The Apostle Paul was the anti-christ according to the first Christians

[angellous_evangellous]

Look back far enough and all education came from the uneducated.

Which came first, the educated or the uneducated?

 

[savagewind]

Which came first, the educated or the uneducated?

Well, uh, the uneducated. :tigger: Yah! We're number one! Ha ha Mr. You Know Who You Are! Yup. Not blue. Phew!

 

[Apple Sugar]

I'm not entirely sure of what your argument is. are you saying that Paul is not a Christian, or just not a real apostle. Are you saying that Paul changed the purported teachings of the early Christians, are you saying that Chrisitans should be following all the torah laws, or practicing 'Judaism', etc.
I was responding to the first vid you presented

I'm hoping to generate a respectful dialog/debate as to whether or not Saul of Tarsus was an Apostle.
By all appearances , and by what educated scholars in the first video have said, he was not considered to be anything but the antichrist by the first Christians. And his profession that he was converted on the road to Damascus, as I mentioned and as scripture shows is accounted three different ways in the Bible, is a transparent copy of pagan conversion myths which he would have known about at the time.

Paul's teachings conflicted very often with those of Jesus. He was not accepted by all. He took the teachings of Jesus to the Gentiles when Jesus said he did not come for any but the lost sheep of the house of Israel. The elect.
Therefore, as all that is taken into account, and per the first video and the learned men there, the first Christians were Jews. And therefore today's Christians would have to be probably what are called Messianic Jews in order to be true followers of Jesus.

Whereas those who are now called Christians, when Paul's letters comprise the majority of the new testament and as they were first called Christians in Antioch, where Antiochus had presided interestingly enough, are more in keeping with Paul's teachings. And therefore would qualify to be called Paulines, as they were known to be in the early centuries after Christ.

Paul in effect transmuted the Jewish Messiah Yeshua into the universal, today's Protestant and Catholic, version of Jesus.

That's what I'm saying. I hope that assists to clarify my position.

 

[savagewind]

I'm hoping to generate a respectful dialog/debate as to whether or not Saul of Tarsus was an Apostle.
By all appearances , and by what educated scholars in the first video have said, he was not considered to be anything but the antichrist by the first Christians.

The first Christians considered Paul the antichrist is a false deduction from what is written. Paul was not anti Jesus Christ. He was overly zealous for him.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I'm hoping to generate a respectful dialog/debate as to whether or not Saul of Tarsus was an Apostle.

Now argue something tenable.

 

[Apple Sugar]

The first Christians considered Paul the antichrist is a false deduction from what is written. Paul was not anti Jesus Christ. He was overly zealous for him.

I would agree he was zealous in that he used Jesus' name to propel his own doctrine to the gentiles and even Jews. Paul's teachings sometimes conflicted with those of Jesus. And it remains that Jesus forewarning regarding false teachers and that were fulfilled by Paul and his arrival and proclaiming the very things Jesus said were not to be believed aren't to be dismissed by those seeking to investigate the truth of the apostleship of Saul of Tarsus.

 

[Desert Snake]

I'm hoping to generate a respectful dialog/debate as to whether or not Saul of Tarsus was an Apostle.
By all appearances , and by what educated scholars in the first video have said, he was not considered to be anything but the antichrist by the first Christians. And his profession that he was converted on the road to Damascus, as I mentioned and as scripture shows is accounted three different ways in the Bible, is a transparent copy of pagan conversion myths which he would have known about at the time.

Paul's teachings conflicted very often with those of Jesus. He was not accepted by all. He took the teachings of Jesus to the Gentiles when Jesus said he did not come for any but the lost sheep of the house of Israel. The elect.
Therefore, as all that is taken into account, and per the first video and the learned men there, the first Christians were Jews. And therefore today's Christians would have to be probably what are called Messianic Jews in order to be true followers of Jesus.

Whereas those who are now called Christians, when Paul's letters comprise the majority of the new testament and as they were first called Christians in Antioch, where Antiochus had presided interestingly enough, are more in keeping with Paul's teachings. And therefore would qualify to be called Paulines, as they were known to be in the early centuries after Christ.

Paul in effect transmuted the Jewish Messiah Yeshua into the universal, today's Protestant and Catholic, version of Jesus.

That's what I'm saying. I hope that assists to clarify my position.

