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

[metis]

:sleep: Yes it is. A person can teach and the person he teaches is taught. Good for you! I graduate you to middle school.

A person CAN NOT be taught to WANT to learn.

How can you graduate me to middle school when you're only in the elementary?

BTW, the issue never was "want to learn", so I have no idea whereas that came up. It's simply a matter that disciples can and did create other disciples, and that we well know is exactly what happened.

 

[sojourner]

That's not an ad hominem. Maybe you should research what Ad hominem is. My remarks pertained to your seemingly not realizing what this thread is about. The heart of this discussion is that Paul was not wholly accepted as a true Apostle.

And I've shown that he was, in Acts 15:
"When they came to Jerusalem, they were welcomed by the church and the apostles and the elders... Then the apostles and the elders, with the consent of the whole church, decided to choose men from among their members[f] and to send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas. They sent Judas called Barsabbas, and Silas, leaders among the brothers, 23 with the following letter: “The brothers, both the apostles and the elders, to the believers[g] of Gentile origin in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia, greetings. 24 Since we have heard that certain persons who have gone out from us, though with no instructions from us, have said things to disturb you and have unsettled your minds,[h] 25 we have decided unanimously to choose representatives and send them to you, along with our beloved Barnabas and Paul..."

Jesus picked his Apostles while on earth.

And Jesus also picked Paul while in heaven, just as Jesus has continued to pick his apostles throughout the ages of the church. Today, for example, Francis is the chief apostle of the Roman church. Katherine is the Presiding Bishop in the apostolic succession of the Episcopal Church.

Don't derail the thread. If you can't keep to the topic by making false accusations against me when I point out you aren't keeping to the topic. Stay with the topic or leave. It's that easy.

Trying to spank me isn't helping your credibility.

YOU brought up Matthew in post #68 -- not me -- which has nothing whatsoever to do with whether Jesus approves of Paul. I merely refuted your claim in post #88. So... who's responsible for "derailing the thread?"

 

[sojourner]

You are the one arguing works saves. They don't. There is no scripture that says they do.

I'm not arguing that at all. I'm simply refuting your claim, which I've done with Luke 10 (or did you ignore that?)

 

[sojourner]

You are calling Paul a liar for saying Jesus spoke to him. Yes?

Apparently, when Matthew says something, it's Gospel. But when Luke says something, it's clearly suspect...

 

[savagewind]

BTW, the issue never was "want to learn", so I have no idea whereas that came up. It's simply a matter that disciples can and did create other disciples, and that we well know is exactly what happened.

There are no true discples of Jesus who do not want to learn. To be a disciple is to want to be taught by him and learn from him. I think wanting can't be taught.

How can you graduate me to middle school when you're only in the elementary?

Haha!

 

[savagewind]

Apparently, when Matthew says something, it's Gospel. But when Luke says something, it's clearly suspect...

Maybe you are saying Luke wrote Acts. Is that correct?

 

[sojourner]

Maybe you are saying Luke wrote Acts. Is that correct?

Luke-Acts was originally one document. :yes:

 

[Apple Sugar]

You are calling Paul a liar for saying Jesus spoke to him. Yes?

I'm saying Paul was deceived.

 

[sojourner]

I'm saying Paul was deceived.

Was Luke deceived, as well? The same Luke that quotes Jesus?

 

[savagewind]

The writer of the account about Paul perpetrated a lie if Jesus never spoke to him.

 

[Apple Sugar]

Was Luke deceived, as well? The same Luke that quotes Jesus?

If Luke didn't walk with the living Jesus and quoted him, what do you think?

 

[Apple Sugar]

I'm not arguing that at all. I'm simply refuting your claim, which I've done with Luke 10 (or did you ignore that?)

Ah, now you're changing your point.
Yes, I know Luke 10. It doesn't support your proclamation that works saves.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I'm saying Paul was deceived.

 

[outhouse]

If Luke didn't walk with the living Jesus and quoted him, what do you think?

No one quoted him. Your just lost without a clue really.

There was no luke with Jesus.


We have college level educations and are trying to help you, you don't have a high school education yet in this topic.

It would be great if you could at least read a credible book first before embarrassing yourself so much

 

[Estro Felino]

No one quoted him. Your just lost without a clue really.

There was no luke with Jesus.

We have college level educations and are trying to help you, you don't have a high school education yet in this topic.

It would be great if you could at least read a credible book first before embarrassing yourself so much

But we all agree that the gospels writers were all defenders of the Hellenistic identity in the Middle East.
People don't tend to acknowledge that Christianity is a Greek invention. and I assure you that the Greeks hated the Romans (by Greeks I mean even Hellenists like Paul. Do you doubt that Paul hated the Romans? I don't).
The hatred towards the Roman vision of politics and economy led to the ideological war between Octavian and Cleopatra.
Cleopatra represented the Hellenistic identity. and Christianity is the religious answer to the desire of destroying the Roman arrogance. When Jesus speaks of evil, he implicitly talks about the Romans.
given that Cleopatra had been defeated.

