The apostle Paul

Originally posted by ahosyney
I don't know why you switched the talk to be about my faith and Quran. The topic of the thread has nothing to do with that. And I was just discussing your ideas about Paul.

As many pointed here , those who believed in Paul who choosed what to be in the Bible, and what not to be. You don't know what was written into these books, and you don't know what a ommon.

So what you believe now was not the common thing just after Jesus...[/b]

Again, I would ONLY be impressed if the original 12 apostles clashed with the theology of Paul. I care little in terms of other "Christians" who claim to be followers of Christ. After all, whether you are a Chrisitan or a Muslim one must conceede that the true teachings regarding what Chrsit actually said have been maligned by others to say the least. However, we know that the 12 disciples were true followers of Christ because they were eye witnesses and Christ called them his followers except one who was Judas.

Originally posted by ahosyney
I have some questions :

according to what you believe,

Before Paul and the 12 apostles meet:

1- Which of the four Gospels used by the 12 apostles?
2- Which of the four Godpels used by Paul?
3- Which of the Paul's messages did the students use?
4- What change did happen after their meeting?

Do the sequences of what happened matter? Does it matter when the gospels were written? Does having the 12 gospels not written down imply that the truth was not known about them? I think not.

One could say that the 12 disciples of Jesus were influenced by Paul. In fact, you could even argue that they were influenced enough by Paul to abandon the teachings of Jesus. If so, what kind of mentor would that have made Christ? I say it would have made him a rather poor mentor and/or a poor judge of character. After all, if the 12 forsook their Master and his teachings, then ALL was lost in terms of why he chose them as his 12 in the first place.

Again, show me the MONEY! Show me documents that pit Paul against the original 12!!!

Originally posted by whodey
What???????? Paul did not meet any of the 12 apostles? What of Acts chapter 15? It is clear in this chapter that they did encounter one another and did agree in terms of their theology. Here is where most loose me when trying to seperate Paul from the other 12. First of all, they were contemporaries. They appeared to have interacted in terms of Biblical ...[text shortened]... n any one muster PROVEN documents written by any of the 12 that couterdict the theology of Paul?

My bad, Paul did meet some of them, but during Jesus time as a
man among us no he did not, that is at least there isn't a record of
it.
Kelly

Originally posted by whodey
Again, I would ONLY be impressed if the original 12 apostles clashed with the theology of Paul. I care little in terms of other "Christians" who claim to be followers of Christ. After all, whether you are a Chrisitan or a Muslim one must conceede that the true teachings regarding what Chrsit actually said have been maligned by others to say the least. Howe ...[text shortened]... because they were eye witnesses and Christ called them his followers except one who was Judas.

Again, I would ONLY be impressed if the original 12 apostles clashed with the theology of Paul.

Ok, I will make short:

Read the first to chapter from the book to Galatians, it tells us the following:

1- Paul didn't meet any of the 12 apostles untill 3 years after cliaming to meet Jesus. And in this meeting he only met Peter and Jacob. And it appears he didn't discuss anything with them.

2- The begining of chapter 2 tells us that he showed the apostles his Gospels after 14 years of preaching. And the remaining of the chapter clearly indicated unagreement between Paul and Peter.


(KJV)(Galatians)(Gal-2-11)(But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.)

(KJV)(Galatians)(Gal-2-12)(For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision.)

(KJV)(Galatians)(Gal-2-13)(And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation.)

(KJV)(Galatians)(Gal-2-14)(But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?)

And the book itself was written after this meeting. So if the message tells us that there was a clash between Paul and Peter, how can you say that Peter agreed with what Paul wrote into this Book.

I think this article is highly relevant to the discussion here. It examines whether Paul offers amplifications and explanations of the teachings of Jesus, or whether he distorted those teachings.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pauline_Christianity

Originally posted by whodey
Do the sequences of what happened matter? Does it matter when the gospels were written? Does having the 12 gospels not written down imply that the truth was not known about them? I think not.

One could say that the 12 disciples of Jesus were influenced by Paul. In fact, you could even argue that they were influenced enough by Paul to abandon the teachi ...[text shortened]... place.

Again, show me the MONEY! Show me documents that pit Paul against the original 12!!!

Again, show me the MONEY! Show me documents that pit Paul against the original 12!!!