Thanks, it does clarify your position, however in my research, I don't believe this to be the case. Pauls writings are not very explicit even, in declaring the divinity of Jesus, yet traditional Christians do believe this. If anything, with the confusion that is sometimes generated by the epistles and Greek translations in general, it could be theorized that if Paul had any nefarious intent, it was to 'humanize' Jeshua, not Deify Him.
That being said, I don't really think Paul was some nefarious scholar, I believe that at the time, most likely everyone knew what he was purporting in his writings, keep in mind, Paul didn't invent Christianity, he was giving his own gospel, in part to other Christians already established in their beliefs.
I know that some of this is confusing, however the primary indication of a religions true message is found in the adherents. They basically agree with Pauls assessment imo, albeit to a more definite extent to what we read in the later Epistles. Concepts such as the 'trinity' are interesting in that, although commonly viewed by secularists as deifying a 'Messiah', they are imo actually trying to 'explain' the Deific nature of Jeshua, and, I believe somewhat successfully.

 

[Nada]

So what part of his teaching that not one jot nor tittle of the law was to be changed?
Jesus arrival as the messiah fulfilled the prophecy of the coming messiah. Meanwhile, heaven and earth are still here. Not passed away as he also said would happen before the law was abolished.

Paul was not a true apostle of Jesus Christ. Apostle was reserved for those who's feet were washed by the master and who actually walked with him.

Paul is condemned in Revelation 2:2 when Jesus reminds us that the church of Ephesus, the one church in what we today call Turkey, charged with trying those who claimed to be Christ appointed apostles. He was proven a liar there.

After his supposed conversion on the road to Damascus, accounted three different ways in the new testament, Saul avoided the Disciples of Christ for years. He repeatedly said in his letters as he was delivering his messages to the churches he founded that he was not lying.... Why would he have to proclaim that if he was to be taken seriously.

He was also a Pharisee, by his own admission. He didn't account himself a former Pharisee. He proclaimed himself to be a Pharisee. Paul was also a Roman citizen.
(Acts 23:6 But perceiving that one group were Sadducees and the other Pharisees, Paul began crying out in the Council, "Brethren, I am a Pharisee, a son of Pharisees; I am on trial for the hope and resurrection of the dead!")

The Pharisee whom Jesus called a brood of vipers in Matthew 23:3.
Is one to believe he would then call one to his service after he'd departed earth back to the Father having warned the disciples not to believe anyone who claimed they met him after his ascension?

Jesus warned against Paul while here in his earthly Ministry. Against Paul and others like him, which we see today in the false teachers on TV and elsewhere.

Think on Paul and his proclamation that he, after he hunted down, prosecuted and executed early Christians, professed himself converted on the road to Damascus. (A copy of many other pagan myths). He saw a light, heard a voice, it identified itself as Jesus. Then recall what Jesus himself said about such things happening when Saul/Paul never knew Jesus while he ministered on earth. Never heard him preach.

Matthew 24:23-26 (AKJV)Then if any man shall say unto you, Lo, here is Christ, or there; believe it not. 24 For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect. 25 Behold, I have told you before. 26 Wherefore if they shall say unto you, Behold, he is in the desert; go not forth: behold, he is in the secret chambers; believe it not.



Then recall what Jesus said about wolves in sheeps clothing that are also false teachers.


Matthew 24:24
For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect.




Now remember Paul and his profession of "proof" he was a true apostle in his epistle (letter) to the churches in Corinth.

1 Corinthians 12:12
Truly the signs of an apostle were wrought among you in all patience, in signs, and wonders, and mighty deeds

#1 Thats not what was meant in Matthew 5:18 Here are some examples. Saying that it would be “more endurable” for Tyre/Sidon and Sodom/Gomorrah “on Judgment Day” was a form of hyperbole (exaggeration to emphasize a point) that Jesus need not have intended to be taken literally, any more than other graphic hyperboles that he used. For example:

“It is easier for heaven and earth to pass away than for one particle of a letter of the Law to go unfulfilled.” “Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will by no means pass away.” (Luke 16:17; 21:33; Matthew 5:18; compare Hebrews 1:10-12.) We know that the literal heavens and earth will never pass away. (Psalm 78:69; 104:5; Ecclesiastes 1:4)

Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY

#2 Paul was true Apostle of Jesus Christ.The washing of the feet was not a way of selecting Apostles or declaring them as such.When Jesus washed their feet it was to show them no servant is greater than his master and that the messenger is not greater than the sender.It points this out in the end of the entire passage.John 13:16,17. 16 Very truly I tell you, no servant is greater than his master, nor is a messenger greater than the one who sent him. 17 Now that you know these things, you will be blessed if you do them.This was to show them that they are all equal and no one is above God.All have one master and that is only God.Jesus was a messenger.They were all servants of God.


