced to do so, but because they understand it is good and they love God. That is the thing I think Jesus and Paul wanted to correct.

You don't have any text from Paul to support your position.

 

[paarsurrey]

Where our friend @justaguy313 is gone, please?

Regards

 

[1213]

Someone understood it because in Acts 9 it wasn't Paul who recounted what was said.

Someone can tell it, even if he was not there listening. I believe the person speaking heard the story probably from Paul.

The appropriate term here is apostle, not disciple. Also, Paul would disagree with your position:

Being apostle doesn't mean one is on the level of the 12 apostles. It means only that the person is a witness.

And in this case, I think Paul is called the apostle of gentiles, while the 12 are apostles of the Jews.

 

[Ebionite]

Someone can tell it, even if he was not there listening. I believe the person speaking heard the story probably from Paul.

That's unlikely, since Paul never related the account of him being blinded or being being led by the hand.

Being apostle doesn't mean one is on the level of the 12 apostles. It means only that the person is a witness.

According to Strongs:

ἀπόστολος apóstolos, ap-os'-tol-os; from G649; a delegate; specially, an ambassador of the Gospel; officially a commissioner of Christ ("apostle") (with miraculous powers):—apostle, messenger, he that is sent.

Paul fits the description of one of the false apostles that were rejected at Ephesus (Revelation 2:2), since he did not convey the message of the Council of Jerusalem to the Galatians:

Only [they would] that we should remember the poor; the same which I also was forward to do.
Galatians 2:10

 

[1213]

That's unlikely, since Paul never related the account of him being blinded or being being led by the hand.

By what you know. The story indicates that he told the story to other people.

Paul fits the description of one of the false apostles ...

I don't think Paul is a false apostle. But, luckily i don't think it matters. A Christian means a disciple of Jesus. And for those it is enough to be loyal to Jesus. I think Paul has good teachings that can help to understand many things, but he is not the king.

…The disciples were first called Christians in Antioch.
Acts 11:26
Jesus therefore said to those Jews who had believed him, “If you remain in my word, then you are truly my disciples. You will know the truth, and the truth will make you free.”
John 8:31-32

 

[Ebionite]

The story indicates that he told the story to other people.

No it doesn't, because Paul was to vain to talk about being led by the hand when he recounted the story in Acts 22 and 26.

I don't think Paul is a false apostle. But, luckily i don't think it matters.

It matters because Pauline doctrine is central to the Christian idea of salvation.

A Christian means a disciple of Jesus.

That's not supported by the text. Antioch was known as A Hellenist center, as opposed to Nazareth which was nationalist. Jesus was described as being of Nazareth, not of Antioch.

 

[1213]

No it doesn't, because Paul was to vain to talk about being led by the hand when he recounted the story in Acts 22 and 26.

That seems to be baseless accusation.

It matters because Pauline doctrine is central to the Christian idea of salvation.

If it is different from what Jesus tells, it is wrong. I don't think it is, if correctly understood.

 

[Ebionite]

That seems to be baseless accusation.

James referred to Paul as a vain man in James 2:20

But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?
James 2:20

If it is different from what Jesus tells, it is wrong. I don't think it is, if correctly understood.

What Jesus told two of his disciples isn't consistent about the crucifixion isn't consistent with Pauline doctrine because there is nothing in the law, prophets, or psalms that supports the idea of him rising from dead on the third day.

And he said unto them, These [are] the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and [in] the prophets, and [in] the psalms, concerning me.
Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures,
And said unto them, Thus it is written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day:
Luke 24:44-46

 

[1213]

James referred to Paul as a vain man in James 2:20

But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?
James 2:20

Sorry, i don't think that is true. i think they both think the same way. (Heb. 11 has the same idea that faith comes visible in actions).

What Jesus told two of his disciples isn't consistent about the crucifixion isn't consistent with Pauline doctrine because there is nothing in the law, prophets, or psalms that supports the idea of him rising from dead on the third day.... ...
And said unto them, Thus it is written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day:
Luke 24:44-46

I think that is an interesting question. If you would be right, why would he say so? No good reason for that. I think there is or at least was something about it. If we would not find it now, perhaps it was destroyed by those who wanted to kill Jesus. However, i think for example Isa. 53:1-12 fits well to Jesus.

 

[Ebionite]

Sorry, i don't think that is true.

It's about Paul because the faith vs works argument focuses on Abraham:

But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?
Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar?
James 2:20-21

For the promise, that he should be the heir of the world, [was] not to Abraham, or to his seed, through the law, but through the righteousness of faith.
Romans 4:13

If you would be right, why would he say so?

Because he told them the truth about what actually happened but most people believed that he was crucified. The prophetic context for the crucifixion has a wicked man being crucified and the righteous servant being rescued from that fate.

