Who is the false prophet of Matthew 7

[BilliardsBall]

Here is a small list of contradictions, yet there are loads more.

I see. Thanks for sharing that post. Evangelicals have died for millennia now to promote the gospel of trust that you find objectionable in John, saying it's not in the synoptics, when it both appears in the synoptics and throughout the Old Testament, too. Evangelicals including the apostles died to promote the good news of Jesus's atoning death and resurrection--ones who teach the salvation message you teach of works include Mormonism, Roman Catholicism, Jehovah's Witnesses, etc. - the kind of doctrine that causes me discomfort as I'm on another thread right now with a brother who has taken this to an extreme to teach that only sinless people can get to heaven... be careful!

 

[wizanda]

be careful!

Very careful!
This is the thing, the apostles weren't all teaching atonement; the Ebionites with James the Just, stood against the Pauline (Pharisee) doctrine of atonement.

Plus really any disciple who went around saying it is good news Yeshua died, isn't exactly a friend.

 

[Awoon]

Ancient Prophets were advisors to the Kings and Queens of their Kingdoms, advisors to the Religious Priesthoods, they were statesmen and leaders. They were not just Seers and foretellers of future events. People can do that today , just listen to the wind blow. (get it)?

False Prophets teach a religion ABOUT Jesus and NOT the Religion of Jesus.

Now the Bible (NT) is the only written text for anyone to compare my above statement. Maybe some Gnostic teachings recently discovered.

Soooo those who follow any teaching that Jesus didn't teach his immediate disciples or who they taught, which they supposedly recorded in the Bible would be a false Prophet.


Or, the whole/parts of the NT(Jesus supposed words) are just theological writings with no historical authority and should be seen and treated as such for the religious communities only that BELIEVE them to be.

If I posted wrong please delete. It is just my opinions.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Very careful!
This is the thing, the apostles weren't all teaching atonement; the Ebionites with James the Just, stood against the Pauline (Pharisee) doctrine of atonement.

Plus really any disciple who went around saying it is good news Yeshua died, isn't exactly a friend.

I am a friend and a brother and in The Faith. I'm saying it IS NOT good news Y'shua died, but it is the greatest news ever that He rose again!

While I can see how you would reject Paul, and I've quoted to you that Peter, one of Y'shua's closest disciples, warned people to be careful with what HIS BROTHER PAUL WROTE THAT IS HARD TO UNDERSTAND, I cannot understand how you can look at sacrifices between Adam and Y'shua and not see that Y'shua is a great sacrifice unto the Father.

 

[wizanda]

While I can see how you would reject Paul, and I've quoted to you that Peter, one of Y'shua's closest disciples, warned people to be careful with what HIS BROTHER PAUL WROTE THAT IS HARD TO UNDERSTAND

Paul isn't hard to understand, it is simple with subversive undertones, that circumnavigate Jewish law, and reiterate things that have been removed.

Simon was called a stone (petros) by Yeshua for a reason.

I cannot understand how you can look at sacrifices between Adam and Y'shua and not see that Y'shua is a great sacrifice unto the Father.

Why would God require sacrifice? That is Balaam teachings: God doesn't require sacrifice, it is something we've done to please God; yet God has never required it, as the prophets clearly point out in many places.

Look at the logic of what you're saying: we sacrificed God's son to him, and then think we can enter his house, because we've killed his son.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Paul isn't hard to understand, it is simple with subversive undertones, that circumnavigate Jewish law, and reiterate things that have been removed.

Simon was called a stone (petros) by Yeshua for a reason.

Why would God require sacrifice? That is Balaam teachings: God doesn't require sacrifice, it is something we've done to please God; yet God has never required it, as the prophets clearly point out in many places.

Look at the logic of what you're saying: we sacrificed God's son to him, and then think we can enter his house, because we've killed his son.

