Is Paul a False Apostle?

G

Gyllis

Member
OK, I know Leo has been going on and on about  Paul being a false apostle and how the disciples disapproved of his teachings, etc. etc.  Now, I haven't read all the posts on the topic, and I hope to get through them all, soon.  However, it seems the debate is still going on.  Therefore, I took it upon myself to study this topic.  Here's what I have come up with so far.

Leo says that in Acts, the disciples disagreed with Paul and that the book is mainly about putting Paul down (so to speak).  However, if Luke (the author of Acts) did not believe that Saul was not confronted by Jesus and thus not converted, then why would he put that in the book?  Would he not have dismissed the idea or said it to be false?

Also, what did Peter think about Paul?  We believe Peter and his words, right?  How about this....

2 Peter 3:14-16 (The Message)

"So, my dear friends, since this is what you have to look forward to, do your very best to be found living at your best, in purity and peace. Interpret our Master's patient restraint for what it is: salvation. Our good brother Paul, who was given much wisdom in these matters, refers to this in all his letters, and has written you essentially the same thing. Some things Paul writes are difficult to understand. Irresponsible people who don't know what they are talking about twist them every which way. They do it to the rest of the Scriptures, too, destroying themselves as they do it."

Right there, doesn't Peter call Paul his brother and speak of his wisdom?  In many other versions (including KJV and NKJV), Peter calls Paul "our beloved brother."

It seems to me that Peter held Paul in high regard.  So if Paul was a false apostle, and any who listen to him are damned, then would'nt Peter be?
 
[b said:
Quote[/b] (Gyllis @ Nov. 06 2003,9:51)]OK, I know Leo has been going on and on about  Paul being a false apostle and how the disciples disapproved of his teachings, etc. etc.  Now, I haven't read all the posts on the topic, and I hope to get through them all, soon.  However, it seems the debate is still going on.  Therefore, I took it upon myself to study this topic.  Here's what I have come up with so far.

Leo says that in Acts, the disciples disagreed with Paul and that the book is mainly about putting Paul down (so to speak).  However, if Luke (the author of Acts) did not believe that Saul was not confronted by Jesus and thus not converted, then why would he put that in the book?  Would he not have dismissed the idea or said it to be false?

Also, what did Peter think about Paul?  We believe Peter and his words, right?  How about this....

2 Peter 3:14-16 (The Message)

"So, my dear friends, since this is what you have to look forward to, do your very best to be found living at your best, in purity and peace. Interpret our Master's patient restraint for what it is: salvation. Our good brother Paul, who was given much wisdom in these matters, refers to this in all his letters, and has written you essentially the same thing. Some things Paul writes are difficult to understand. Irresponsible people who don't know what they are talking about twist them every which way. They do it to the rest of the Scriptures, too, destroying themselves as they do it."

Right there, doesn't Peter call Paul his brother and speak of his wisdom?  In many other versions (including KJV and NKJV), Peter calls Paul "our beloved brother."

It seems to me that Peter held Paul in high regard.  So if Paul was a false apostle, and any who listen to him are damned, then would'nt Peter be?
Click to expand...
Dear Gylis,

Read the book the Acts. It is the Chronicle of how the Church was divided. Luke presents Paul as a murderer. He shows us Paul quarreling with everyone -- Barnabas, Mark, Peter, James. We have the disciples reporting back to Jerusalem that Paul was teaching his own Doctrines -- and that Peter approved it, "as long as he paid his dues" (and then in Luke's Gospel, Luke tells us that Jesus said to Peter "Satan get behind me because you care only about the things of the world and have no interest in things of the Spirit. Luke liked Peter almost less than he liked Paul -- but he was euphemistic about both -- or, over the centuries his narrative was watered down to what the committees could accept as doctrine.)

Every Protestant quotes 2 Peter 3:16 as though the people who misunderstand Paul would disagree with him. Huh? What Peter is saying, although very politely, is that Paul being difficult to understand -- means that his doctrines are difficult to reconcile to actual Christian Doctrine -- that Paul is bewildered at best. Peter says that ignorant people who are not solid on Real Christian Doctrine could follow Paul's Doctrines to their Destruction.

