Wolf of Benjamin and leaven of the Pharisees

a reply to: letmeaskyouaquestion

The New Testament is a test of loyalty, intelligence and has two religions. Sauls, and the Apostles of Jesus and they did not agree at all.

What exactly is your source material in determining what the Apostles taught?

We have plenty of source material on Paul.

Most scholars agree that Paul really wrote seven of the Pauline epistles, but that four of the epistles in Paul's name are pseudepigraphic; scholars are divided on the authenticity of two of the epistles.
...
Seven letters (with consensus dates) considered genuine by most scholars:
First Thessalonians (ca. 50 AD)
Galatians (ca. 53 AD)
First Corinthians (ca. 53–54 AD)
Philippians (ca. 55 AD)
Philemon (ca. 55 AD)
Second Corinthians (ca. 55–56 AD)
Romans (ca. 57 AD)
wikipedia-Pauline_epistles

Serious question, what if any source material do you have by the Apostles of Jesus from which to make a comparison?

a reply to: In4ormant


I would suggest you read Acts again with a more discerning eye. There are three accounts of Saul/Paul's conversion. Three contradictory accounts. The three accounts are totally different. Paul never met Jesus and was not made an Apostle by Jesus. How do we know this? Several things in the Bible prove this. Jesus told us before he ascended that others would come IN THEIR OWN NAME. Every book written by Paul begins " I, Paul" or something similar. None of the other books begin with the writer announcing HIMSELF.


Paul proclaims himself an Apostle but he never met Jesus. Jesus said "Then if any man say unto you Lo here is Christ or there, believe it not" Matt. 24:23 Christ died, was resurrected and ascended. He did not return and said not to believe if someone claimed he had returned. Paul claimed Christ spoke to him. This was after Christ had said not to believe those claiming to see him.


How many thrones are there mentioned in Matthew for the Apostles? Twelve. Matt.19:28 Revelation mentions 12 names of the Apostles on the foundation of the city. NOT 13 ! There is no 13th Apostle. You mentioned the book of Luke. Who was Luke? He was not an Apostle. He was a cohort of .... Paul. He was Paul's travelling companion.


No where in the Bible does it say anything about 13 Apostles. Paul proclaimed HIMSELF as the 13th Apostle. Jesus did not. Matthew and Revelations confirm ONLY 12 Apostles.

a reply to: pthena

As far as it being a test of loyalty it is a theory that I have been working on for quite some time.

Jesus warns of a false prophet and Paul fits the description perfectly.

And he sends one to see who is loyal.

Like Yahweh did to Israel with Balaam and they failed too.

My source is the Bible and some Apocrypha re: thier teachings.

As far as the authenticity of his letter you would have to trust one man who claims to have found them that they are legitimate so I won't even go their because that guy was excommunicated.

a reply to: pthena

You have the the epistle of James which reads like a rebuttal to the doctine of grace.

Revelation has clues, never mentions Paul so I have no corroboration of his story from any Apostles, and I don't believe Peter's really defended Paul in 2 Peter because they did not like each other.

And the Gospels also are the opposite of what Paul taught.

It's all thete you just gotta study it out.

-But the Lord said to him (Ananias), "Go, for this man (Paul) is a chosen vessel to Me, to bear My name before the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel; 16. For I will show him what great things he must suffer for My name" (Acts 9:15 - 16, HBFV throughout)

-The word "apostle," used eighty-one times in the New Testament, simply means "a delegate, an ambassador of the gospel, or one that is sent"

-Barnabas was also given this designation by Luke (Acts 14:14)

-In Acts 13 the church in Syrian Antioch is told by God to "separate both Barnabas and Saul to Me for the work to which I have called them" (Acts 13:2)

God chose Paul. All that needs to be said really.

a reply to: In4ormant

Revelations 2:1-2
Unto the angel of the church of Ephesus write; These things saith he that holdeth the seven stars in his right hand, who walketh in the midst of the seven golden candlesticks;

2 I know thy works, and thy labour, and thy patience, and how thou canst not bear them which are evil: and thou hast tried them which say they are apostles, and are not, and hast found them liars:

The Church in Ephesus could not bear them that were evil and claimed to be Apostles and found them to be liars.

