Paul vs. Satan's Servants

a reply to: TerriblePhoenix

Paul was not talking about the original 11 plus the one that were apostles (some were already killed and dead by this time), nor the four brothers of Jesus By this time well after 55 ad there were lots of men going around claiming to be this or that teaching that the resurrection had already past subverting the faith of many.

Paul is correcting their claims while boasting his own based on their claims to be someone. they were teaching a different Jesus an different gospel and the people were falling for it.

What you have done is twist it to say something it does not. for some agenda you are not stating straight forward.

You don't believe the Bible so why are you even trying to debate it or use it to prove Paul a liar?

Come on answer the question, why re you using a book you don't believe?

a reply to: ChesterJohn

If you say so Chester.

But honestly there is no doubt who he was talking about, he called the apostles of Christ counterfeit and Satan's servants.

I am not going to buy some attempt at sophistry that doesn't resolve anything even though sophistry is supposed to, it's just a bunch of your words trying desperately to deny what is obvious.

It is what you do.

Besides saying "Paul wasn't" talking about the apostles when he was and even said counterfeit apostles OF CHRIST.

AND denied inferiority to them. You don't deny inferiority to people who are imposters, his problem is that the people he is writing to are siding with the circumcision faction or the followers of the apostles, as he lovingly calls them on several occasions, and he is smearing them.

They weren't being deceived by some unknown fake Christians in the first century that he doesn't name he means the literal apostles of Christ.

You are rationalizing because you are indoctrinated to believe Paul was a real apostle but he was their enemy and you prefer your beliefs (opinions) to the actual words of the Bible.

Satan's servants was directed at the apostles, it is not possible to prove otherwise because that is what it says.

In context.

originally posted by: ChesterJohn
a reply to: TerriblePhoenix

Paul was not talking about the original 11 plus the one that were apostles (some were already killed and dead by this time),

Where in the New Testament is it recorded that any of the 12 apostles after Judas died?

You have no scripture to support this claim.

nor the four brothers of Jesus By this time well after 55 ad there were lots of men going around claiming to be this or that teaching that the resurrection had already past subverting the faith of many.

Recorded by what first century historian?

There is a mention in the later Apocalypse that some in Ephesus made the claim of being an apostle, quite possibly Paul and his gang, but other than that no mention in the time or place of that epistle of any such people exists.

Who are these fake apostles of Christ of your imagination?

That is called inventing stories about things the Bible doesn't record, at this time the only preachers of the Messiah were the apostles and disciples. It was not even mentioned by historians of the first century unless Josephus is counted and he doesn't mention any fake apostles or apostles, just James and Jesus.

It was not worth more than a mention to him either which is suspicious considering the minute details he goes into about things of nothing of importance

Paul was the only false apostle and is definitely accused of it because he defends himself against accusations of lying about that and many things.

You got no evidence.

Paul is correcting their claims while boasting his own based on their claims to be someone. they were teaching a different Jesus an different gospel and the people were falling for it.

What you have done is twist it to say something it does not. for some agenda you are not stating straight forward.

How can I twist printed words? I supplied quotes and location, have twisted nothing just pointed out a fact.

You don't believe the Bible so why are you even trying to debate it or use it to prove Paul a liar?

Come on answer the question, why re you using a book you don't believe?

It always comes down to what I believe with you which is, again, irrelevant.

You have no evidence for your claims and there is no reason to think some historically unknown fake apostles were the subject of Paul's insults other than to lie for Paul and commit pious fraud.

a reply to: TerriblePhoenix

Ac 12:1 ¶ Now about that time Herod the king stretched forth his hands to vex certain of the church.
2 And he killed James the brother of John with the sword.

Now be logical the average life span at that time was 35-40 years. All we have are supposed records of the Roman church (which I don't trust).

But the Gentile churches were being over ran by all sorts of Charlatans (not Paul) who were claiming apostleship and taking advantage of the people.

Actually you are the only false prophet I know of.

a reply to: ChesterJohn

That doesn't prove who Paul was talking about it just takes the discussion off course.

I don't care who was dead or alive, but the Bible doesn't record any apostolic deaths except Judas.

So it's meaningless speculation and irrelevant as as long as some apostles were alive he was talking about them.

And as far as the Bible is concerned and Paul himself the apostles were alive, regardless of possible deaths of any, when he wrote.

So any of them having died is a theory and meaningless either way.

originally posted by: ChesterJohn
a reply to: TerriblePhoenix

Ac 12:1 ¶ Now about that time Herod the king stretched forth his hands to vex certain of the church.
2 And he killed James the brother of John with the sword.

Now be logical the average life span at that time was 35-40 years. All we have are supposed records of the Roman church (which I don't trust).

But the Gentile churches were being over ran by all sorts of Charlatans (not Paul) who were claiming apostleship and taking advantage of the people.

Actually you are the only false prophet I know of.

Besides the Acts quote, already addressed by me and irrelevant to the subject of Paul's comments, you are guessing.

