FULL film - The Historical Case for Paul: A Critique of Muslim Arguments: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gPRQcmbuVWA
Jeffrey Daugherty's "Apostle Paul Antichrist" Theory Debunked: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LAYojlpW2gI
A Messianic Jew (I assume) by the name of jcabra19 began commenting on the subject of Paul claim he was a false apostle.
You can find Keith and other's comments here: https://www.youtube.com/all_comments?v=Qz-2eDaQlzI (Link is defunct), jcabra's comments however are absent, but thanks to YouTube's message system, I can respond to some comments made. Let's begin (My comments are in brackets):
"(" OK, You are not a Rabbinic Jew, that's fine and I never said Rabbinic Judaism is Biblical,")
But your picture of "Answering Judaism" is very indicative that you are correlating Rabbinic Judaism with ALL of Judaism. If thats the case, then we can easily conclude that catholicism is representative of all of Christendom."
My website pertains to responding to Rabbinic Judaism. Messianic Judaism on the other hand I seldom respond to, except for the heretical groups among them. I do not consider Messianic Judaism as an abomination as a whole. There are aberrant sects within Messianic Judaism, such as Anti-Trinitarians, Judaisers, Pelagian and Semi-Pelagians and Anti-Paul Theologians which are an abomination and there are solid Messianics such as Jacob Prasch and Arnold Fruchtenbaum. I would encourage individuals to watch Prasch's videos called "The New Galatians" which I think will be a great help.
Not every messianic group I am against, for the most part, there are messianics who are alright. The name of my ministry and the blog itself pertain SPECIFICALLY to Rabbinic Judaism.
"("Why is it in Acts 9 Jesus tells Ananias the following")
What Paul claims to Luke about Ananias is as suspicious as why the same words told to Paul in Acts 26 are again the same words told to Ananias in Acts 9. Paul some how now magically transposes what was told to Ananias in Acts 9, and now claims it was told to him in chapter 26. Yet he somehow doesn't feel the need to mention that The Messiah said these very words to him (Paul) in chapters 9 and 22 of his "conversion"?"
Read on:
"Acts 9: 17 Then Ananias went to the house and entered it. Placing his hands on Saul, he said, “Brother Saul, the Lord—Jesus, who appeared to you on the road as you were coming here—has sent me so that you may see again and be filled with the Holy Spirit.” 18 Immediately, something like scales fell from Saul’s eyes, and he could see again. He got up and was baptized, 19 and after taking some food, he regained his strength."
Do you not think Ananias would NOT tell Paul this information? Ananias relays the information to Paul like a proxy, ergo, Paul get's his information from Jesus through Ananias. Read Acts 9 again:
"5 “Who are you, Lord?” Saul asked.
“I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting,” he replied. 6 “Now get up and go into the city, and you will be told what you must do.”
7 The men traveling with Saul stood there speechless; they heard the sound but did not see anyone. 8 Saul got up from the ground, but when he opened his eyes he could see nothing. So they led him by the hand into Damascus. 9 For three days he was blind, and did not eat or drink anything."
Here are the points of Acts 22 and 26:
"Acts 22:6 “About noon as I came near Damascus, suddenly a bright light from heaven flashed around me. 7 I fell to the ground and heard a voice say to me, ‘Saul! Saul! Why do you persecute me?’
8 “‘Who are you, Lord?’ I asked.
“ ‘I am Jesus of Nazareth, whom you are persecuting,’ he replied. 9 My companions saw the light, but they did not understand the voice of him who was speaking to me.
10 “‘What shall I do, Lord?’ I asked.
“ ‘Get up,’ the Lord said, ‘and go into Damascus. There you will be told all that you have been assigned to do.’ 11 My companions led me by the hand into Damascus, because the brilliance of the light had blinded me.
12 “A man named Ananias came to see me. He was a devout observer of the law and highly respected by all the Jews living there. 13 He stood beside me and said, ‘Brother Saul, receive your sight!’ And at that very moment I was able to see him.