The second example:

Look at the book of acts , chapter 21:

(KJV)(Acts)(Acts-21-18)(And the day following Paul went in with us unto James; and all the elders were present. )

(KJV)(Acts)(Acts-21-19)(And when he had saluted them, he declared particularly what things God had wrought among the Gentiles by his ministry. )

(KJV)(Acts)(Acts-21-20)(And when they heard it, they glorified the Lord, and said unto him, Thou seest, brother, how many thousands of Jews there are which believe; and they are all zealous of the law: )

(KJV)(Acts)(Acts-21-21)(And they are informed of thee, that thou teachest all the Jews which are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, saying that they ought not to circumcise their children, neither to walk after the customs. )

(KJV)(Acts)(Acts-21-22)(What is it therefore? the multitude must needs come together: for they will hear that thou art come. )

(KJV)(Acts)(Acts-21-23)(Do therefore this that we say to thee: We have four men which have a vow on them; )

(KJV)(Acts)(Acts-21-24)(Them take, and purify thyself with them, and be at charges with them, that they may shave their heads: and all may know that those things, whereof they were informed concerning thee, are nothing; but that thou thyself also walkest orderly, and keepest the law. )

(KJV)(Acts)(Acts-21-25)(As touching the Gentiles which believe, we have written and concluded that they observe no such thing, save only that they keep themselves from things offered to idols, and from blood, and from strangled, and from fornication. )

(KJV)(Acts)(Acts-21-26)(Then Paul took the men, and the next day purifying himself with them entered into the temple, to signify the accomplishment of the days of purification, until that an offering should be offered for every one of them. )

I think you see what is happening here. The apostles didn't agree with Paul's teaching about circumcise and customs of the law. They asked him to purify himself for his sin. And he did.

If they agreed with Paul why did they do that? And why did Paul went to the temple to purify himself if his teachings are from Jesus.

Originally posted by ahosyney
[b]Again, I would ONLY be impressed if the original 12 apostles clashed with the theology of Paul.

Ok, I will make short:

Read the first to chapter from the book to Galatians, it tells us the following:

1- Paul didn't meet any of the 12 apostles untill 3 years after cliaming to meet Jesus. And in this meeting he only met Peter and Jacob. And it between Paul and Peter, how can you say that Peter agreed with what Paul wrote into this Book.[/b]

The thing I'd like you to keep in mind I'll give a few scriptures to
show this.

(New International Version) BibleGateway.com
Psalm 143:10
Teach me to do your will, for you are my God; may your good Spirit lead me on level ground.

John 1:32-34
32Then John gave this testimony: "I saw the Spirit come down from heaven as a dove and remain on him. 33I would not have known him, except that the one who sent me to baptize with water told me, 'The man on whom you see the Spirit come down and remain is he who will baptize with the Holy Spirit.' 34I have seen and I testify that this is the Son of God."

Luke 10:21
At that time Jesus, full of joy through the Holy Spirit, said, "I praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children. Yes, Father, for this was your good pleasure.

John 14:25-27
25"All this I have spoken while still with you. 26But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you. 27Peace I leave with you; my peace I give you. I do not give to you as the world gives. Do not let your hearts be troubled and do not be afraid.

The point being that Paul was/is one of us, though led by the Spirit
of God as any man/woman/child can be; God through the Spirit taught
Him many things. Simply not being Christ does not mean that Jesus
cannot enlighten you to God's truth through the Holy Spirit.
Kelly

Originally posted by whodey
Do the sequences of what happened matter? Does it matter when the gospels were written? Does having the 12 gospels not written down imply that the truth was not known about them? I think not.

One could say that the 12 disciples of Jesus were influenced by Paul. In fact, you could even argue that they were influenced enough by Paul to abandon the teachi ...[text shortened]... place.

Again, show me the MONEY! Show me documents that pit Paul against the original 12!!!

Do the sequences of what happened matter?

After my last two exmples I can answer your Question now...

Yes sure it matters. If the books written of Paul written after his meeting with the Apostles then how can you tell that the 12 apostles agreed with him. As I showed in the Acts , they didn't like his teaching and asked him to purify himself.

So it is clear now that Paul didn't really agree with the 12 apostles but what he did that he show agreement but continue to preach with his own teachings.

And as the source of the current NT is only Paul , then we don't have any of the other apostles writings then we can't compare.

Is it clear now?

Originally posted by ahosyney
[b]Do the sequences of what happened matter?

After my last two exmples I can answer your Question now...

Yes sure it matters. If the books written of Paul written after his meeting with the Apostles then how can you tell that the 12 apostles agreed with him. As I showed in the Acts , they didn't like his teaching and asked him to purify himself.
...[text shortened]... we don't have any of the other apostles writings then we can't compare.

Is it clear now?[/b]

I do not think it is clear Paul disagreed with the 12, can you show
some examples of these disagreements?
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
I do not think it is clear Paul disagreed with the 12, can you show
some examples of these disagreements?
Kelly

Look at my last three posts ....

Originally posted by ahosyney
[b]Again, I would ONLY be impressed if the original 12 apostles clashed with the theology of Paul.