2Timothy 1:15
This thou knowest, that all they which are in Asia be turned away from me; of whom are Phygellus and Hermogenes.

All the Churches in Asia (Ephesus is in Asia) turned away from Paul. Paul confirms this in 2 Timothy. Ephesus (in Asia) could not bear evil and found, Paul claiming to be an Apostle, a liar.



ETA You quote Luke as a source. Luke also wrote Acts. Luke was not an Apostle. He was Paul's travel companion. Do you believe Luke (Paul's cohort) or do you believe John in Revelations?

a reply to: Khaleesi

Paul also violated the agreement at the 'Jerusalem council' saying it's OK to eat meat sacrificed to idols as long as you "spiritually weak brother" is not around.

So he is calling the Apostles weak for following the Holy Spirit, who was consulted at the council buy the pillars James, Peter and John.

He lies about what happened at the council too when ne returns.

a reply to: letmeaskyouaquestion

You have the the epistle of James which reads like a rebuttal to the doctine of grace.

20Do you want to be shown, you foolish person, that faith apart from works is useless? 21Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered up his son Isaac on the altar? 22You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by his works; 23and the Scripture was fulfilled that says, “Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness”—and he was called a friend of God.

So your "true teachings of Apostles of Jesus" use this as their proof.

Does Paul teach something that contradicts human sacrifice? Is that the difference between the two?

2 Peter

1st and second Peter are both Pseudepigrapha.

Gospels also are the opposite of what Paul taught

Anonymous documents written after Paul was dead.

a reply to: pthena

I don't know what you want me to tell you that I haven't already.

Deut 4:2
Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.

Rev 22:19
And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

These verses are usually used to say that the Bible is infallible. They do not say that AT ALL. It doesn't say man is not capable of adding or taking away from the Bible. It explicitly says DON'T.

Paul added to and took away from the Word. He's in trouble with God, IMO.

a reply to: letmeaskyouaquestion

I don't know what you want me to tell you that I haven't already.

How about an actual real substantive(reason it's written) difference in core goal between the "2 versions" of Christianity.

a reply to: letmeaskyouaquestion

Saul is the wolf of Benjamin, leaven of the Pharisees and false prophet.

So you are acting the part of Satan(prosecutor) hurling accusations against a man you've never met, and all your accusations are not based on evidence.

Seriously

Simple Definition of disingenuous
1 : not truly honest or sincere : giving the false appearance of being honest or sincere

What does it matter to you? What stakes do you have in it personally?

originally posted by: Khaleesi

Deut 4:2
Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.

Rev 22:19
And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

These verses are usually used to say that the Bible is infallible. They do not say that AT ALL. It doesn't say man is not capable of adding or taking away from the Bible. It explicitly says DON'T.

Paul added to and took away from the Word. He's in trouble with God, IMO.

What did he add and take away? You have that info laying around somewhere?

a reply to: pthena

I have provided several. You are not required to agree or like my reasons. I except that.

Someone else has been giving good information too, Khaleesi .

a reply to: In4ormant


Anything he wrote was an addition, since he wasn't really an Apostle. As for taking away ... Paul took away from the very words of Jesus.

