Paul - An Apostle?

[lukethethird]

If you cannot understand the implications of using the word "us", then there's no way we can go forth.

We know that the Church followed traditions as even the NT itself was composed from various oral sources. The oldest books were written decades after Jesus was crucified and were composed from an oral tradition. This is basic Christian Theology 101.

Even John's Gospel ends with this verse: John 21[25] But there are also many other things which Jesus did; were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written.

It's a literary tradition, for example every single line describing the crucifixion scene comes from psalm 22 and Amos 8. You can't prove anything came from oral tradition.

 

[2ndpillar]

Whatever makes you happy.

You can accept Revelation 20:10, or you can reject it. My happiness apparently does not impede your travels, and the travels of the "many", down the wide road paved by the "false prophets" (Matthew 7:13).

 

[2ndpillar]

It's a literary tradition, for example every single line describing the crucifixion scene comes from psalm 22 and Amos 8. You can't prove anything came from oral tradition.

That is not quite true according to Jeremiah 8:8. The "scribes"/Pharisees, made the law into a lie via their oral traditions (Talmud). Psalm 22 was with respect to king David. Amos 8 refers to "in that day", which would be the day of the LORD, in which the "earth shall be dark in broad daylight" as in Joel 2:31-32 & 3:15 & Matthew 24:29, which refers to the "great tribulation", the day the nations are judged (Joel 3:2).

 

[DNB]

Again, we do not know who wrote Hebrews, however most theological analysis I've read agree that it was probably written by someone else. It's "certainty" one way or the other that I have problems with, especially since it was common for a disciple of another to write in their mentor's name.

Paul used an amanuenses for Romans (Tertius) , or wherever else that he makes special note that he signed the epistle at the end. Jeremiah used Baruch, and some believe that Peter used John-Mark.
Either way, it is understood that the scribe was not an editor, or employed artistic license. The letters were dictated to the scribe, and thus, bears all the traits, knowledge and literary conventions of the author.
We can confidently state that Paul was not the author of Hebrews, nor are there viable grounds to believe so, for as I stated earlier, the only Pauline aspect of Hebrews is the author's knowledge of the Levitical Law, meaning and customs - the author may also have been a Pharisee.

 

[2ndpillar]

Paul used an amanuenses for Romans (Tertius) , or wherever else that he makes special note that he signed the epistle at the end. Jeremiah used Baruch, and some believe that Peter used John-Mark.
Either way, it is understood that the scribe was not an editor, or employed artistic license. The letters were dictated to the scribe, and thus, bears all the traits, knowledge and literary conventions of the author.
We can confidently state that Paul was not the author of Hebrews, nor are there viable grounds to believe so, for as I stated earlier, the only Pauline aspect of Hebrews is the author's knowledge of the Levitical Law, meaning and customs - the author may also have been a Pharisee.

What you have said is based mostly on presumptions, with no verifiable evidence. Most "Christians" believe that Paul wrote Hebrews, and that Peter wrote 2 Peter, and that Mark came from Mark. Why they believe Paul wrote Romans, when Tertius says he wrote it, is an individual problem for the "Christians", who live by means of their indoctrination. It is a problem by the "Christian" teachers/leaders, who didn't divulge what many scholars think. 2 Peter 3 lacks its influence when watered down with the knowledge that Peter didn't write it. Without 2 Peter 3, Paul sinks like a lead brick, and the "Christian" religion (daughter of Babylon) with it.

 

[metis]

It's a literary tradition, for example every single line describing the crucifixion scene comes from psalm 22 and Amos 8. You can't prove anything came from oral tradition.

You seriously do not know what you're talking about, thus and no evidence from scripture or even basic Christian history and common sense will change your denial of reality.

fini

 

[lukethethird]

You seriously do not know what you're talking about, thus and no evidence from scripture or even basic Christian history and common sense will change your denial of reality.

fini

There is plenty of scriptural evidence, for one example among others read the crucifixion scene, all of it consists of lines taken from Psalm 22 and Amos 8, now tell me what people were saying orally in the first century, though I know you can't.

 

[metis]

There is plenty of scriptural evidence, for one example among others read the crucifixion scene, all of it consists of lines taken from Psalm 22 and Amos 8, now tell me what people were saying orally in the first century, though I know you can't.

Neither does, especially since crucifixion was not used at the time of their writings, nor is the term even used in the Tanakh or even hinted at. So, you're only "seeing" what you want to see.

 

[lukethethird]

Neither does, especially since crucifixion was not used at the time of their writings, nor is the term even used in the Tanakh or even hinted at. So, you're only "seeing" what you want to see.

The following are some of the lines the author of Mark pulled out of Psalm 22 and Amos 8. I can prove a literary tradition that was common practice, it can be demonstrated and shown to be the case.

Psalm 22:

18 they divide my clothes among themselves,
and for my clothing they cast lots.

7 All who see me mock at me;
they make mouths at me, they shake their heads

1 My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?

Amos 8
9 On that day, says the Lord God,
I will make the sun go down at noon,
and darken the earth in broad daylight

 

[DNB]

What you have said is based mostly on presumptions, with no verifiable evidence. Most "Christians" believe that Paul wrote Hebrews, and that Peter wrote 2 Peter, and that Mark came from Mark. Why they believe Paul wrote Romans, when Tertius says he wrote it, is an individual problem for the "Christians", who live by means of their indoctrination. It is a problem by the "Christian" teachers/leaders, who didn't divulge what many scholars think. 2 Peter 3 lacks its influence when watered down with the knowledge that Peter didn't write it. Without 2 Peter 3, Paul sinks like a lead brick, and the "Christian" religion (daughter of Babylon) with it.