The logic isn't there because Paul and the writers you disagree with, including the synoptic writers and the words of Jesus, do not say WE sacrificed God's Son to Him but that it "pleased HIM to sacrifice" or:

...The LORD was pleased To crush Him, putting Him to grief; If He would render Himself as a guilt offering, He will see His offspring, He will prolong His days, And the good pleasure of the LORD will prosper in His hand. -- Isaiah (is Isaiah acceptable to Ebionites?)

 

[wizanda]

...The LORD was pleased To crush Him, putting Him to grief; If He would render Himself as a guilt offering, He will see His offspring, He will prolong His days, And the good pleasure of the LORD will prosper in His hand.

Kjv is closer, as at least it doesn't have some of the later additions, to make it fit to an ideology. Here is a Hebrew version.

 

[Christ's Lamb]

The false prophet of Matthew 7:15-23 ?

Although Matthew 7:15-23 is with respect to "false prophets" it is directly pointed at one in particular. Who is that prophet?

Matthew 7:15-23,"Beware of the false prophets who come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly are ravenous wolves...you shall know them by their fruits. Not everyone who says to me, Lord, Lord, will enter the kingdom of heaven; but he who does the will of my Father, who is heaven. Many will say to me on theat day, Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name cast out demons, and in your name perform many miracles?'And then I will declare to them, Í never knew you; 'DEPART FROM ME, YOU WHO PRACTICE LAWLESSNESS'.

Paul as a Benjamite, fits the description of "ravenous wolf" per Genesis 49:27.

Paul came in sheep's clothing, and expressed by himself as chosen by God. 2 Timothy 1

Paul preached one was to call on the name of the lord is saved. Romans 10:13

Paul cast out demons. Acts 16:18

Paul performed many miracles. Acts 19:11

Paul prophesy in your name. 2 Cor 12:17 (Revelations from God)

Paul practiced Lawlessness. (Romans 7:6 & 7:25)

The fruit of Paul's tree being bad: Paul's tree being the Pauline church who believe he speaks for God. Inquisitions which entailed burning of books and people which was based on Paul's turning his disciples over to Satan for the destruction of the flesh to save their souls (1 Cor 5:5). The present condition of his church where pedophiles are harbored, a country composed of 74% Pauline Christian making laws for killing of the innocent legal, immorality legal and acceptable, legal purchase of power, legal use of mind altering drugs legal, and the making the display of the Commandments of God illegal.

St. Paul can't be the false prophet, if he was, Christ should not be considered the Son of God because if he couldn't even start a Church that would last, why should be follow him in the first place? Someone would have to come along and start a new church to replace the older corrupted one, then Christ, the Son of God, God incarnate, simply wouldn't be enough. If God couldn't create a perfect Church that would last forever, then who could? You would have a "reformed" Church that also could be curupted eventually, which would then have to be reformed again. It would be a mess.

We need a Church that is guided by God, if there isn't any, there is simply no way to know God. One would say, "the bible!" but who is there to interpret the bible? The Holy Spirit? What happens if no one wants to listen to him and go by their own personal options? Who has the ability to determination which books are and are not apart of the bible in the first place? See, this is why we need a Church guided by God.

Many false prophets will come and go, and many have came and went already. Many were lead away, and are still being lead away to this day. This is why we need a Church led by Christ himself, so we can know we are in safe hands. The false prophet(s) can lead people away from the Church, but cannot change the Church itself because it is led by God, and God would not allow his only way of letting man know what are his teachings to be cut off. If he did, he made us orphans, which he said he would not do.

Sorry to tell you but, who ever told you this is leading you away from the Truth, either knowingly or unknowingly. St. Paul is a prophet of God, and his teachings are not his own, but Christ's.

 

[wizanda]

St. Paul can't be the false prophet, if he was, Christ should not be considered the Son of God because if he couldn't even start a Church that would last, why should be follow him in the first place?