14 “Then he said: ‘The God of our ancestors has chosen you to know his will and to see the Righteous One and to hear words from his mouth. 15 You will be his witness to all people of what you have seen and heard. 16 And now what are you waiting for? Get up, be baptized and wash your sins away, calling on his name.’"
and
"Acts 26:12 “On one of these journeys I was going to Damascus with the authority and commission of the chief priests. 13 About noon, King Agrippa, as I was on the road, I saw a light from heaven, brighter than the sun, blazing around me and my companions. 14 We all fell to the ground, and I heard a voice saying to me in Aramaic,[a] ‘Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me? It is hard for you to kick against the goads.’
15 “Then I asked, ‘Who are you, Lord?’
“ ‘I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting,’ the Lord replied. 16 ‘Now get up and stand on your feet. I have appeared to you to appoint you as a servant and as a witness of what you have seen and will see of me. 17 I will rescue you from your own people and from the Gentiles. I am sending you to them 18 to open their eyes and turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan to God, so that they may receive forgiveness of sins and a place among those who are sanctified by faith in me.’"
Here are the points of Acts 22 and 26:
"Acts 22:6 “About noon as I came near Damascus, suddenly a bright light from heaven flashed around me. 7 I fell to the ground and heard a voice say to me, ‘Saul! Saul! Why do you persecute me?’
8 “‘Who are you, Lord?’ I asked.
“ ‘I am Jesus of Nazareth, whom you are persecuting,’ he replied. 9 My companions saw the light, but they did not understand the voice of him who was speaking to me.
10 “‘What shall I do, Lord?’ I asked.
“ ‘Get up,’ the Lord said, ‘and go into Damascus. There you will be told all that you have been assigned to do.’ 11 My companions led me by the hand into Damascus, because the brilliance of the light had blinded me.
12 “A man named Ananias came to see me. He was a devout observer of the law and highly respected by all the Jews living there. 13 He stood beside me and said, ‘Brother Saul, receive your sight!’ And at that very moment I was able to see him.
14 “Then he said: ‘The God of our ancestors has chosen you to know his will and to see the Righteous One and to hear words from his mouth. 15 You will be his witness to all people of what you have seen and heard. 16 And now what are you waiting for? Get up, be baptized and wash your sins away, calling on his name.’"
and
"Acts 26:12 “On one of these journeys I was going to Damascus with the authority and commission of the chief priests. 13 About noon, King Agrippa, as I was on the road, I saw a light from heaven, brighter than the sun, blazing around me and my companions. 14 We all fell to the ground, and I heard a voice saying to me in Aramaic,[a] ‘Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me? It is hard for you to kick against the goads.’
15 “Then I asked, ‘Who are you, Lord?’
“ ‘I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting,’ the Lord replied. 16 ‘Now get up and stand on your feet. I have appeared to you to appoint you as a servant and as a witness of what you have seen and will see of me. 17 I will rescue you from your own people and from the Gentiles. I am sending you to them 18 to open their eyes and turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan to God, so that they may receive forgiveness of sins and a place among those who are sanctified by faith in me.’"
Is Paul contradicting himself here? No. His information came from Jesus via Ananias as a proxy. If a postman delivers a letter or parcel from a friend of yours, you can say "I received this parcel from my friend". You don't have to specify who gave you the letter, you just have to say who sent the letter via an individual. This is the scenario we have in the context of the book of Acts. Jesus coming to Paul on the road and the mission is given to Paul through Ananias by Jesus later.
Next point.
"I might as well ask you why "jesus" say's what "he" say's to his disciples in the book of nephi."
Red herring, we are not dealing with heretic Mormon books, we are dealing with biblical Christian documents. Plus there is reason to dismiss Joseph Smith which i'll get into later.
"("This is Jesus telling Ananias that HE appointed Paul. Do you dare speak against Jesus on this?")