Hi 2ndpillar,
what you have said is based mostly on conjecture, with no verifiable evidence

 

[nPeace]

Oh, really? Show me the scripture where Paul is sitting at Yeshua's feet with the other
apostles learning first hand? That he was there at the Last Supper?

Oh no, the burden of proof is not on me to justify Paul's hijacking of Yeshua's teachings.

To me, he's just a johnny-come-lately charlatan, a fake with a guilty conscience.

And worse. But you're not ready for that.

So you believe that Jesus has nothing to do with any earthling, now that he is in heaven, and one has to have walked with Jesus in the flesh, in order to be associated with him?
You don't believe the Bible, do you?
Do you believe the same about God, that one has to sit at God's feet, to know him, and be known by him?

Now I am curious. Do you know God? How?

 

[nPeace]

@YoursTrue Interesting that there are persons identifying themselves as Christian, who "are not sure" if Paul wrote Hebrews.
It makes me wonder if they are not sure of it being part of God's word.
I am reminded of 1 Kings 18:21. There was no time to be limping, as they later found out... Only, they found out too late.
Sounds familiar. Matthew 7:23

 

[YoursTrue]

@YoursTrue Interesting that there are persons identifying themselves as Christian, who "are not sure" if Paul wrote Hebrews.
It makes me wonder if they are not sure of it being part of God's word.
I am reminded of 1 Kings 18:21. There was no time to be limping, as they later found out... Only, they found out too late.
Sounds familiar. Matthew 7:23

Yes. What I am finding is that there are some here who believe and claim they are Christian yet cast doubt on Jesus' existence as well as other Biblical personages such as Moses. One reason might be is they believe the critics. What I find interesting in conjunction with this is that even after the Israelites were rescued from Egyptian bondage the prophets had to keep warning them.

 

[YoursTrue]

Neither does, especially since crucifixion was not used at the time of their writings, nor is the term even used in the Tanakh or even hinted at. So, you're only "seeing" what you want to see.

You say that crucifixion was not used at the time of their writings. Which writings? Psalm 22? For one thing, my dear metis, I think you need to look up and do an intensive examination of the words crucifix and crucifixion. That's one part of understanding it. Because it isn't what many think it is, linking to the sight Constantine claimed to have seen of a flying cross in the sky?
also @lukethethird for response to your conversation with metis, hoping for response from metis in reference to this so he hopefully can clear this up.

 

[YoursTrue]

What you have said is based mostl22y on presumptions, with no verifiable evidence. Most "Christians" believe that Paul wrote Hebrews, and that Peter wrote 2 Peter, and that Mark came from Mark. Why they believe Paul wrote Romans, when Tertius says he wrote it, is an individual problem for the "Christians", who live by means of their indoctrination. It is a problem by the "Christian" teachers/leaders, who didn't divulge what many scholars think. 2 Peter 3 lacks its influence when watered down with the knowledge that Peter didn't write it. Without 2 Peter 3, Paul sinks like a lead brick, and the "Christian" religion (daughter of Babylon) with it.

Tertius was Paul's transcriber, or secretary. Paul was the author. Romans 16:22.

 

[nPeace]

The Dead Sea scrolls were discovered in the 40s and kept under wraps by the Dominicans until photos of the scroll pieces were discovered in a California library, computer scanned and compiled, and released by some nosey scholars around 50 years later. It includes a reference to the "liar", which can be assumed to be Paul, who was chased out of Jerusalem by the Essenes, who are associated with Qumran.

This made me laugh. I suppose we could also assume the "liar" was someone before they were reincarnated to our day.

 

[nPeace]

Tertius was Paul's transcriber, or secretary. Paul was the author. Romans 16:22.

Thanks.
Many scholars recognize that Paul used secretaries - plural. So "his" style of writing would differ.
People overlook that simple fact.

 

[Sedim Haba]

So you believe that Jesus has nothing to do with any earthling, now that he is in heaven, and one has to have walked with Jesus in the flesh, in order to be associated with him?

To be called an apostle? yes! absolutely!

You don't believe the Bible, do you?

Your 'bible'? Not all of your books, that's for sure.
My 'bible' is the Tanakh (Torah-Prophets-Writings) plus Matthew. That's it, nothing else. .

 

[2ndpillar]

This made me laugh. I suppose we could also assume the "liar" was someone before they were reincarnated to our day.

The "liar", which apparently was Paul, is "reincarnated" in our day as the "demon" spirit of the "false prophet" (Revelation 16:13) who leads the kings/leaders of today. Funny or not, the liar, Paul, as well as the "worthless shepherd" (Zechariah 11:17), Peter, were foundational parts of the daughters of Babylon, the Roman and Protestant churches. These were the two horns like a lamb, such as Christ like leaders, who along with the beast, the Roman emperor Constantine, who were to "deceive" those who dwell on the earth (Revelation 13). The function of the demon spirit of the "false prophet", per Revelation 16:13, is to lead the "nations" against Jerusalem, in preparation for Har-Magedon (Revelation 16:16), now that Judah, the Jews, and Jerusalem have been restored (Joel 3:1-2), at the valley of judgment.

 

[2ndpillar]

Thanks.
Many scholars recognize that Paul used secretaries - plural. So "his" style of writing would differ.
People overlook that simple fact.

It kind of depends on which interpretation you use. As many Protestants use the King James Bible, that would be a skewed defining of Romans 16:22, but more in line with modern versions such as "The New Living Translation", which seems written in an effort to form a "new" narrative.

New King James Version James 16:22
I, Tertius, who wrote this epistle, greet you in the Lord.