Yeshua clearly planted the good seed and prophesied that the wicked one would plant next to it. He made it clear there was a great deception that would take place; with all the tares being removed on judgement day... So there is no lasting of the current church in hell; instead what is prophesied is that the 'true church', shall come down from heaven and then reign on earth with God in a new kingdom.

St. Paul is a prophet of God, and his teachings are not his own, but Christ's.

Paul blatantly contradicts Christ on well over 36 points; someone who is teaching from Christ, clearly wouldn't.

 

[Christ's Lamb]

Yeshua clearly planted the good seed and prophesied that the wicked one would plant next to it. He made it clear there was a great deception that would take place; with all the tares being removed on judgement day... So there is no lasting of the current church in hell; instead what is prophesied is that the 'true church', shall come down from heaven and then reign on earth with God in a new kingdom.

Paul blatantly contradicts Christ on well over 36 points; someone who is teaching from Christ, clearly wouldn't.

Which are the 36 contradictions? There simply are none at all. If there were, how can we find Christ's teachings? How do we know that the gospels are not "edited" by the "Pauline Church"? Then there is simply no way of knowing Christ at all. If St. Paul were a false prophets, why would he be able to talk at the counsel of Jerusalem? He would have no right at all and the apostles would have simply told people to stay away from him in the first place.

Why does it always have to be about an apostasy in the early Church? Did any one every think that the problems might have start with Martin Luther in the 1500s?

The Church in heaven (the Church triumphant) is the Church on Earth (the Church militant). There is no separation of them, they are one.

Matthew 7 is not talking about any particular false prophet any way, it is talking about many false prophets. The Greek word pseudoprophētōn is pleural not singular.

 

[wizanda]

How do we know that the gospels are not "edited" by the "Pauline Church"?

First there are blatant edits throughout the Bible, where they've even translated the Tanakh to match and there are additions within each of the synoptic gospels.

how can we find Christ's teachings?

We can define who Yeshua is, by finding more than one matching witness within the texts and assessing an overall character from it.

Which are the 36 contradictions?

Maybe you missed the lines under the last post, which indicate a link; so here is the list again.

If St. Paul were a false prophets, why would he be able to talk at the counsel of Jerusalem?

In the morning, the Jews formed a conspiracy and took an oath not to eat or drink anything before they had killed Paul. (13) More than 40 men formed this conspiracy.

He would have no right at all and the apostles would have simply told people to stay away from him in the first place.

The victor has more opportunity to dictate what history states:

• So where are all the accounts of the Ebionite church, with James the Just? Which were possibly the true followers of Yeshua's teachings, as they believed the commandments were steps to heaven and by giving up wealth, were both keys to eternal life. Exactly as Yeshua taught.
• Were told some of the disciples didn't accept Paul, understandably; yet what choice do they have in relaying that history, if Paul created the church?

Why does it always have to be about an apostasy in the early Church?

Because that is what the Bible prophesiers.

Matthew 7 is not talking about any particular false prophet any way, it is talking about many false prophets. The Greek word pseudoprophētōn is pleural not singular.

Great point, since Paul isn't the only false prophet.

 

[Christ's Lamb]

From what I see, the New Testament in your "bible" would look something like this:

1. Matthew
2. Mark
3. Hebrews *Maybe* (Might have been written by Paul)
4. James
5. 1Peter
6. 1John
7. 2John
8. 3John
9. Jude
10. Revelation

Luke/Acts - The Gospel of Luke and Acts of the Apostles were written by a companion of Paul. All the information in this gospel was told to Luke by Paul, which he got from the Apostles who knew Christ. Thus, if you claim "Paul was a false prophet" you cannot trust any information found within those two books because it could have been altered to "further the Pauline heresy." When Paul refers to "his Gospel" he is talking about Luke.
John - Because you state it on your website.
Epistles of Paul - If you claim he was a false prophet, you would have to take these out too.
Hebrews - This epistle is said to have been written by Paul, if so, you would have to exclude this book.
2Peter - Praises Paul and his epistles.

