Was Paul worthy to be an Apostle?

[kerndog]

We all recognize that you are an intelligent debater, and you have a great amount of knowledge about JW's. But could you for once explain to us what your current beliefs are instead of bashing JW's all the time. JW's aren't going to take over the world anytime soon. It is a well known fact that JW's have the lowest level of education of any Christian sect in America. See ----http://www.religiousforums.com/threads/religious-education.187073/. I don't believe that anyone with common sense and education would be receptive to the dogma of JW's. You seem to have a chip on your shoulder. If you will, tell us your theology instead of bashing someone else's.

??? You gotta be kidding me.......sheesh !

 

[Redemptionsong]

I have no problem understanding the testament of Jesus. I do not need a commentator to explain to me what Jesus means. And that means any of the other "commentators" in the NT. I have no problem understanding the teachings, parables, and commandments of Jesus.

If you truly understood the teaching of Jesus, you would accept Paul as the apostle to the Gentiles.

 

[blue taylor]

If you truly understood the teaching of Jesus, you would accept Paul as the apostle to the Gentiles.

Jesus never mentions Paul. He had only 12 apostles. None named Paul. Tertullian called Paul the apostle of the heretics. Paul's gospel was not the gospel of Jesus, and often contradicts it. Thomas Jefferson called Paul the first great corrupter of the gospel of Jesus. The only reason Paul preached his gospel to the gentiles is because the Jews rejected him.

 

[kerndog]

Jesus never mentions Paul. He had only 12 apostles. None named Paul. Tertullian called Paul the apostle of the heretics. Paul's gospel was not the gospel of Jesus, and often contradicts it. Thomas Jefferson called Paul the first great corrupter of the gospel of Jesus. The only reason Paul preached his gospel to the gentiles is because the Jews rejected him.

Jesus never mentions he had to take a dump from time to time, but it is a known FACT that he did !

 

[Redemptionsong]

Jesus never mentions Paul. He had only 12 apostles. None named Paul. Tertullian called Paul the apostle of the heretics. Paul's gospel was not the gospel of Jesus, and often contradicts it. Thomas Jefferson called Paul the first great corrupter of the gospel of Jesus. The only reason Paul preached his gospel to the gentiles is because the Jews rejected him.

Do you therefore reject the Gospel of Luke because it was written by the same author as the book of Acts? And the book of Acts tells us that Jesus called Paul as his apostle.

 

[blue taylor]

Do you therefore reject the Gospel of Luke because it was written by the same author as the book of Acts? And the book of Acts tells us that Jesus called Paul as his apostle.

If you tell me who the author of both books was, then I'll give you an answer. All the gospels were written by unknown authors.

 

[idav]

If you truly understood the teaching of Jesus, you would accept Paul as the apostle to the Gentiles.

Would have been nice if Paul had access to the gospels we have, then at least he would have understood the teachings of Jesus.

 

[blue taylor]

Would have been nice if Paul had access to the gospels we have, then at least he would have understood the teachings of Jesus.

He did not, so he did not. Well put.

 

[blue taylor]

Who, in the NT ever refers to Paul as an apostle of Jesus, besides Paul or "Luke"?

 

[Redemptionsong]

If you tell me who the author of both books was, then I'll give you an answer. All the gospels were written by unknown authors.

Not true. The book of Acts was written by Luke, and at the beginning of the book he makes reference to his 'former treatise' (Acts 1:1).
Since Paul did not write the book of Acts, you are left having to explain how it is that the book contains the story of Paul's encounter with Jesus on the road to Damascus.
Furthermore, Ananias was spoken to by the Lord (Acts 9:15), who said, 'Go thy way: for he [Paul] is a chosen vessel unto me, to bear my name before the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel:'
Acts 23:11 confirms the calling of Paul by Jesus. It says that after speaking to the Jewish Council Paul encountered Jesus a second time. 'And the night following the Lord stood by him, and said, Be of good cheer, Paul: for as thou hast testified of me in Jerusalem, so must thou bear witness also at Rome.'

You are free to deny Christ, but don't try to turn the truth of scripture into a lie.

 

[savagewind]

You are free to deny Christ, but don't try to turn the truth of scripture into a lie.

Matthew 12:31-32

Where do you get, "but don't try to turn the truth of scripture into a lie". I am sure that by putting scripture on par with The Holy Spirit you are exalting those that wrote it and complied it. You do know that the cloud or witnesses did not have the Bible. Are you not? Hebrews 12:1

How is it possible @Deeje @kerndog @Redemptionsong that we are able to turn the truth of scripture into a lie (according to you), but the many people who handled it before us were not able? If @blue taylor and I rewrote it and published it, the world would have a new Bible, and if many years passed and the old one, for the most part, passed away and ours remained then how would you know which one to believe? You wouldn't. That is why I do not trust the word of those with treacherous hearts which is everyone but Christ. Why would I? I am not asking you to trust me. But you guys are DEMANDING trust in the name of The Lord. You really are.