Ok, I will make short:

Read the first to chapter from the book to Galatians, it tells us the following:

1- Paul didn't meet any of the 12 apostles untill 3 years after cliaming to meet Jesus. And in this meeting he only met Peter and Jacob. And it ...[text shortened]... between Paul and Peter, how can you say that Peter agreed with what Paul wrote into this Book.[/b]

Yes, I honestly believe Peter would have admitted he was in the wrong.
Kelly

Originally posted by ahosyney
[b]Again, show me the MONEY! Show me documents that pit Paul against the original 12!!!

The second example:

Look at the book of acts , chapter 21:

[i](KJV)(Acts)(Acts-21-18)(And the day following Paul went in with us unto James; and all the elders were present. )

(KJV)(Acts)(Acts-21-19)(And when he had saluted them, he declared particularly o that? And why did Paul went to the temple to purify himself if his teachings are from Jesus.[/b]

[/i]I think you really need to read this much more closely you are not
getting the point of these scriptures you are pointing to for an
example of disagreement. I would not for example eat pork infront
of someone who couldn't because of their beliefs, nor would I attempt
to temp them to do that or anything that would do damage to thier
souls because for them it would be a sin, even though I have the
freedom too.

If it were a matter of Law and Law alone why they were not attempting
to say it was the Law that made us 'right before God' why than did
they say they were not going to put that burden upon the Gentiles
which believed? Gentiles were attempting to join the fold, they could
have done that without Jesus if it were only a matter of Law, the Law
was there before Jesus, as it was after He died and rose again.
Kelly

Originally posted by ahosyney
[b]Do the sequences of what happened matter?

After my last two exmples I can answer your Question now...

Yes sure it matters. If the books written of Paul written after his meeting with the Apostles then how can you tell that the 12 apostles agreed with him. As I showed in the Acts , they didn't like his teaching and asked him to purify himself.
we don't have any of the other apostles writings then we can't compare.

Is it clear now?[/b]

Paul was not the only source of Paul, as Peter talks about him as does
Luke too who also travelled with him for some time, so your complaints
are not clear.
Kelly

Originally posted by ahosyney
[b]Again, show me the MONEY! Show me documents that pit Paul against the original 12!!!

The second example:

Look at the book of acts , chapter 21:

[i](KJV)(Acts)(Acts-21-18)(And the day following Paul went in with us unto James; and all the elders were present. )

(KJV)(Acts)(Acts-21-19)(And when he had saluted them, he declared particularly o that? And why did Paul went to the temple to purify himself if his teachings are from Jesus.[/b]

Your point is well taken. In fact, Paul did get into arguements over whether the Jews should continue some of the pracitces of the Law of Moses. After all, these men were raised via Jewish tradition. For example, they were taught to circumcise themselves and such. In fact, these types of disputes continue in the church today. For example, should Christians honer the Sabbath? Should we do any work on the Sabbath? Should we circumcise ourselves? Should women adorn themselves or remain covered or plain? However, as Christians, disputes such as these are inevitable because we are all prone to error. In fact, I think you will find that every faith has similar disputes. Islam also has disputes within the confines of the Quran. However, what makes someone a Muslim? Is it not adhering to the interpreted teachings of Mohammad? Granted, there are disputes regarding some of his teachings, but it is his teachings that are being followed. Likewise, the teachings of Christ are what are being followed by both Paul and James and the rest of Christiandom. One says that we must still adhere to the Jewish laws and customs and the other says otherwise. However, what the main issue revolves around is the resurrection. What does God require of us in order to be "saved"? What did James think in terms of the resurrection of Christ? Did he believe in it? If so, was he placing his faith in the resurrection in regards to his salvation or soley upon adhering to the Law of Moses? If the later is so, then James would not be considered a Christian. However, if James placed his hope in the resurrection of his Lord but continued to think that God wanted him to continue the Jewish law and customs anyway, then he would be considered a Christian. Therefore, my challenge to you is to find me written authentic evidence that ANY of the 12 disciples did not place their hope in the resurrective power of Jesus Christ for their salvation. In my opinion, if you can do this, you would shadder the modern day Christian faith to peices.

Just a word of warning. Christ was also accused of breaking the Sabbath. After all, he was doing a "work" when he healed on the Sabbath. Christ did not even try to argue otherwise, rather, Christ argued that what was important was the spirit of the law which was based in love and love for his fellow man was the reason he was healing on the Sabbath. The spirit of the law was that the Sabbath was made for man, not the other way around. Sometimes we can become so wrapped up in the letter of the law that we forget why we have the law or what it was intended for.

Originally posted by kirksey957
Paul gets a bad wrap because he speaks from the culture of his time and some of what he says is foreign to the culture of this time, at least in some places.

I have been trying to say this forever here on RHP!

Roman society (the general time period in which Paul lived) was patriarchal (and that is an understatement, and saying that it is an understatement is an understatement) and intolerant of much that has gained (rightful) tolerance over the years (for example, homosexuality).

But that is my opinion, and I know many on this site who continue to disagree with me.