Read the Book of Acts -- there was a huge conflict between Paul's Faction of Gentile Churches in Greece and the genuine Church at Jerusalem. Then a famine his Jerusalem, and Paul was able to buy the Recognition of his Churches from a desparate and starving Jerusalem congregation. The Church was tested by Satan and it failed horribly.

So Peter's statement in 2 Peter 3:16 was that of a loser who acknowledged defeat in the game of politics, but couldn't resist the temptation to hint that his new Allie was actually still very much an enemy -- but couched enough in euphemism so that Paul wouldn't cut the famine relief supplies that were being shipped in.

So, anyway, was it right for Christian Doctrine to sell out to Paulian Doctrine just because they needed the money? Was the survival of that one local generation -- which didn't survive anyway, if you look at History, so important that we have half forgotten Christ in our worship of Paul?
 
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]"So, my dear friends, since this is what you have to look forward to, do your very best to be found living at your best, in purity and peace. Interpret our Master's patient restraint for what it is: salvation. Our good brother Paul, who was given much wisdom in these matters, refers to this in all his letters, and has written you essentially the same thing. Some things Paul writes are difficult to understand. Irresponsible people who don't know what they are talking about twist them every which way. They do it to the rest of the Scriptures, too, destroying themselves as they do it."
Click to expand...

I think the last part of that verse says very clearly that people like Leo will do this.

"Irresponsible people who don't know what they are talking about twist them every which way. They do it to the rest of the Scriptures, too, destroying themselves as they do it."


Seems Peter knew people would deny Paul's teachings.
wow.gif


Cory
 
Dear Thaddius,

Read the book the Acts. It is the Chronicle of how the Church was divided. Luke presents Paul as a murderer. He shows us Paul quarreling with everyone -- Barnabas, Mark, Peter, James. We have the disciples reporting back to Jerusalem that Paul was teaching his own Doctrines -- and that Peter approved it, "as long as he paid his dues" (and then in Luke's Gospel, Luke tells us that Jesus said to Peter "Satan get behind me because you care only about the things of the world and have no interest in things of the Spirit. Luke liked Peter almost less than he liked Paul -- but he was euphemistic about both -- or, over the centuries his narrative was watered down to what the committees could accept as doctrine.)

Every Protestant quotes 2 Peter 3:16 as though the people who misunderstand Paul would disagree with him. Huh? What Peter is saying, although very politely, is that Paul being difficult to understand -- means that his doctrines are difficult to reconcile to actual Christian Doctrine -- that Paul is bewildered at best. Peter says that ignorant people who are not solid on Real Christian Doctrine could follow Paul's Doctrines to their Destruction.

Read the Book of Acts -- there was a huge conflict between Paul's Faction of Gentile Churches in Greece and the genuine Church at Jerusalem. Then a famine his Jerusalem, and Paul was able to buy the Recognition of his Churches from a desparate and starving Jerusalem congregation. The Church was tested by Satan and it failed horribly.

So Peter's statement in 2 Peter 3:16 was that of a loser who acknowledged defeat in the game of politics, but couldn't resist the temptation to hint that his new Allie was actually still very much an enemy -- but couched enough in euphemism so that Paul wouldn't cut the famine relief supplies that were being shipped in.

So, anyway, was it right for Christian Doctrine to sell out to Paulian Doctrine just because they needed the money? Was the survival of that one local generation -- which didn't survive anyway, if you look at History, so important that we have half forgotten Christ in our worship of Paul?
 
I don't worship Paul. I only worship God.
And I don't think you read that whole passage. No where in that passage does he bad mouth Pauls teachings.
 
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]so important that we have half forgotten Christ in our worship of Paul?
Click to expand...
What about you? You say you are a marinist catholic. If I remember correctly that meens you worship Mary and believe she is a way to heaven. So have you not forgotton to worship Yeshua? Now we do not worship Paul as you accuse us of doing.
 