I'll have to come back and finish writing my response later, I simply don't have the time right now to continue.

 

[wizanda]

From what I see, the New Testament in your "bible" would look something like this:

1. Matthew
2. Mark
3. Luke
4. James
5. Jude
6. Revelations

John is fake here.
Simon was called the stone by Yeshua here.

Don't believe Luke wrote Acts.

 

[Christ's Lamb]

1. Matthew
2. Mark
3. Luke
4. James
5. Jude
6. Revelations

John is fake here.
Simon was called the stone by Yeshua here.

Well I was going to write a big response proving why St. Paul was of God, but then I realized something. All I would be doing is wasting not only my time, but also yours because you would simply get noting from it. All 36 "proofs" are indeed incorrect. I could list why they are wrong, but why, all it would end up doing is causing a big debate on here for no reason what so ever.

I would recommend studying the earliest Church Fathers in the first few centuries of Christian history. Don't go and try to "prove" that Paul was a fraud, just go and look at them with an open mind and try to understand why they believed what they believed about Christ and Paul.

I'm guessing you came from a Protestant background, am I correct? I wouldn't consider Paul a believer "Sola Fide" or "Faith Alone" nor does he ever state that we are Justified by "faith alone." He does say by faith, apart from the Law, that Laws of Moses that is, but nowhere does he say by "faith alone." What he means by "faith" is faith that works, or faith working through love, as he puts it. Martin Luther is the one who created the idea of "faith alone" the early church didn't believe in it.

I would also recommend studying what the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches believe about the role of the Church, its quote different than a protestant view of its role.

Hope we can put our differences aside and simply search for the Truth, the both of us.

 

[wizanda]

.

'In this world full of lies; it is far easier to establish the fallacy in a subject first, before trying to establish the truth, built upon lies.'

Aware of the different churches and their beliefs; it is more the basic premise of Christianity (John, Paul, Simon), that doesn't add up with the Tanakh, by saying God required human sacrifice.

 

[Zardoz]

Well I was going to write a big response proving why St. Paul was of God, but then I realized something. All I would be doing is wasting not only my time, ....

Also, this is the MESSIANIC JUDAISM DIR.

Only MJ should be posting opinions here, sorry.

As an MJ, I can say we can get along just fine without Paul, thanks.

 

[Zardoz]

Now it will be difficult to debate scripture with you, since John is out of play. Do you have evidence that it is not a true gospel account?

Since debate is forbidden in DIR, that's not an issue.

Many MJ reject both John AND Paul.

But, that leaves plenty left to discuss. All the actual teachings of Yeshua, for example. Best to stick to these found in Matthew.

 

[wizanda]

But, that leaves plenty left to discuss. All the actual teachings of Yeshua, for example. Best to stick to these found in Matthew.

Why only from Matthew; isn't it better to use more than one witness, to establish an overall consensus?

 

[BilliardsBall]

Since debate is forbidden in DIR, that's not an issue.

Many MJ reject both John AND Paul.

But, that leaves plenty left to discuss. All the actual teachings of Yeshua, for example. Best to stick to these found in Matthew.

Sorry, not debate, discuss.

I'm an MJ also. Thanks.

 

[Zardoz]

Why only from Matthew; isn't it better to use more than one witness, to establish an overall consensus?

Except I don't consider the so-called 'NT' to be eyewitness account.

Written long after the events (when exactly debated by scholars to be sure, but still..) in Greek, by Gentiles. Hardly meets the standard of Halacha for a valid witness, nu?

Somewhere I have a treatise on the original source(s) that the NT was derived from, but searches have been in vain. I'm old... and forget a lot... so many books....

In a nutshell, it says it (NT) all comes from biography(s) of Yeshua's life merged with a book of Yeshua's sayings (think Pirkei Avot).

I wish to get to the original source of these sayings. However, failing to find a MJ genizah of the DSS caliber, Matthew is truest and largest source. IMHO.