Maybe for an American the Roman identity and the Hellenistic identity can look alike. But I assure you they are the opposite of one another. Rome is masculine, Hellenism is feminine.
Christianity represents the rebirth of the Greek spirit: the emblem of this identity is the assembly of equal people, or ekklisia. The Church is the ekklisia, because that's how the Greeks call the Church.
and that proves the fact that Christianity is an anthropocentric religion, because the protagonists are the people of teh assembly. Not certainly God.

 

[Apple Sugar]

Well said. :hug:
Where would you suggest someone go if they were interested in learning more of this history that you're referring to?

But we all agree that the gospels writers were all defenders of the Hellenistic identity in the Middle East.
People don't tend to acknowledge that Christianity is a Greek invention. and I assure you that the Greeks hated the Romans (by Greeks I mean even Hellenists like Paul. Do you doubt that Paul hated the Romans? I don't).
The hatred towards the Roman vision of politics and economy led to the ideological war between Octavian and Cleopatra.
Cleopatra represented the Hellenistic identity. and Christianity is the religious answer to the desire of destroying the Roman arrogance. When Jesus speaks of evil, he implicitly talks about the Romans.
given that Cleopatra had been defeated.

Maybe for an American the Roman identity and the Hellenistic identity can look alike. But I assure you they are the opposite of one another. Rome is masculine, Hellenism is feminine.
Christianity represents the rebirth of the Greek spirit: the emblem of this identity is the assembly of equal people, or ekklisia. The Church is the ekklisia, because that's how the Greeks call the Church.
and that proves the fact that Christianity is an anthropocentric religion, because the protagonists are the people of teh assembly. Not certainly God.

 

[Apple Sugar]

Trying to spank you?
You demonstrate you're incapable of staying on topic, you accuse me of resorting to ad homs, which is a falsehood in itself, just to divert attention away from the fact you're not capable of staying on topic, and now you play victim by accusing me of something as obscene as trying to spank you? Because I won't be bullied or led by someone who can't make a cogent point to support their contention, that they now back peddle from, (that would be you), that works saves?

Something you can never prove? And that fact is what leads you to get defensive and pull the victim card.
We're done here. Do grow up.

And I've shown that he was, in Acts 15:
"When they came to Jerusalem, they were welcomed by the church and the apostles and the elders... Then the apostles and the elders, with the consent of the whole church, decided to choose men from among their members[f] and to send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas. They sent Judas called Barsabbas, and Silas, leaders among the brothers, 23 with the following letter: “The brothers, both the apostles and the elders, to the believers[g] of Gentile origin in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia, greetings. 24 Since we have heard that certain persons who have gone out from us, though with no instructions from us, have said things to disturb you and have unsettled your minds,[h] 25 we have decided unanimously to choose representatives and send them to you, along with our beloved Barnabas and Paul..."

And Jesus also picked Paul while in heaven, just as Jesus has continued to pick his apostles throughout the ages of the church. Today, for example, Francis is the chief apostle of the Roman church. Katherine is the Presiding Bishop in the apostolic succession of the Episcopal Church.

Trying to spank me isn't helping your credibility.

YOU brought up Matthew in post #68 -- not me -- which has nothing whatsoever to do with whether Jesus approves of Paul. I merely refuted your claim in post #88. So... who's responsible for "derailing the thread?"

 

[Robert.Evans]

There are no true discples of Jesus who do not want to learn. To be a disciple is to want to be taught by him and learn from him. I think wanting can't be taught.
Haha!

We are all taught of God, we are all taught of the holy spirit. But it comes through the mouth of man... is that a fair description?

 

[savagewind]

We are all taught of God, we are all taught of the holy spirit. But it comes through the mouth of man... is that a fair description?

Not all teaching comes from "the mouth of man". We are not even all taught by reality. Hardly all taught of God. Or do you mean by God?

 

[sojourner]

The writer of the account about Paul perpetrated a lie if Jesus never spoke to him.

We're told, though, that Jesus did speak to Paul. We can only work with what we have. "What-ifs" don't really help. They're a way to bolster a pre-conceived notion. Somebody said that Paul is anti-christ, so someone else says, "Ah! Then what if Luke must be lying about Paul?" No, the facts are the facts. Luke says that Jesus spoke to Paul and sent him. That makes Paul an apostle. We have to go on that until we have evidence to the contrary -- which we don't.