Leo

The reason why the Jerusalem church, does not like The Greecian Churchs, is because they are gentiles DOGS!. they are lower than low could be, you show bad herminutics when you say read acts. The Jerusalem church didnt even want the Samarians to be Christians, but Jesus said that the Apostles would be my witnesses in Jerusalem, all of Judea, Samaria, and to the ends of the earth, Acts 1:8(i think not sure about the verse)

So the problem in Acts is that the Jews didnt like the fact that an unciriumised gentile could come to their God. that these unclean unholy dirty people in the Jews eyes could even know God. But there are many in the Old testament that do.
its sad how you put Peter and Mary above all the other Apostles, they both have denied that Jesus was God's son, yeah Mary was told that, but she and his brothers went to take Him home because they said he was out of his mind. its in 3 out of the 4 Gospels. Peter denies Christ, as you have stated is told to get behind Jesus because Peter is satan, and he refused to eat "unclean" food when God had presented it to him, so God had to rebuke him.... great role models.

But with the 4 Gospels it doesnt matter much to you anyway they are only a referrance, not pure truth that is the Word of God or anything.....
 
[b said:
Quote[/b] (LionOfJudah @ Nov. 08 2003,11:48)]
Click to expand...
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]The reason why the Jerusalem church, does not like The Greecian Churchs, is because they are gentiles DOGS!.
Click to expand...

Gosh...where could they have gotten that from...could it be...Jesus?!?!

[b said:
Quote[/b] ]Peter denies Christ, as you have stated is told to get behind Jesus because Peter is satan, and he refused to eat "unclean" food when God had presented it to him, so God had to rebuke him.... great role models.
Click to expand...

Yet Jesus said he was going to build his church on Peter.
And Jesus never abolished the food laws.

Just a personal observation. Jews ARE still bound by the law, but goyum Christians are not. Not because Paul said so, but because they never were. Just a thought...

Anyway...heh.
 
If you look at the context of when Jesus says he will build the church on Peter, and look at the words in Greek it translates to I will build my Church on Those like you, in his attitude towards Christ, not directly on Peter himself, becuase if that was the case then it should of been Jesus and the Apostle.
 
leo is harmless because he is ignorant.
leo is as all men on earth and i do not exclude myself in this: currently insane.
But, as some of us are perhaps less so than others, then we who are not so greatly insane should STRIVE ALWAYS TO HELP THOSE WHO ARE.
So for leo, you and all the others i am here. amen
leo is harmless and can as far as i am concerned continue in his opinions.
in fact i would that he strive to bring more, so i can sort them out for the SHEEP OF THE LORD GOd JESUS CHRIST OF NAZARETH.
And where as i am nothing0, and unknown, the things i can explain by THE HOLY GHOST will stay in the hearts and minds of THE SHEEP. AMEN
Thankyou JESUS. AMEN
i am nothing0.
JESUS IS THE LORD1PRAISE THE LORD1THE LORD YESHUA. AMEN
 
What a show you have made of thyself!
IT is PERSONAL IF AND ONLY IF i DID NOT INCLUDE myself and others IN THE ATTACK.
IF i INCLUDE myself AND ALL OTHERS IN THE ATTACK, THEN BY DEFINATION IT IS PUBLIC.
BUT THIS ATTACK IS PERSONAL:WHY DON'T YOU BUY A DICTIONARY AND LEARN what words mean.
i am nothing0.
JESUS IS THE LORD1PRAISE THE LORD1THE LORD YESHUA. AMEN
 
[b said:
Quote[/b] (adelpit346 @ Nov. 08 2003,4:46)]leo is harmless because he is ignorant.
leo is as all men on earth and i do not exclude myself in this: currently insane.
But, as some of us are perhaps less so than others, then we who are not so greatly insane should STRIVE ALWAYS TO HELP THOSE WHO ARE.
So for leo, you and all the others i am here. amen
leo is harmless and can as far as i am concerned continue in his opinions.
in fact i would that he strive to bring more, so i can sort them out for the SHEEP OF THE LORD GOd JESUS CHRIST OF NAZARETH.
And where as i am nothing0, and unknown, the things i can explain by THE HOLY GHOST will stay in the hearts and minds of THE SHEEP. AMEN
Thankyou JESUS. AMEN
i am nothing0.
JESUS IS THE LORD1PRAISE THE LORD1THE LORD YESHUA. AMEN
Click to expand...
you are calling Leo ignorant, which is a personal attack on him. and CCGR has said that none of that will be tolerated here, so either drop it or you may be banned who knows
 