No this is Paul's account as recorded by Luke, of whom was not an eye witness to this very happening. And The Messiah said that Heaven and Earth would disappear before The Law would go away, yet you so readily believe so by the word of a pharisee? And you ask ME if "I" dare to speak against Him on that? Thats very hypocritical of you."
Regarding Matthew 5:17-20:
"Firstly, Let's deal with the text regarding Jesus' words in Matthew 5:17-20 which are misused.
"17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19 Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20 For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven."
Jesus is not disregarding the OT as a whole as irrelevant, he is making the point that it is pointing to him and he is not coming to remove the Law or the Prophets, as some would presume. He goes on to say that ALL must be accomplished, namely his mission of redemption, both his first coming and second and what he will do in those comings, like dealing with sin on the cross, thus paying the debt to God that we owe. He came to fulfill what was written and some of those ordinances have been fulfilled in him." http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2013/11/observance-of-torah-demanded-of-gentiles.html
There is nothing suggesting to us that GENTILES are told to keep everything in the Torah. The Law is a guide, it's still there, but has been fulfilled. Read the article above for more information on Torah observance.
"("You also strawmanned my point about Paul,")
No I didn't. You blindly accept Paul as a legitimate Apostle for no other reason that his books are canonized through the process of your own religions choosing. And again, since that is the case you should as well accept the accounts of EVERYONE who's ever made such claims with no proof."
No, It is not blind acceptance, I gave you Biblical writings to back up my points that Paul was a true apostle. Again, I am not asking EVERYONE's accounts to be accepted.
"("If Jesus and the APOSTLES acknowledged Paul as a true apostle, then your argument is refuted.")
If they infact did, then yes. But because NO WHERE does The Messiah or HIs Apostles call Paul an Apostle, ever, then your supposed refutation is lacking."
They still acknowledge him as a fellow co-worker. The word Apostle doesn't just refer to the 12, it can also refer to other individuals.
As Thompson himself notes:
"All “apostle” means is one who is sent as a representative of another and bears the authority of the sender (Kittel’s Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, Volume 1, [Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1964-1976], p. 421). Many people in the New Testament describe Paul this way without using the word “apostle.” Also, out of all the mentions of James the Lord’s brother in the New Testament, he is only called an apostle once (Galatians 1:19)."Jeffrey Daugherty’s “Apostle Paul Antichrist” Theory Debunked: http://www.exegeticalapologetics.com/2018/05/jeffrey-daughertys-apostle-paul.html).
"All “apostle” means is one who is sent as a representative of another and bears the authority of the sender (Kittel’s Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, Volume 1, [Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1964-1976], p. 421). Many people in the New Testament describe Paul this way without using the word “apostle.” Also, out of all the mentions of James the Lord’s brother in the New Testament, he is only called an apostle once (Galatians 1:19)."Jeffrey Daugherty’s “Apostle Paul Antichrist” Theory Debunked: http://www.exegeticalapologetics.com/2018/05/jeffrey-daughertys-apostle-paul.html).
The onus of proof is one you to demonstrate he was a false teacher.
"("Let me reitirate a point I made to a Rabbinic Jew on Paul")
Enough with this "Rabbinic Jew", you've got your hands full with the subject at hand . Don't strawman this argument by addressing a quarell you had with someone else and determine through your own reasoning that your self viewed defeat of their argument, some how transposes here."
My comments towards of the Rabbinic Jew ARE relevant to my point I was making to you: Let me repeat it:
"Paul's revelation by him going to the apostles could be verified by them particularly, because they themselves had walked with Jesus, were aware of what he taught and thus could judge Paul correct or incorrect based on their masters teaching."
Paul was alive when the apostles were, The apostles themselves could put Paul under examination to see if their doctrine and his match. If they didn't, The apostles would repudiate he was saying and your point about Paul would be true. But as the evidence provided by the New Testament shows, Paul is innocent and not guilty of heresy
"("then the apostles would have to reject him just like the other candidates you mentioned.")
