Paul's Opinion or the Holy Ghost?

[Ehav4Ever]

IMHO nothing Paul wrote was inspired by the Holy Spirit. It was ALL just his own opinions.

I get that. I just want to see how Christians see it.

 

[metis]

I get that. I just want to see how Christians see it.

Most Christians do believe what Paul taught was inspired by the HS.

 

[2ndpillar]

So, in 1 Corinthians 7:1 it is stated, "Now for the matters you wrote about: It is good for a man not to marry." Later in 1 Corinthians 7:8-9 the following is stated - “To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is good for them to remain single, as I am. But if they cannot exercise self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to burn with passion.”

This brings me to the following questions.

1. Was this Paul's personal opinion or does Christianity beleive that he wrote it by way of the holy spirit?
   • In verse 10 he seems to be saying what is written there is didn't come from but from a "higher power." So would that mean that everything prior he claimed came from the holy spirit?
2. Was Paul's statement only for the Corinthians or for all Christians for all time?
3. Was Paul okay with unmarried and widow Christians having intimate relations, of whatever type, but avoiding marriage?
4. If all the unmarried and widow Christians of his time had remained single, like Paul, what would have been the next step?
   • Reliance on conversions to increase their fold?

As a "Pharisee of Pharisees", Paul would be the leaven that was supposed to be left out of the bread of the last supper, whereas the bread of life, the unleavened bread, the "Word made flesh", the message of the "son of man" was supposed to be eaten without leaven (hypocrisy), and drank with the wine (blood), representative of the home of the Holy Spirit. Paul would be the conveyance of the message of the "enemy"/"devil" who sowed the "tare" seed "among" the "wheat" seed, in the same "field"/book/NT (Matthew 13:25). At the "end of the age", which we are now in, the "reapers"/angels, will gather the tares "first", and bundle them and "burn them up", as in the "great tribulation" (Matthew 13:30). The "tare" seed would grow into tares, those "who commit lawlessness", and be thrown into the "furnace of fire" (Matthew 13:41-42). Paul's message in the end, was the false gospel of grace, whereas you surely will not die, which was the same message of the "serpent" (Genesis 3:4), whereas the Word of God in Jeremiah 31:31 is that "everyone will die for their own iniquities". Yeshua's message was though you die, you will live again. (John 11:25) The false prophet Paul's message was "we shall not all sleep/die", which is a false prophecy, for everyone dies.

 

[2ndpillar]

Most Christians do believe what Paul taught was inspired by the HS.

Most Christians would be numbered among the "many" of Matthew 7:13, who are following the "false prophets" of Matthew 7:15 to "destruction" and would be marked by the description of Matthew 7:23, whereas they are addressed as "you who practice "lawlessness.".

 

[Ehav4Ever]

As a "Pharisee of Pharisees", Paul would be the leaven that was supposed to be left out of the bread of the last supper, whereas the bread of life, the unleavened bread, the "Word made flesh", the message of the "son of man" was supposed to be eaten without leaven (hypocrisy), and drank with the wine (blood), representative of the home of the Holy Spirit. Paul would be the conveyance of the message of the "enemy"/"devil" who sowed the "tare" seed "among" the "wheat" seed, in the same "field"/book/NT (Matthew 13:25). At the "end of the age", which we are now in, the "reapers"/angels, will gather the tares "first", and bundle them and "burn them up", as in the "great tribulation" (Matthew 13:30). The "tare" seed would grow into tares, those "who commit lawlessness", and be thrown into the "furnace of fire" (Matthew 13:41-42). Paul's message in the end, was the false gospel of grace, whereas you surely will not die, which was the same message of the "serpent" (Genesis 3:4), whereas the Word of God in Jeremiah 31:31 is that "everyone will die for their own iniquities". Yeshua's message was though you die, you will live again. (John 11:25) The false prophet Paul's message was "we shall not all sleep/die", which is a false prophecy, for everyone dies.

Thank you for responding.

So you are saying that Paul was a false prophet? What did the early Christians plan to do in situations where a Paul rises up among them? Given that his [Paul's] version of Christianity seems to have historically been the most popular form of Christianity what is the end game for non-Pauline Christians?

 

[Ehav4Ever]

Most Christians would be numbered among the "many" of Matthew 7:13, who are following the "false prophets" of Matthew 7:15 to "destruction" and would be marked by the description of Matthew 7:23, whereas they are addressed as "you who practice "lawlessness.".