[b said:
Quote[/b] (LionOfJudah @ Nov. 08 2003,5:16)]
[b said:
Quote[/b] (adelpit346 @ Nov. 08 2003,4:46)]leo is harmless because he is ignorant.
leo is as all men on earth and i do not exclude myself in this: currently insane.
But, as some of us are perhaps less so than others, then we who are not so greatly insane should STRIVE ALWAYS TO HELP THOSE WHO ARE.
So for leo, you and all the others i am here. amen
leo is harmless and can as far as i am concerned continue in his opinions.
in fact i would that he strive to bring more, so i can sort them out for the SHEEP OF THE LORD GOd JESUS CHRIST OF NAZARETH.
And where as i am nothing0, and unknown, the things i can explain by THE HOLY GHOST will stay in the hearts and minds of THE SHEEP. AMEN
Thankyou JESUS. AMEN
i am nothing0.
JESUS IS THE LORD1PRAISE THE LORD1THE LORD YESHUA. AMEN
Click to expand...
you are calling Leo ignorant, which is a personal attack on him. and CCGR has said that none of that will be tolerated here, so either drop it or you may be banned who knows
Click to expand...
Please, don't ban anybody on my account. CCGR has cut me more than enough slack in that regards, and I would wish everyone to have the same latitude which is allowed myself. Most of the time insulting remarks are made not in cold deliberation, but in the heat of the moment after a long hard day. Don't overemphasize their importance or think that there is much real intent.
 
Little one you and i are also ignorant.
Go now and look up the meaning of the word.
it is NOT an attack but a matter of FACT.
ALL men OF GENIUS KNOW THERE IS NAUGHT BUT IGNORANT MEN.
bUT THE GENIUS KNOWS BY THE UNDERSTANDING OF HOW MUCH THERE IS TO LEARN, THEY ARE PERHAPS THE GREATEST OF IGNORANT men.
So i can easily say i am the most ignorant man in all the world.
Try harder little one.
i am nothing0.
JESUS IS THE LORD1PRAISE THE LORD1THE LORD YESHUA. AMEN
 
Come now leo, no one would bother to ban me on your accont!
It is for the TRUTHE i have bought i get excuminicated(that is what being banned is).
BUT not to take away the potential benefits you would receve by my absence, which of course is PROVED by your false humility, you may continue to dance gleefully at what MIGHT occur
i am nothing0 and fear NO man.
JESUS IS THE LORD1PRAISE THE LORD1THE LORD YESHUA. AMEN
 
[b said:
Quote[/b] (adelpit346 @ Nov. 08 2003,4:46)]leo is harmless because he is ignorant.
leo is as all men on earth and i do not exclude myself in this: currently insane.
But, as some of us are perhaps less so than others, then we who are not so greatly insane should STRIVE ALWAYS TO HELP THOSE WHO ARE.
So for leo, you and all the others i am here. amen
leo is harmless and can as far as i am concerned continue in his opinions.
in fact i would that he strive to bring more, so i can sort them out for the SHEEP OF THE LORD GOd JESUS CHRIST OF NAZARETH.
And where as i am nothing0, and unknown, the things i can explain by THE HOLY GHOST will stay in the hearts and minds of THE SHEEP. AMEN
Thankyou JESUS. AMEN
i am nothing0.
JESUS IS THE LORD1PRAISE THE LORD1THE LORD YESHUA. AMEN
Click to expand...
I'm ignorant.

I back up everything I say.

Just look at how I construct my Posts. No mere assertion. first, I tell you what I wish to talk about. Then I supply an argument. Then I discuss ramifications and conclusions. Then I add an interesting anecdote or observation, if there is one. Then I sum up with a confident exclamation that I had succeeded in demonstrating what I had set out to show. All of this is hardly the procedure used by 'the Ignorant'.

But, wait, now that I read further, you claim that you are insane. Well, after that, why do we bother to pay any attention to you. If you are cognitively malfunctional, then we could perhaps pray for you, but trying to reason with you would be a lost cause -- you can't set the time on a broken clock.