#3 Revelation 2:2 is actually commending them. "Christ commended the congregation in Ephesus, saying: “I know your deeds, and your labor and endurance, and that you cannot bear bad men, and that you put those to the test who say they are apostles, but they are not, and you found them liars.” Today, congregations of Jesus’ true followers have a similar record of good deeds, hard work, and endurance. They do not put up with false brothers who want to be viewed as apostles. (2*Corinthians 11:13,*26) Like the Ephesians, loyal Christians today “cannot bear bad men.” To maintain the purity of Jehovah’s worship and to protect the congregation, therefore, they do not extend the hand of fellowship to unrepentant apostates.—Galatians 2:4,*5; 2*John*8-11.

WOL


#4 Paul was not avoiding the other disciples.He was doing what Jesus commanded him to do.Preaching work.Peter even speaks highly of Paul and proves that he was indeed an apostle of Christ and blessed by God.
2 Peter 3:14-16. 14 So then, dear friends, since you are looking forward to this, make every effort to be found spotless, blameless and at peace with him. 15 Bear in mind that our Lord’s patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. 16 He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.

Yes Paul was a Pharisee.Yes he was a Roman citizen, by way of his father.Yes Jesus called the Pharisees who were against him vipers.Did you forget there was a Pharisee named Nicodemus who came to Jesus and spoke with him? It's in John 3. 1Now there was a Pharisee, a man named Nicodemus who was a member of the Jewish ruling council. 2He came to Jesus at night and said, “Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher who has come from God. For no one could perform the signs you are doing if God were not with him.”

Nicodemus actually prepared Jesus body when he died.Also Joseph of Arimathea was the one who asked Pilate for the body of Jesus.He was a high ranking counselor of the Sanhedrin devoted to the Pharisees.It says in the holy scriptures he was a disciple of Jesus in secret.Its in John 19:38-40. 38 After this, Joseph of Arimathea, being a disciple of Jesus, but secretly, for fear of the Jews, asked Pilate that he might take away the body of Jesus; and Pilate gave him permission. So he came and took the body of Jesus. 39 And Nicodemus, who at first came to Jesus by night, also came, bringing a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about a hundred pounds. 40 Then they took the body of Jesus, and bound it in strips of linen with the spices, as the custom of the Jews is to bury.


Paul was truly an Apostle.He is responsible for 14 writings in the NT.Some of the most important writing were done by Paul.

 

[Desert Snake]

Paul's teachings conflicted very often with those of Jesus. He was not accepted by all. He took the teachings of Jesus to the Gentiles when Jesus said he did not come for any but the lost sheep of the house of Israel. The elect.
Therefore, as all that is taken into account, and per the first video and the learned men there, the first Christians were Jews. And therefore today's Christians would have to be probably what are called Messianic Jews in order to be true followers of Jesus.

That is an ethnic statement in context. Many of the early Christians ( and later of course), were Jewish, this does not indicate their view as to whether Jesus was 'just the Messiah', or Deific however.

 

[Apple Sugar]

I think the criticisms of Saul arrive precisely because he was humanizing Yeshua, when he was indeed the Deity that is God. In doing that he was promoting precisely what Jesus was accused of by the authorities who argued he was simply a man blaspheming the scriptures and God.
And because Saul was contradicting Yeshua's teachings in some instances, and thereby interjecting confusion, when he would teach something different than what Yeshua was known to have taught and while professing himself an apostle, that would lead people to question other apostolic teachings should they arrive. And the credibility and consistency of Christ's ministry overall.

Further, with regard to Antioch, the disciples were referred to as Christians upon the arrival of Saul and Barnabas.Acts 11:23-26.
Often the early faithful were referred to as Disciples, "students", prior to the label Christian being attached to them after it applied to the Apostles.

Thanks, it does clarify your position, however in my research, I don't believe this to be the case. Pauls writings are not very explicit even, in declaring the divinity of Jesus, yet traditional Christians do believe this. If anything, with the confusion that is sometimes generated by the epistles and Greek translations in general, it could be theorized that if Paul had any nefarious intent, it was to 'humanize' Jeshua, not Deify Him.
That being said, I don't really think Paul was some nefarious scholar, I believe that at the time, most likely everyone knew what he was purporting in his writings, keep in mind, Paul didn't invent Christianity, he was giving his own gospel, in part to other Christians already established in their beliefs.
I know that some of this is confusing, however the primary indication of a religions true message is found in the adherents. They basically agree with Pauls assessment imo, albeit to a more definite extent to what we read in the later Epistles. Concepts such as the 'trinity' are interesting in that, although commonly viewed by secularists as deifying a 'Messiah', they are imo actually trying to 'explain' the Deific nature of Jeshua, and, I believe somewhat successfully.