So, in your perspective would that mean that the only real Christians who follow the original jesus message throughout history only number in the thousands? Meaning that since the majority of Christian history has been Pauline, in your perspective, only a minority of what is termed Christians meet the gospel's requirements for Christian salvation? If this eventual reality was known to the original followers of jesus what they plan to do about it?

 

[2ndpillar]

So, in your perspective would that mean that the only real Christians who follow the original jesus message throughout history only number in the thousands? Meaning that since the majority of Christian history has been Pauline, in your perspective, only a minority of what is termed Christians meet the gospel's requirements for Christian salvation? If this eventual reality was known to the original followers of jesus what they plan to do about it?

They planned to do nothing, for Yeshua forbade them to bother the "tares" (Matthew 13:28-29). The tares were to remain unmolested until the "end of the age" (Mattheew 13:30).

 

[metis]

Most Christians would be numbered among the "many" of Matthew 7:13, who are following the "false prophets" of Matthew 7:15 to "destruction" and would be marked by the description of Matthew 7:23, whereas they are addressed as "you who practice "lawlessness.".

Who is a "false profit" can and has varied historically. Whether one thinks Paul was or wasn't is beside the point as he was the most prolific early author, plus the Apostles came to accept him. Thus, if he was a "false prophet", then why would they have done that?

 

[metis]

They planned to do nothing, for Yeshua forbade them to bother the "tares" (Matthew 13:28-29). The tares were to remain unmolested until the "end of the age" (Mattheew 13:30).

How do you know that Jesus wasn't a "false prophet"? Just asking for a friend.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

They planned to do nothing, for Yeshua forbade them to bother the "tares" (Matthew 13:28-29). The tares were to remain unmolested until the "end of the age" (Mattheew 13:30).

So, they were okay with Pauline Christianity taking over? Thus, there would be only a few thousand non-Pauline Christians in all history. That is interesting. Thank you for sharing that.

 

[2ndpillar]

Thank you for responding.

So you are saying that Paul was a false prophet? What did the early Christians plan to do in situations where a Paul rises up among them? Given that his [Paul's] version of Christianity seems to have historically been the most popular form of Christianity what is the end game for non-Pauline Christians?

The "slaves of the landowner" were told to leave the tares (those who commit lawlessness) alone, lest they disturb the wheat (Matthew 13:27-28). The "enemy"/"devil" gets to keep his tare seed (message of the devil) "among" the wheat seed (message of the son of man), in the same "field"/book/NT, and to pay for the printing and distribution cost, and only those with eyes to see will be able to separate the wheat from the chaff/leaven. (Matthew 13:13). The "end game" is that the "few" (Matthew 7:13) will simply keep the Commandments (Revelation 12:17), and after the "tares" (lawless/wicked) are "gathered" and tossed into the furnace of fire, they will be gathered and put into the "barn"(land given to Jacob) (Ezekiel 37:15-28) under the leadership of "My servant David". The "popular", the "many", are doomed for "destruction" (Matthew 7:13). There really isn't a "popular form of Christianity", there is only a heavily weighted version of "Christianity", which is the Catholic church. Since the 2000, the overall "popularity" has decreased around 20% in attendance, with some churches loosing from 40 to 50% of attendance. The church of Beelzebub/Satan has gained popularity in the meantime, with conservative churches making modest gains. They must have seen the train a coming and are trying to avoid the coming collision. They apparently know something is wrong but have no idea how to avoid the coming crash.

 

[2ndpillar]

So, they were okay with Pauline Christianity taking over? Thus, there would be only a few thousand non-Pauline Christians in all history. That is interesting. Thank you for sharing that.

Well until the "end of the age", there was not much they could do. Well, here we are, at the "end of the age", release the angels (Revelation 7:1) after the sealed are marked. Matthew kind of gave hints when he quoted Zechariah 11:12-13 with respect to Judas (Matthew 27:9-10), who is combined with two other shepherds, Peter, the "worthless shepherd" of Zechariah 11:17, and Paul, the staff/shepherd of Zechariah 11:10. I guess God is both humorous and a fair sport. Satan is set up to lose, why not give him a fair chance.

 

[2ndpillar]

How do you know that Jesus wasn't a "false prophet"? Just asking for a friend.

How do you know that Jesus wasn't a "false prophet"? Just asking for a friend.

Yeshua was just a light to unveil the "Word of God". The NT isn't the "Word of God" but the "message of the son of man" mixed with the message of the "devil" (Matthew 13:37-38). Paul came to "abolish", make the "old" "obsolete", or nail it to a pagan cross. Yeshua came to "fulfill" (Matthew 5:17). There have been additions and subtractions to what Yeshua said (Revelation 22:18-19), so one either preaches the "kingdom", the central message of the OT, which is based on righteousness and justice (Isaiah 28:16-17) or you can disregard their message.