But, as a warning to others who aren't quite insane -- do not pretend that your judgments are given you by the Holy Spirit, unless you have the Holy Spirit. Can you walk on water? Can you command a Mountain to move? No! Then you do not have the Holy Spirit. It really is not an unfair test. There have been many Catholic Saints who could have passed such a test for the Holy Spirit.

So, until we do have the Holy Spirit, we should discern the Truth as well as we can with our ordinary faculties. It is like the Parable of the Talents. God does not give each of us 5 Talents. To some it is just one or two. But we are still obligated to do the best with what we got.

We overemphasize the importance of the Individual. We must remember that The Church is the Vine of Christ and we are only the Branches and Leaves. It may not be our place to the ones which Blossom and Bear the Fruit of the Holy Spirit. It may rather be our job to provide nourishment to the Vine by our Prayers and Penance so that Another may be energized to Manifest the Holy Spirit.

The Most Miraculous Saint in History was Saint Vincent Ferrer who called Himself the Angel of Judgment (Rev 14). Every day for Him brought a thousand Christ like Miracles. You know what His secret was. He had a troupe of 10,000 Ascetics who would travel with him -- scourging themselves with whips and praying the entire time. They were fueling him with their Penances. So when we look at the Phenomena of the Holy Spirit, in this case, we need to appreciate that it wasn't a matter of the Individual. The Holy Spirit was generated within the Entire Community but only found expression through Vincent Ferrer. Without the 10,000 there would have been no expression.
 
You back up everything you say?  Maybe but it's rarely backed up with scripture.  It's backed up with 'anecdotal' support, and the witness of those who enjoy smacking themselves.


hmm..again Peter said that all Christians would have the Holy Spirit, and that we  receive it at conversion (but it's in that annoying Bible book you don't like reading isn't it...)
 
[b said:
Quote[/b] (Kidan @ Nov. 08 2003,9:49)]You back up everything you say?  Maybe but it's rarely backed up with scripture.  It's backed up with 'anecdotal' support, and the witness of those who enjoy smacking themselves.


hmm..again Peter said that all Christians would have the Holy Spirit, and that we  receive it at conversion (but it's in that annoying Bible book you don't like reading isn't it...)
Click to expand...
Peter was wrong about alot of stuff.

It is the most obvious thing in the World that not one Christian in a million has the Holy Spirit.

We know what the Holy Spirit can do.  For Protestants who don't have reference to the Catholic Saints, just think about Jesus.  the Holy Spirit will invest a Saint with the Powers of Christ and the Mystical Knowledge of Holy Things.

So, what went wrong?  Why doesn't each Christian evince the Holy Spirit?

It may be that the Holy Spirit runs through us all like sap in the Vine of Christ, but that most of us are mere leaves.  The good we can do is to add nourishment to the Vine in our Prayers and Penances.  It is God who will decide which members of the Vine become the Actual Fruit.

Did you read my reference to Saint Vincent Ferrer and his 10,000 ascetic penitents.  Vincent Ferrer was the most Miraculous Saint in the History of the World -- but you can't separate him from his 10,000 penitents who committed to him all the Merits of their voluntary sufferings.  Oh, by the way, though pain is certainly pain, one of Vincent Ferrer's greatest sources of honest pride was that even though his 10,000 would whip themselves bloody day in and day out, it was extremely rare that any ever got sick.

so, this is a generous way of looking at the Holy Spirit -- that the Holy Spirit takes from us as well as gives.  But in the case of Protestants, what would the Holy Spirit have to take.  Protestants do not believe in the necessity for penance and think repetitive prayer done in atonement for Sin to be an abomination in itself.  so the Protestant Vine must certainly be withered.

Lately, with the Ecumenicalism of Vatican II, now Catholics rarely do penance.  Since Padre Pio -- who died before Vatican II -- Catholicism has not generated the Spiritual Power to produce a Fruitful Example of a Saint Manifesting the Powers of the Holy Spirit.

It takes the prayers and penances of an Entire Church -- an Entire Society -- to make One Good Saint.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top