Jesus said:

Matt 5:17-19



17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. 18 For verily I say unto you, Till* heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till* all be fulfilled. 19 Whosoever* therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

Paul said:

Ephesians 2:15, Colossians 2:14, 2 Cor. 3:11-17, Romans 7:1-3 et seq, and Galatians 3:19 et seq. The Law is “abolished,” “done away with,” “nailed to a tree,” “has faded away,’ and was “only ordained by angels…who are no gods.” If we were to cite Paul’s condemnations of the Law in one string, the point is self-evident that Paul abrogated the Law for everyone. See Eph. 2:15 (“setting aside in his flesh the law with its commands and regulations”); Col. 2:14 (“having blotted out the bond written in ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us: and he hath taken it out that way, nailing it to the cross;”) 2 Cor. 3:14 (“old covenant”); Gal. 5:1 (“yoke of bondage”); Rom. 10:4 (“Christ is the end of the law“); 2 Cor. 3:7 (“law of death”); Gal. 5:1 (“entangles”); Col. 2:14-17 (“a shadow”); Rom. 3:27 (“law of works”); Rom. 4:15 (“works wrath”); 2 Cor. 3:9 (ministration of condemnation); Gal. 2:16 (“cannot justify”); Gal. 3:21 (cannot give life); Col. 2:14 (“wiped out” exaleipsas); Gal. 3:19, 4:8-9 (“given by angels…who are no gods [and are] weak and beggarly celestial beings/elements”).

Jesus Says Only God Is Your Spiritual Father, and Call No Man on Earth Your Father, But Paul Says He Is The Corinthians’ Only Spiritual Father

Jesus said:

and ye may not call [any] your father on the earth, for one is your Father, who is in the heavens, (Matt. 23:9 YLT)

But Paul says:

For even if you had ten thousand others to teach you about Christ, you have only one spiritual father. For I became your father in Christ Jesus when I preached the Good News to you. (1 Cor. 4:15, NLT)

Jesus Says Only God Is Your Spiritual Father, and Call No Man on Earth Your Father, But Paul Says He Is The Corinthians’ Only Spiritual Father

Jesus said:

and ye may not call [any] your father on the earth, for one is your Father, who is in the heavens, (Matt. 23:9 YLT)

But Paul says:

For even if you had ten thousand others to teach you about Christ, you have only one spiritual father. For I became your father in Christ Jesus when I preached the Good News to you. (1 Cor. 4:15, NLT)

unifiedserenity.wordpress.com...


There is more but that is a list I had quick access to without even searching very hard.

a reply to: letmeaskyouaquestion
It's your thread. You have the theory, you don't quote verses.
1) Does one version of Christianity teach a god different from the other?
2) Does one version of Christianity teach a different Messiah Christ than the other?
3) What is salvation? Do the 2 versions define it differently?
4) Does Messiah Jesus of Nazareth son of Mary rule the World as King of Kings? Are there differences in the teachings?

The above questions are what I would take as substantive reasons. Every other contradiction is fluff.

originally posted by: Khaleesi
a reply to: In4ormant


Anything he wrote was an addition, since he wasn't really an Apostle. As for taking away ... Paul took away from the very words of Jesus.

Jesus said:

Matt 5:17-19



17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. 18 For verily I say unto you, Till* heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till* all be fulfilled. 19 Whosoever* therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

Paul said:
Ephesians 2:15, Colossians 2:14, 2 Cor. 3:11-17, Romans 7:1-3 et seq, and Galatians 3:19 et seq. The Law is “abolished,” “done away with,” “nailed to a tree,” “has faded away,’ and was “only ordained by angels…who are no gods.” If we were to cite Paul’s condemnations of the Law in one string, the point is self-evident that Paul abrogated the Law for everyone. See Eph. 2:15 (“setting aside in his flesh the law with its commands and regulations”); Col. 2:14 (“having blotted out the bond written in ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us: and he hath taken it out that way, nailing it to the cross;”) 2 Cor. 3:14 (“old covenant”); Gal. 5:1 (“yoke of bondage”); Rom. 10:4 (“Christ is the end of the law“); 2 Cor. 3:7 (“law of death”); Gal. 5:1 (“entangles”); Col. 2:14-17 (“a shadow”); Rom. 3:27 (“law of works”); Rom. 4:15 (“works wrath”); 2 Cor. 3:9 (ministration of condemnation); Gal. 2:16 (“cannot justify”); Gal. 3:21 (cannot give life); Col. 2:14 (“wiped out” exaleipsas); Gal. 3:19, 4:8-9 (“given by angels…who are no gods [and are] weak and beggarly celestial beings/elements”).