1John 2:19 speaks tons as to who did not continue with them. Isn't it peculiar that Paul proclaims that his mission was not with the others? And whats even funnier about this reply is that it is packed with nothing but conjecture. If your trying to substantiate an argument based on "if's and woulds", you have a better chance of establishing SDA doctrines than proving your point."
("Muhammad and the others cannot speak to the apostles, thus it is very easy to deny their claims when comparing them to Paul.")
Your bringing up a muslim prophet and accusing me of straw manning?"
It's not a strawman. You used the book of Nephi, A Mormon document, which doesn't work in your argument against Paul.
Muhammad, Joseph Smith or any other crackpot who exists today DON'T have the backing of the apostles and they cannot confirm their revelation to individuals, whereas Paul himself could stand before the apostles and they themselves could judge him as a true believer. "If" and "would" in the context I am using them are not ones of uncertainty or possibility, but certainty. I am not being uncertain about Paul, I am certain about him. And my article above on Torah Observance responds to SOME SDA arguments but not all.
What text does he say that his mission was not with the others?
"("Additionally in 2nd Peter 3:16, Peter treats Paul's writings as authoritative as the TANAKH")
1. Did you ever wonder why your earliest church fathers denounced the second Petrine epislte (2 Peter) as being pseudepigrapha? Its because it sharpens the contrast between true Messianic adherence and Pauline dogma. And here are the points being addressed."
And this is relevant how?
"A.2Peter1:16-18: The fact Peter mentions that they did not devise a cunning "tale" concerning The Messiah, but were infact eye witness to Him, puts Pauls vision into question as he was blinded during his experience. With verse 18 being illustrative of the contrast of The Apostles actually hearing His voice, as opposed to Paul's companions not hearing anything."
Already made the point about Ananias himself baptizing Paul and filling him with the spirit and the apostles recognizing him having Christ's stamp of approval. Since the apostles were alive, they could verify Paul's gospel as true to other individuals.
B.2Peter1:20 also addresses Paul's blatant abusive use of prophetic writings to further his false doctrines. Example, what is written in Deut27:26, is not correctly reflected by Paul's supposed quote as in Gal3:10. And this is just one instance of many."
As for Galatians 3:10, Read the context:
"3 You foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you? Before your very eyes Jesus Christ was clearly portrayed as crucified. 2 I would like to learn just one thing from you: Did you receive the Spirit by the works of the law, or by believing what you heard? 3 Are you so foolish? After beginning by means of the Spirit, are you now trying to finish by means of the flesh?[a] 4 Have you experienced[b] so much in vain—if it really was in vain? 5 So again I ask, does God give you his Spirit and work miracles among you by the works of the law, or by your believing what you heard? 6 So also Abraham “believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.”[c]
7 Understand, then, that those who have faith are children of Abraham. 8 Scripture foresaw that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, and announced the gospel in advance to Abraham: “All nations will be blessed through you.”[d] 9 So those who rely on faith are blessed along with Abraham, the man of faith.
10 For all who rely on the works of the law are under a curse, as it is written: “Cursed is everyone who does not continue to do everything written in the Book of the Law.”[e] 11 Clearly no one who relies on the law is justified before God, because “the righteous will live by faith.”[f] 12 The law is not based on faith; on the contrary, it says, “The person who does these things will live by them.”[g] 13 Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us, for it is written: “Cursed is everyone who is hung on a pole.”[h] 14 He redeemed us in order that the blessing given to Abraham might come to the Gentiles through Christ Jesus, so that by faith we might receive the promise of the Spirit."
Paul's point to the Gentiles in Galatians 3:10 is that if you try to seek JUSTIFICATION before a holy God by keeping of the law, you will fail, THAT is his point. Peter is not anathematizing Paul, he is simply saying that the prophecies in the Old Testament didn't come about because of a prophet's own imagination and ideas.
Just read 2 Peter for yourself:
"2 Peter 1:19 We also have the prophetic message as something completely reliable, and you will do well to pay attention to it, as to a light shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts. 20 Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet’s own interpretation of things. 21 For prophecy never had its origin in the human will, but prophets, though human, spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit."