 

[Apple Sugar]

Thank you for your input into this discussion.

#1 Thats not what was meant in Matthew 5:18 Here are some examples. Saying that it would be “more endurable” for Tyre/Sidon and Sodom/Gomorrah “on Judgment Day” was a form of hyperbole (exaggeration to emphasize a point) that Jesus need not have intended to be taken literally, any more than other graphic hyperboles that he used. For example:

“It is easier for heaven and earth to pass away than for one particle of a letter of the Law to go unfulfilled.” “Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will by no means pass away.” (Luke 16:17; 21:33; Matthew 5:18; compare Hebrews 1:10-12.) We know that the literal heavens and earth will never pass away. (Psalm 78:69; 104:5; Ecclesiastes 1:4)

Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY ...

 

[Apple Sugar]

That is an ethnic statement in context. Many of the early Christians ( and later of course), were Jewish, this does not indicate their view as to whether Jesus was 'just the Messiah', or Deific however.

OK.
Thank you for your input.

 

[Desert Snake]

I think the criticisms of Saul arrive precisely because he was humanizing Yeshua, when he was indeed the Deity that is God. In doing that he was promoting precisely what Jesus was accused of by the authorities who argued he was simply a man blaspheming the scriptures and God.
And because Saul was contradicting Yeshua's teachings in some instances, and thereby interjecting confusion, when he would teach something different than what Yeshua was known to have taught and while professing himself an apostle, that would lead people to question other apostolic teachings should they arrive. And the credibility and consistency of Christ's ministry overall.

Further, with regard to Antioch, the disciples were referred to as Christians upon the arrival of Saul and Barnabas.Acts 11:23-26.
Often the early faithful were referred to as Disciples, "students", prior to the label Christian being attached to them after it applied to the Apostles.

Ok, you cleared up your position, is this what the first vid was saying?! I thought it was saying the opposite.

 

[Apple Sugar]

Not to my understanding it wasn't. Perhaps watch it again? As shall I since I made this suggestion to you.

 

[Nada]

Thank you for your input into this discussion.

No problem

 

[sojourner]

First of all, I fully endorse Angellous' critique of the videos. They are bat-ship crazy -- loaded with misinformation generated by lack of credible scholarship.

Apostle was reserved for those who's feet were washed by the master and who actually walked with him.

Wrong. "Apostle" means simply "one who is sent" -- not "one who sat at Jesus' feet." Paul was sent to the Gentiles.

Jesus warned against Paul while here in his earthly Ministry. Against Paul and others like him, which we see today in the false teachers on TV and elsewhere.

Funny thing is that Paul's ministry began about 18 months after the crucifixion, about 33 c.e. Matthew wasn't written until about 50 years later, so Paul predates anything that "Jesus taught."

Add to that the fact that the goons in the video completely miss the mark of what Matthew is trying to accomplish theologically with his gospel.

Sorry. I can't agree with the video At. All. Paul is legit.

 

[sojourner]

By all appearances , and by what educated scholars in the first video have said, he was not considered to be anything but the antichrist by the first Christians.

"Scholars?" [as if]

Had Paul been marked as heretical, he would never have been invited to the council of Jerusalem to plead his case for the Gentiles -- and his argument would never have won the day.

 

[sojourner]

Paul in effect transmuted the Jewish Messiah Yeshua into the universal, today's Protestant and Catholic, version of Jesus.

How could Paul "transmute" anything, when he predates what you purport that he "transmuted?"

 

[sojourner]

I think the criticisms of Saul arrive precisely because he was humanizing Yeshua, when he was indeed the Deity that is God.

Take a close look at Mark. Mark's Jesus is EXTREMELY human. And John, writing looong after Paul, presents us with the least human picture of Jesus.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

It's comical when people want to speak of biblical characters like Jesus, Paul, John the Baptist, etc., but want to throw out all of the writings that speak of them. So let's talk about Jesus without the Gospels and early Christian literature. Or let's talk of Paul without anything that he wrote, ignore all of early Christian history and writings, and reconstruct something out of thin air.

It's fun, but then you end up with stupid crap like this.

The tragically hilarious thing about this one is that even the 'heretical' groups idolized Paul. I'm thinking specifically of the Marcionites, who were a significant threat to 'orthodox' Christianity.