 

[PearlSeeker]

And he said unto them, These [are] the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and [in] the prophets, and [in] the psalms, concerning me.
Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures,
And said unto them, Thus it is written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day:
Luke 24:44-46

1 Corinthians 15
3 For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures,
4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures,
5 and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve.

Consistent with Luke.

 

[Ebionite]

1 Corinthians 15
3 For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures,
4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures,
5 and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve.

Consistent with Luke.

The text from Luke refers to the law of Moses, the prophets, and the psalms, and these do not support Paul's claim of "in accordance with the Scriptures".

 

[Wandering Monk]

A few year ago, I noticed that Paul seemed very egotistical, so I checked how many times he used the words 'i', 'me', or 'my' in his epistles compared to the epistles of other NT writers. Paul used those words three times as often per chapter as the others.

 

[Ebionite]

A few year ago, I noticed that Paul seemed very egotistical, so I checked how many times he used the words 'i', 'me', or 'my' in his epistles compared to the epistles of other NT writers. Paul used those words three times as often per chapter as the others.

There's a description of Paul in the book of Habakkuk.

Behold, his soul [which] is lifted up is not upright in him: but the just shall live by his faith.
Yea also, because he transgresseth by wine, [he is] a proud man, neither keepeth at home, who enlargeth his desire as hell, and [is] as death, and cannot be satisfied, but gathereth unto him all nations, and heapeth unto him all people:
Habakkuk 2:4-5

 

[InChrist]

You might imagine that Paul as a follower of Christ would have jumped at the chance to learn from the twelve men who lived with and learned from Jesus in the flesh but that’s not what Paul did. It was a full decade after Jesus’s death that Paul first met Peter in Jerusalem then he went out preaching and teaching his own gospel in Asia Minor for another ten years before making a return trip to Jerusalem around 50 AD. It was only then 20 years after the crucifixion that Paul
met the rest of the Apostles for the first time. Paul did not preach the same thing as the Twelve Apostles and there was constant friction between him and the Jerusalem church about one issue in particular the law. Tensions eventually boiled over and cause Peter and Paul to come to blows.
When Peter visited Antioch he clashed with Paul over whether or not Gentile Christians needed to uphold the law. We only get to hear Paul’s side of the story of course but if we take his epistle at its word the two men came to an agreement. Paul would go forth as an apostle to the Gentiles while Peter would preach to the circumcised but there is a problem there. The agreement which Paul speaks of contradicts the book of Acts which states that Peter not Paul was chosen by God to minister to the Gentiles. In Acts chapter 15 verse 7 Peter said:

“Brothers, you know that some time ago God made a choice among you that the Gentiles

might hear from my lips the message of the gospel and believe.”

~ Acts 15:7

Nevertheless, Paul claimed to have a different gospel than Peter and the other apostles, the
gospel of the uncircumcised a gospel which he

“Didn’t receive from any man nor was he taught it”

~Galatians 1:12

His gospel came purely from revelation and therefore couldn’t be verified by anyone as truthful and yet Paul’s new gospel spilt the religion of Christianity into two distinct confessions. One rooted in Judaism and a version tailored for the Gentiles. Concluding this chapter of Galatians, Paul argues that his way is the correct way because eventhough Jesus said:

“ Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord,Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the

one who does the will of my Father…”

~ Matthew 7:21

View attachment 87089

That’s not the way I see it, according to the scriptures. Paul went to see Peter three years after his encounter with Jesus and becoming a Christian believer…

Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and remained with him fifteen days. 19 But I saw none of the other apostles except James, the Lord’s brother. Galatians 1:18-19

And Peter considered Paul a beloved brother in Christ…


Therefore, beloved, looking forward to these things, be diligent to be found by Him in peace, without spot and blameless; 15 and consider that the long suffering of our Lord is salvation—as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, has written to you, 16 as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures.
2 Peter 3:14-16

 

[PearlSeeker]

The text from Luke refers to the law of Moses, the prophets, and the psalms, and these do not support Paul's claim of "in accordance with the Scriptures".

How come? Were Books of Moses, the prophets, and the psalms not scripture?

 

[YoursTrue]

James referred to Paul as a vain man in James 2:20

But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?
James 2:20

He wasn't speaking to or referring to Paul at James 2:20. I don't know where some of you get their ideas from. He was speaking in general to those that had foolish ideas. and no works demonstrating that they had faith.
From James 2:
"What good is it, my brothers, if someone claims to have faith, but has no deeds? Can such faith save him? 15Suppose a brother or sister is without clothes and daily food. 16If one of you tells him, “Go in peace; stay warm and well fed,” but does not provide for his physical needs, what good is that? 17So too, faith by itself, if it does not result in action,f is dead.
18But someone will say, “You have faith and I have deeds.” Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by my deeds. 19You believe that God is one.g Good for you! Even the demons believe that—and shudder.
20O foolish man, do you want evidence that faith without deeds is worthless?"