 

[metis]

Yeshua was just a light to unveil the "Word of God". The NT isn't the "Word of God" but the "message of the son of man" mixed with the message of the "devil" (Matthew 13:37-38). Paul came to "abolish", make the "old" "obsolete", or nail it to a pagan cross. Yeshua came to "fulfill" (Matthew 5:17). There have been additions and subtractions to what Yeshua said (Revelation 22:18-19), so one either preaches the "kingdom", the central message of the OT, which is based on righteousness and justice (Isaiah 28:16-17) or you can disregard their message.

You didn't answer my questions.

There's a difference between "facts" and "opinions", and what you're posting is clearly the latter.

 

[2ndpillar]

Who is a "false profit" can and has varied historically. Whether one thinks Paul was or wasn't is beside the point as he was the most prolific early author, plus the Apostles came to accept him. Thus, if he was a "false prophet", then why would they have done that?

Who is a "false profit" can and has varied historically. Whether one thinks Paul was or wasn't is beside the point as he was the most prolific early author, plus the Apostles came to accept him. Thus, if he was a "false prophet", then why would they have done that?

The apostles came to "accept him" according to Paul (Galatians 2) which makes that event "untrue" (John 5:31). As for Acts, written by a supposed associate of Paul, Luke, Luke witnessed nothing according to Luke 1:1-3. As for the unknown writer of 2 Peter calling Paul a "brother", well he was a brother in the sense that the two, Peter and Paul, where the "staffs"/"shepherds" who were to "pasture" the "flock (Gentile church) doomed for slaughter" (Zechariah 11:7 & 10 & 17).

 

[2ndpillar]

You didn't answer my questions.

There's a difference between "facts" and "opinions", and what you're posting is clearly the latter.

You haven't pointed out the "opinion" versus "fact" of my post. I will admit you have your own "opinion", but you failed to list any "facts", or basis of your "opinion".

 

[metis]

The apostles came to "accept him" according to Paul (Galatians 2) which makes that event "untrue" (John 5:31). As for Acts, written by a supposed associate of Paul, Luke, Luke witnessed nothing according to Luke 1:1-3. As for the unknown writer of 2 Peter calling Paul a "brother", well he was a brother in the sense that the two, Peter and Paul, where the "staffs"/"shepherds" who were to "pasture" the "flock (Gentile church) doomed for slaughter" (Zechariah 11:7 & 10 & 17).

If that were to supposedly be true, then those who were disciples of the Apostles would not have had anything to do with him, but they did.

 

[metis]

You haven't pointed out the "opinion" versus "fact" of my post. I will admit you have your own "opinion", but you failed to list any "facts", or basis of your "opinion".

Actually, I did in the context of citing what's actually in the NT.

I've seen this diatribe against Paul many times before, and it simply doesn't make any logical sense. However, what Paul wrote is Paul's take on what happened, thus I reserve the right to question it.

 

[2ndpillar]

Actually, I did in the context of citing what's actually in the NT.

I've seen this diatribe against Paul many times before, and it simply doesn't make any logical sense. However, what Paul wrote is Paul's take on what happened, thus I reserve the right to question it.

What doesn't make sense is to follow the Pharisee of Pharisees, and his hypocrisy (leaven), who was the "foremost" sinner, such as a son of the devil (1 John 3:8). According to Paul, his personal "take" seemed to be targeted at the role of women. Everything else, including his self-proclaimed apostleship, seemed to be from God, according to him. According to the parables of the tares, the NT is composed of both the message of the son of man and the "enemy"/"devil". (Matthew 13). All followers of the message of the devil, the message of lawlessness, wind up in the "furnace of fire" Matthew 13:30 & 37-42 & 49-50.

 

[2ndpillar]

If that were to supposedly be true, then those who were disciples of the Apostles would not have had anything to do with him, but they did.

According

If that were to supposedly be true, then those who were disciples of the Apostles would not have had anything to do with him, but they did.

The interaction was according to Paul and the unnamed author of Acts, who was supposedly the non-witness Luke (Luke 1:1-3), an supposed associate of Paul. Paul was declared a "brother" by the unknown author of 2 Peter, and one must keep in mind that Peter was the "worthless shepherd" of Zechariah 11:16-17, who wouldn't feed, care or tend the sheep, and who was to be "annihilated" during the same generation/"month" as Judas Iscariot (Zechariah 11:12-13) according to (Zechariah 11:8).