I am hearing that you would trust the oldest version. BUT the oldest version IS NO LONGER WITH US. Please, for goodness' sake, admit it.

 

[kerndog]

Not true. The book of Acts was written by Luke, and at the beginning of the book he makes reference to his 'former treatise' (Acts 1:1).
Since Paul did not write the book of Acts, you are left having to explain how it is that the book contains the story of Paul's encounter with Jesus on the road to Damascus.
Furthermore, Ananias was spoken to by the Lord (Acts 9:15), who said, 'Go thy way: for he [Paul] is a chosen vessel unto me, to bear my name before the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel:'
Acts 23:11 confirms the calling of Paul by Jesus. It says that after speaking to the Jewish Council Paul encountered Jesus a second time. 'And the night following the Lord stood by him, and said, Be of good cheer, Paul: for as thou hast testified of me in Jerusalem, so must thou bear witness also at Rome.'

You are free to deny Christ, but don't try to turn the truth of scripture into a lie.

Very, very nice job !

 

[savagewind]

The proof someone is really and truly siding with Jesus Christ is that they will be hated. Who hasn't hated me? So? There you have it! Proverbs 29:27 Matthew 10:22 John 15:19

You will be hated by everyone because of me, but the one who stands firm to the end will be saved.

http://biblehub.com/greek/3956.htm

How many says Jesus? ALL. That means both sides, all sides.

 

[Redemptionsong]

Where do you get, "but don't try to turn the truth of scripture into a lie". I am sure that by putting scripture on par with The Holy Spirit you are exalting those that wrote it and complied it. You do know that the cloud or witnesses did not have the Bible. Are you not? Hebrews 12:1

It says in 2 Timothy 3:16, 'All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:' I believe this to be true. The scriptures, as originally received, are from the Holy Spirit. Ultimately, there is agreement between the written word and the living Word.
As Jesus says, 'the scripture cannot be broken' (John 10:35). This unbrokenness proves the Word as Truth.

Are you claiming that parts of scripture are not profitable?

 

[savagewind]

It says in 2 Timothy 3:16, 'All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:' I believe this to be true. The scriptures, as originally received, are from the Holy Spirit. Ultimately, there is agreement between the written word and the living Word.
As Jesus says, 'the scripture cannot be broken' (John 10:35). This unbrokenness proves the Word as Truth.

Are you claiming that parts of scripture are not profitable?

There is the Bible. It is a fact that it was handled by people who were NOT under the influence of The Holy Spirit.
The Word is Jesus Christ. I think people who say the Bible is also the Word of God are ridiculous because what they say is the word of God SAYS Jesus is the word of God. John 1:1 John 1:14 John 17:6

The one called Jesus can not be broken. TRUE

Words that have come down from man can not be broken. FALSE

Consider John 17:5 And now, Father, glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with you before the world began.

Can you please see that God's Word existed before the Bible?

I am not speaking against it. I love it! I consider myself the Bible's best friend so far. I consider you its enemy.

 

[savagewind]

How so? I believe the Bible as a whole picture is God telling us somethings. I agree with you @Redemptionsong @kerndog @Deeje that God should be free to speak and God's words should not be changed to suit one's own fancy. BUT SOME WERE. It is because you all do not recognize that some words have been changed and that you fight to keep it as it is that you make yourself the enemies of the Bible and by extension you make yourselves Jehovah's enemies.

 

[blue taylor]

Not true. The book of Acts was written by Luke, and at the beginning of the book he makes reference to his 'former treatise' (Acts 1:1).
Since Paul did not write the book of Acts, you are left having to explain how it is that the book contains the story of Paul's encounter with Jesus on the road to Damascus.
Furthermore, Ananias was spoken to by the Lord (Acts 9:15), who said, 'Go thy way: for he [Paul] is a chosen vessel unto me, to bear my name before the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel:'
Acts 23:11 confirms the calling of Paul by Jesus. It says that after speaking to the Jewish Council Paul encountered Jesus a second time. 'And the night following the Lord stood by him, and said, Be of good cheer, Paul: for as thou hast testified of me in Jerusalem, so must thou bear witness also at Rome.'

You are free to deny Christ, but don't try to turn the truth of scripture into a lie.