And it shows as you make it personal again and again that you have no logical argument to defend Paul with but speculation based off unrelated matters, namely, one or a few apostles having died.

Plenty were alive while Paul wrote and one dead disciple doesn't change the subject of Paul's insults and is unrelated in any way.


Boy, that was well thought out!

a reply to: TerriblePhoenix

Where in the New Testament is it recorded that any of the 12 apostles after Judas died? You have no scripture to support this claim.

The Apostle James Zebedee who was the brother of the Apostle of John Zebedee was murdered by Herod. The date that is generally accepted by most accredited scholars is 44 CE.

Act 12:1 Now about that time Herod the king stretched forth his hands to vex certain of the church.
Act 12:2 And he killed James the brother of John with the sword.

Saul/Paul was converted in 37 CE and visited Peter and James the Nasi in Jerusalem three years later which would be in 40 CE. The Apostle of Jesus [Paul] was last heard of in 66 CE so in that window of between 40 CE to 66 CE was recorded as Paul still active. The Apostle James Zebedee was killed 4 years after the Apostle Paul started his evangelizing. So yes it is recorded in the bible that the Apostle James did die about 12 years after Jesus and Judas died.

originally posted by: Seede
a reply to: TerriblePhoenix

Where in the New Testament is it recorded that any of the 12 apostles after Judas died? You have no scripture to support this claim.

The Apostle James Zebedee who was the brother of the Apostle of John Zebedee was murdered by Herod. The date that is generally accepted by most accredited scholars is 44 CE.

Yes, I know. It didn't matter yesterday and it doesn't matter today as ghast! I temporarily forgot about the one apostolic death recorded in the Bible.

Like I said it has nothing to do with Paul calling however many of Christ's apostles Satan's servant, who he feel he is not inferior to.

Thanks though.

Act 12:1 Now about that time Herod the king stretched forth his hands to vex certain of the church.
Act 12:2 And he killed James the brother of John with the sword.

Saul/Paul was converted in 37 CE and visited Peter and James the Nasi in Jerusalem three years later which would be in 40 CE. The Apostle of Jesus [Paul] was last heard of in 66 CE so in that window of between 40 CE to 66 CE was recorded as Paul still active. The Apostle James Zebedee was killed 4 years after the Apostle Paul started his evangelizing. So yes it is recorded in the bible that the Apostle James did die about 12 years after Jesus and Judas died.

Great, when the facts are against you change the subject right?

If only that one dead disciple had anything to do with the topic... oh if.

a reply to: ChesterJohn
a reply to: Seede

Seed don't feed this troll. Paul wasn't even speaking about the 11 plus the one. this is all nonsense from person who does to believe any version of the Bible let alone the preserved words of God. you can't debate a book that he doesn't even believe in the least is true. Just let him go on in the end he will be banned again.

I do see what you mean ChesterJohn. There seems to be a conspiracy of sorts on these two religious forums and cannot get to the root of it at a keyboard. There is a movement throughout the world that wants to destroy the Christianity of our Lord Jesus and in doing so they must destroy Saul/Paul. By destroying Paul they can then feel confident to destroy the others who mention Paul and then move on to the less known scriptures and do the same. It's a systematic method of cutting off the head and let the body die. Paul is the head of the Gentile movement just as he was given that charge in his conversion. In fact that was his mission in life.

Some of these movements also include Jews as well as various Gentile organizations and for that reason it gets my attention when I see Paul bashing. I am convinced that this attacking Paul is not random, in most cases, and actually is programed by other organizations. ATS seems to have certain members who love to disrupt the exchange of theological discussions which should be the intention of this forum. In this case of TerriblePhoenix, all of his threads that I have read are full of misinformation and even when proven wrong he becomes a mad hat and resorts to insults.

So my recourse is to try to show the other readers that certain understandings of his and other Paul dissenters are not rooted in the scriptures as they may understand. By ignoring these types of mistaken readers I would be allowing lies to continue unchallenged. That is what they want. They want a free pass to continue their lies unchallenged. This is why I suspect that this is not a random attack but is an orchestrated attack. It's really not about Paul but is about Jesus as far as I can understand.

a reply to: Seede

There is no conspiracy, just a new generation of people who read and think for themselves and do not try and deny what is clear.

Who don't rely on preachers for guidance as it's not difficult for anyone without an attachment to churchianity to read the New Testament and discover the truth.

Whatever is unknown is unknown but it is just a matter of reading a book like a book and not jumping around from quotes.

When done with the normal approach to reading Paul is clearly a bad guy and not telling the truth.

He believes his lies abound to God's glory, his words.

They are lies.

a reply to: Seede



It's only fair, Orthodox Christianity has had plenty of time to tell the truth, many Orthodox theologians have the guts to admit Paul was a different religion from Jesus and the 12, scholars know it whether they are Christians or not though some like you and ChesterJohn are fond of the denial as they make a living enforcing theology as scholars, though they are actually "Christian scholars" and not Bible scholars, a big difference.