Jesus Says Only God Is Your Spiritual Father, and Call No Man on Earth Your Father, But Paul Says He Is The Corinthians’ Only Spiritual Father

Jesus said:

and ye may not call [any] your father on the earth, for one is your Father, who is in the heavens, (Matt. 23:9 YLT)

But Paul says:

For even if you had ten thousand others to teach you about Christ, you have only one spiritual father. For I became your father in Christ Jesus when I preached the Good News to you. (1 Cor. 4:15, NLT)

Jesus Says Only God Is Your Spiritual Father, and Call No Man on Earth Your Father, But Paul Says He Is The Corinthians’ Only Spiritual Father

Jesus said:

and ye may not call [any] your father on the earth, for one is your Father, who is in the heavens, (Matt. 23:9 YLT)

But Paul says:

For even if you had ten thousand others to teach you about Christ, you have only one spiritual father. For I became your father in Christ Jesus when I preached the Good News to you. (1 Cor. 4:15, NLT)

unifiedserenity.wordpress.com...


There is more but that is a list I had quick access to without even searching very hard.[/quote

Your stretching hard. Just as priests are called Father so was Pauls' reference.

You want to discredit it so bad that you will take the twisted musings of anything you can find on the Internet. I would pose the same question as the other poster. To what end?

originally posted by: pthena
a reply to: letmeaskyouaquestion
It's your thread. You have the theory, you don't quote verses.
1) Does one version of Christianity teach a god different from the other?
2) Does one version of Christianity teach a different Messiah Christ than the other?
3) What is salvation? Do the 2 versions define it differently?
4) Does Messiah Jesus of Nazareth son of Mary rule the World as King of Kings? Are there differences in the teachings?

The above questions are what I would take as substantive reasons. Every other contradiction is fluff.

1. Yes
2. Yes
3. Long and involved answer. Will get back to you later with that info.
4. Yes and Yes

a reply to: In4ormant

You asked a question. I showed you where Paul directly contradicts Jesus Christ, in effect removing Christ's words. It's in the Bible. Paul undid everything Christ said.

originally posted by: Khaleesi
a reply to: In4ormant

You asked a question. I showed you where Paul directly contradicts Jesus Christ, in effect removing Christ's words. It's in the Bible. Paul undid everything Christ said.

No he didnt. Your not looking at the context

-Paul preached the gospel of the grace of God (Acts 20.24; 1 Corinthians 15.1-4) and placed little emphasis on repentance or baptism in his evangelistic ministry.

-John the Baptist, Jesus, and the Twelve preached the gospel of the kingdom (Matthew 3.2, 4.17). This gospel was the long-anticipated and prophesied good news that the King of Israel had arrived. He would establish His kingdom on earth and rule the earth according to what Israel’s prophets foretold (Psalm 2.6, 8; Zechariah 14.9; Luke 1.31-33). Its focus was Jewish

-Paul emphasized the Church, the body of Christ. This terminology was entirely absent from the teaching of Jesus and the Twelve and unknown until the ascended Lord revealed it to Paul. It was new. Peter, James, John, Jude, etc., did not teach it and knew nothing of it until they learned about it from Paul.

-Paul’s last written words were, “The Lord will rescue me from every evil deed, and will bring me safely to His heavenly kingdom; to Him be the glory forever and ever. Amen” (2 Timothy 4.18). For Paul, God’s kingdom as related to the body of Christ was heavenly and wholly different from the earthly kingdom proclaimed by John the Baptist, Jesus, and the Twelve.

The idea that he had any intentions other than that which God bestowed upon him are ludicrous.