""C.2Peter2:1-2. The destructive heresy's that Peter is addressing can be co related to no one else but Paul. As he is the only one teaching the abrogation of The Law, which IS denial of The Messiah as He HImself said they would not pass till Heaven and Earth disappear. Not to mention that Paul deny's G-d by claiming "he became their father (1Cor4:15), and claiming the prophecy in Isaiah49 is applicable to him, as opposed to admitting it as a prophecy of The Messiah."
Isaiah 49 applies to both the Messiah and the Righteous Remnant of Israel. The context of that servant song has a twofold application. Paul's application of Isaiah 49 wouldn't refute the Messianic application given by Christians.
The Messiah is made a light to the nations and so will also those who put their trust in the Messiah, i.e Paul, considering he was one of the many among the righteous remnant of Israel.
Paul is not denying God when he says he became their father in 1 Corinthians 4:
"1 Corinthians 4:14 I am writing this not to shame you but to warn you as my dear children. 15 Even if you had ten thousand guardians in Christ, you do not have many fathers, for in Christ Jesus I became your father through the gospel. 16 Therefore I urge you to imitate me. 17 For this reason I have sent to you Timothy, my son whom I love, who is faithful in the Lord. He will remind you of my way of life in Christ Jesus, which agrees with what I teach everywhere in every church."
Paul is a father to the Corinthians in the sense that he presented the Gospel to them, Jesus used him for the purpose of hmm I don't know... MAKING DISCIPLES OF ALL NATIONS!!! Also Paul doesn't replace THE FATHER in heaven as the Christian's spiritual father. More of jcabra's eisegisis.
Paul is not denying God when he says he became their father in 1 Corinthians 4:
"1 Corinthians 4:14 I am writing this not to shame you but to warn you as my dear children. 15 Even if you had ten thousand guardians in Christ, you do not have many fathers, for in Christ Jesus I became your father through the gospel. 16 Therefore I urge you to imitate me. 17 For this reason I have sent to you Timothy, my son whom I love, who is faithful in the Lord. He will remind you of my way of life in Christ Jesus, which agrees with what I teach everywhere in every church."
Paul is a father to the Corinthians in the sense that he presented the Gospel to them, Jesus used him for the purpose of hmm I don't know... MAKING DISCIPLES OF ALL NATIONS!!! Also Paul doesn't replace THE FATHER in heaven as the Christian's spiritual father. More of jcabra's eisegisis.
"D.2Peter2:4-9 Addresses men of righteousness, of which Paul seems to think otherwise according to Rom3:10. The same men who had to come across THE LAWLESS and persevered (2Tim1:15). Lawless, here being the key word, which mirror's Paul voidance of such Laws."
Those who were righteous in the context of 2 Peter 2:4-9 were righteous due to God, not in and of themselves. Also, The men mentioned in the context of the letter had left Paul but NOT because he was apostate.
"2 Timothy 1:15 You know that everyone in the province of Asia has deserted me, including Phygelus and Hermogenes.
16 May the Lord show mercy to the household of Onesiphorus, because he often refreshed me and was not ashamed of my chains. 17 On the contrary, when he was in Rome, he searched hard for me until he found me. 18 May the Lord grant that he will find mercy from the Lord on that day! You know very well in how many ways he helped me in Ephesus."
What does this have to do with Paul being a sinner?