Anyone can take a class to become a certified Christian scholar without college, unless you count Bible college, which is a joke that gives many a huckster the reason to call himself a Dr. of Theology.

Nevertheless it's in the cloud and in the Bible if you look closely, that Paul is a false apostle.

And called the real apostles counterfeit though he also adds he is not inferior to the chiefest of the (counterfeit) apostles so he is clearly being polemical against the apostles.

His concern with status leads to the obvious conclusion he is not talking about false apostles as why would he concern himself with his status among actual imposters and call them chiefs with a chiefest, more or less, the leader of the apostles is the chiefest apostle and this is before he goes on to call them counterfeit and Satan's servants.

No indication is given to believe he is talking about a different group when he moves from chiefest or arch apostles to counterfeit and a reading of the book tells the reader they are the same apostles, using common sense and logic and not the belief that there were 13 apostles in one movement.

It was 12 apostles and an angry false prophet losing support.

Saved by Rome and popularized by Marcione the heretic leading Paul to be called by I believe Tertullian the "apostle to the heretics" even though he was Roman Orthodox.

Heretics inspired by a heretic who had no support in Jerusalem.

originally posted by: ChesterJohn
a reply to: TerriblePhoenix

Ac 12:1 ¶ Now about that time Herod the king stretched forth his hands to vex certain of the church.
2 And he killed James the brother of John with the sword.

Now be logical the average life span at that time was 35-40 years. All we have are supposed records of the Roman church (which I don't trust).

But the Gentile churches were being over ran by all sorts of Charlatans (not Paul) who were claiming apostleship and taking advantage of the people.

No, not in the time Paul was writing were anyone claiming to be apostles of Christ or accused of being false apostles except for the arch, super, most eminent, chiefest apostles that Paul cries about being inferior, claiming superiority while trying hard to sound humble about it.

The Corinthians simply listened to the true Gospel of the Kingdom of God from the real Apostles of the Christ and realized Paul was two faced and he is writing to convince them he has the revealed true gospel.

They don't seem to be followers of Paul and it is downright pathetic how jealous he is of those who knew Christ. And desperate to win back his former converts.

Maybe if you had some evidence of a different sect of apostles of Christ at the time of the writing of Corinthians who were winning over the converts of Paul you are just guessing.

While a straight forward interpretation makes it obvious he is taking about "those who SEEMED to be pillars, whatever they are means nothing to me..."

Which is a quote about James, Peter and John.

Calls Peter and Barnabas hypocrites, Barnabas an important disciple and his sponsor with the apostles who would not see him until Barnabas intervened.

Complains about the men of James being sent to spy. The Judaizing circumcision faction that kept the law for themselves and were lenient towards non Jews.

Complained about the letter(s) sent from Jerusalem.

The evidence is conclusive and your denial is a refusal to admit you missed it all these years.

I get that, it's best to go with the truth though, it will set you free.

PAUL is the false apostle, one rejected in Ephesus and by "all those who are in Asia."

Actually you are the only false prophet I know of.

I would first need to claim to be a prophet, which I have not done, to be a false prophet.

Compared to your imaginary false super apostles Paul is insecure about and jealous of that you can't identify I would say you are trying to make up New Testament era history and false prophesied the past inventing historical people that are not named.

No need for Paul to name who everyone knows he is taking about as the apostles of the Christ were the subject of his scribal wrath.

0nce again a Person that does not believe the Bible wants to teach us who do believe it what it really says.

Troll and a hack been banned so many times and yet ATS allows this one to come again and again. You live in a fantasy land and trollsville.

originally posted by: ChesterJohn
0nce again a Person that does not believe the Bible wants to teach us who do believe it what it really says.

Troll and a hack been banned so many times and yet ATS allows this one to come again and again. You live in a fantasy land and trollsville.

Insulting me will bring me no displeasure, nay, an insult from you is a compliment.

But you need to stay on topic.

Paul calling the apostles Satan's servants, or another of his myriad insults towards the true apostles will do.

Since you can't show I am wrong and are using the Pauline tactic of insult to try and discredit I will let it slide, as that is topic related.

Because it didn't work in Corinth and it won't work here, maybe you should get help from the RCC because they included Paul and not the Nazarenes, they rejected the false prophet.

It is too bad you can't show any valid reason for saying Paul was talking about someone else due to the Bible disagreeing with you maybe my beliefs should not be your concern.

Yours are another matter, look at how Christianity has made you arrogant, rude, insulting, clueless of facts, and not a decent person at all.

No humility, despising all truth?

You don't know Christ bro.

a reply to: TerriblePhoenix

He was calling false apostles not the 11 plus 1 or the four brothers of Jesus or any of the other apostles mentioned in Romans 16. He was specifically targeting false teachers claiming to be apostles who had not the evidences or the calling of an apostles as he and the 12 and the others had.

sleep well