Luke could not have written the 2 books, as they were written somewhere between 80-110ce. Unless he lived to be 120 years old. You can not use a fable to prove it's own authenticity. You need historical, textural, and physical evidence. There is no historical, textural or physical evidence that supports the fact that someone named Luke ever wrote "Luke-Acts". Do you not read NT history? The Catholic Church decided the authors of the four gospels based upon their own assumptions. Spend a couple of years researching the history of the NT and you will find this out.

"Luke-Acts does not name its author. According to Church tradition this was Luke the evangelist, the companion of Paul, but while this view is still occasionally put forward the scholarly consensus emphasizes the many contradictions between Acts and the authentic Pauline letters. The most probable date for its composition is around 80-100 AD, and there is evidence that it was still being revised well into the 2nd century." WIKI

And it cites sources. Being tradition does not make it true. Santa Clause is tradition too, but not fact. The Epistle of Barnabas and the Shepherd Of Hermas were in the NT until the CC took them out. Being "in the NT" does not mean it is from God. It means the books included in the NT were chosen by the orthodox church to suit their own theology, much as each denomination picks which parts they will abide by and which parts they will not. I also have read the epistle of Barnabas, the Shepherd of Hermas,the Didache, most of the other gospels, Mary, Thomas, Peter, Phillip, Gospel Of Truth, Gospel Of Nicodemus, Infancy Gospel Of James, Gospel Of The Lord, and so many others. It's all scripture. What went into the NT was decided by the CC, not God. Being in the canon of the NT does not make it true. Men chose the books of the NT, not God. I put as much value in the Gospel Of Thomas as in any of the others. At least it names it's author.

 

[Redemptionsong]

The one called Jesus can not be broken. TRUE

Words that have come down from man can not be broken. FALSE

God himself defends the scriptures against intentional corruption (Revelation 22:18 and Deuteronomy 4:2). But it is also important to have good scholarship and a prayerful understanding of the ancient texts and the original languages.

The folk who wander from the path laid out in scripture, thinking that they know best, are the ones most likely to fall foul of deceit and lies.

What would you now believe without the scriptures? What would you know about Jesus as Saviour?

Either there is a living Word that reliably reflects the written word, or we live in ignorance of the Truth.

 

[Redemptionsong]

Luke could not have written the 2 books, as they were written somewhere between 80-110ce. Unless he lived to be 120 years old. You can not use a fable to prove it's own authenticity. You need historical, textural, and physical evidence. There is no historical, textural or physical evidence that supports the fact that someone named Luke ever wrote "Luke-Acts". Do you not read NT history? The Catholic Church decided the authors of the four gospels based upon their own assumptions. Spend a couple of years researching the history of the NT and you will find this out.

"Luke-Acts does not name its author. According to Church tradition this was Luke the evangelist, the companion of Paul, but while this view is still occasionally put forward the scholarly consensus emphasizes the many contradictions between Acts and the authentic Pauline letters. The most probable date for its composition is around 80-100 AD, and there is evidence that it was still being revised well into the 2nd century." WIKI

And it cites sources. Being tradition does not make it true. Santa Clause is tradition too, but not fact. The Epistle of Barnabas and the Shepherd Of Hermas were in the NT until the CC took them out. Being "in the NT" does not mean it is from God. It means the books included in the NT were chosen by the orthodox church to suit their own theology, much as each denomination picks which parts they will abide by and which parts they will not. I also have read the epistle of Barnabas, the Shepherd of Hermas,the Didache, most of the other gospels, Mary, Thomas, Peter, Phillip, Gospel Of Truth, Gospel Of Nicodemus, Infancy Gospel Of James, Gospel Of The Lord, and so many others. It's all scripture. What went into the NT was decided by the CC, not God. Being in the canon of the NT does not make it true. Men chose the books of the NT, not God. I put as much value in the Gospel Of Thomas as in any of the others. At least it names it's author.

The most powerful testimony to the truth of the Bible is the evidence of Christ in all the books. I don't have a need to justify what has been revealed throughout the ages - because the evidence lies in the scriptures themselves. If you feel so certain that the Gospels are contradicted by the teaching of Paul then try to demonstrate that through a presentation of the contradictory texts. I don't see it. Instead, I see a perfect weave that provides sure grounds for faith.

 

[blue taylor]

God himself defends the scriptures against intentional corruption (Revelation 22:18 and Deuteronomy 4:2). But it is also important to have good scholarship and a prayerful understanding of the ancient texts and the original languages.

The folk who wander from the path laid out in scripture, thinking that they know best, are the ones most likely to fall foul of deceit and lies.

What would you now believe without the scriptures? What would you know about Jesus as Saviour?

Either there is a living Word that reliably reflects the written word, or we live in ignorance of the Truth.

If Jesus IS the WORD, and you believe that, then why not believe in the WORD, instead of the commentators?