An interesting point has been noted by Thompson:
"Moreover, all Paul is saying is while imprisoned in Rome for the second time because of his gospel labors, no one in Asia would visit him in prison or not be ashamed of his chains. The next verse proves this when it says, in contrast to v. 15, “he [Onesiphorus] often refreshed me and was not ashamed of my chains.” So, while Asians like Onesiphorus were not ashamed of Paul’s chains and would visit him, no one else from Asia did. Thus, in his depression, Paul exaggerates by hyperbolically interpreting this as all Asians “abandoning” him. This was because, as William Mounce notes, “. . .the Asians did not want to be associated with a state criminal, perhaps because they feared suffering the same fate. . .” (William D. Mounce, Pastoral Epistles, ed. Ralph P. Martin, Lynnn Allan Losie, Word Biblical Commentary, Vol. 46, [Thomas Nelson, Inc., 2000], p. 494). Nothing in the text says the Asians stopped believing he was an apostle or that he was a spy creating a new world order etc. This is again absurd eisegesis – reading things into the text that are not there." http://www.exegeticalapologetics.com/2018/05/jeffrey-daughertys-apostle-paul.html
"E.2Peter2:9-12. In addition, Peters's portrayal of people who despise authority cannot be none other than Paul, as he himself constantly downplayed the other Apostles, more importantly Peter. This parsha also addresses Paul's uncalled for attack on Angels (Rom8:38/1Cor4:9/1Cor6:3...etc), as he does call them "weak and beggarly elements" Gal4:9"
WHERE does he downplay the apostles? Plus Paul is not attacking the angels at all in those contexts quoted. Where is the mockery or attack on them?
"Romans 8:38 For I am convinced that neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons,[a] neither the present nor the future, nor any powers, 39 neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord."
Putting aside whether or not a person can remove themselves from the Father's hand, Paul is not mocking the angels, Those who are in Christ cannot be swiped from the love of God by external forces, demonstrating how powerful God is.
As for the other references:
"1 Corinthians 4:8 Already you have all you want! Already you have become rich! You have begun to reign—and that without us! How I wish that you really had begun to reign so that we also might reign with you! 9 For it seems to me that God has put us apostles on display at the end of the procession, like those condemned to die in the arena. We have been made a spectacle to the whole universe, to angels as well as to human beings. 10 We are fools for Christ, but you are so wise in Christ! We are weak, but you are strong! You are honored, we are dishonored! 11 To this very hour we go hungry and thirsty, we are in rags, we are brutally treated, we are homeless. 12 We work hard with our own hands. When we are cursed, we bless; when we are persecuted, we endure it; 13 when we are slandered, we answer kindly. We have become the scum of the earth, the garbage of the world—right up to this moment."
"1 Corinthians 6 If any of you has a dispute with another, do you dare to take it before the ungodly for judgment instead of before the Lord’s people? 2 Or do you not know that the Lord’s people will judge the world? And if you are to judge the world, are you not competent to judge trivial cases? 3 Do you not know that we will judge angels? How much more the things of this life! 4 Therefore, if you have disputes about such matters, do you ask for a ruling from those whose way of life is scorned in the church? 5 I say this to shame you. Is it possible that there is nobody among you wise enough to judge a dispute between believers? 6 But instead, one brother takes another to court—and this in front of unbelievers!"
Where is the mockery of angels or hatred for authority? It's not there. Paul is talking about what will transpire later in chapter 6, He is rebuking the Corinthians because of their poor discipline and getting them to think about what they are doing. I am not even sure how chapter 4 refutes Paul.
"F.2Peter2:13-16 With Paul's many abusive misquotations of The Writings, its easy for Gentile's to be "seduced" into taking Pauls words on prophecy's. Peter also say's that he has left the "straight way", that is to say the following of The Apostles teachings known as "The Way". But the hardest evidence against Paul is the co relation that Peter makes to Balaam. Because like Paul, Balaam was on a road to persecute G-d's chosen people(Acts26:11), he was stopped by an Angel(Acts26:13), and ultimately taught that eating food sacrificed to idols was permissible(1Cor8). Paul is the New Testament Balaam. In addition, Peter say's that these people are an "accused BROOD". Now where else have you heard the word "BROOD"? Thats right, from The Messiah Himself when speaking of the pharisee, of which Paul made claim."
Paul and Balaam's circumstances where different. Balaam died an accursed death whereas Paul died the death of a holy martyr, so your point is is moot. Paul gave himself to the Lord after his conversion and did not deviate from him for the rest of his life. It is interesting that rather than say Paul is an accursed brood like Balaam, Peter actually states that Paul is his brother later on, which we'll get to soon.
1 Corinthians 8 shall be looked at another time if the Lord Wills.
"G. 2Peter2:18-22. I could only imagine who else Peter could be speaking about who constantly boast (2Cor9:2/2Cor10:8-13/ 2Cor11:16), yet it should be obvious. And in verse 21, Peter say's that this person would have been better off not knowing THE WAY of RIGHTEOUSNESS, notice righteousness is mentioned in the contexts of acts, not faith alone. Furthermore, this same person abandoned the "sacred command that was passed on to them". Its funny that Paul claims in Gal2:10 that he was only instructed to remember the poor, but the same is not reflected in Acts 15. He was instructed to teach his disciples to observe dietary restriction."
Paul's boasting has nothing to do with the boasting as a false teacher would, Why don't you accurately read what Paul is saying. Oh that's right if you did that your position would crumble, wouldn't it jcabra
As for Galatians 2
"6 As for those who were held in high esteem—whatever they were makes no difference to me; God does not show favoritism—they added nothing to my message. 7 On the contrary, they recognized that I had been entrusted with the task of preaching the gospel to the uncircumcised,[a] just as Peter had been to the circumcised.[b] 8 For God, who was at work in Peter as an apostle to the circumcised, was also at work in me as an apostle to the Gentiles. 9 James, Cephas[c] and John, those esteemed as pillars, gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship when they recognized the grace given to me. They agreed that we should go to the Gentiles, and they to the circumcised. 10 All they asked was that we should continue to remember the poor, the very thing I had been eager to do all along."
There is no contradiction between this and the Acts 15 council, Acts 15 was settling a dispute among Jewish and Gentile Christians as to whether or not the Gentiles were to observe Torah or not. This is addressed in the Torah observance article I have written: http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2013/11/observance-of-torah-demanded-of-gentiles.html
The way of righteousness is not a reference to the Acts 15 council, nor is it addressing Justification by faith alone, it is referring to the path that an individual was once on, their walk with God, they obedience to him etc.
Galatians 2 just simply refers to the task that the individual disciples were given and Paul doesn't that "he was instructed to remember the poor", He actually says that he and the other apostles were to remember the poor whilst they were on their mission to preach the Gospel.
"2 Corinthians 9 There is no need for me to write to you about this service to the Lord’s people. 2 For I know your eagerness to help, and I have been boasting about it to the Macedonians, telling them that since last year you in Achaia were ready to give; and your enthusiasm has stirred most of them to action. 3 But I am sending the brothers in order that our boasting about you in this matter should not prove hollow, but that you may be ready, as I said you would be. 4 For if any Macedonians come with me and find you unprepared, we—not to say anything about you—would be ashamed of having been so confident. 5 So I thought it necessary to urge the brothers to visit you in advance and finish the arrangements for the generous gift you had promised. Then it will be ready as a generous gift, not as one grudgingly given"
"2 Corinthians 10:12 We do not dare to classify or compare ourselves with some who commend themselves. When they measure themselves by themselves and compare themselves with themselves, they are not wise. 13 We, however, will not boast beyond proper limits, but will confine our boasting to the sphere of service God himself has assigned to us, a sphere that also includes you. 14 We are not going too far in our boasting, as would be the case if we had not come to you, for we did get as far as you with the gospel of Christ. 15 Neither do we go beyond our limits by boasting of work done by others. Our hope is that, as your faith continues to grow, our sphere of activity among you will greatly expand, 16 so that we can preach the gospel in the regions beyond you. For we do not want to boast about work already done in someone else’s territory. 17 But, “Let the one who boasts boast in the Lord.”[c] 18 For it is not the one who commends himself who is approved, but the one whom the Lord commends.."
The boasting that Paul is speaking of in these contexts his BOASTING ABOUT OTHERS, not himself, What you have is boasting in a POSITIVE context, not a negative one.
The context of Paul's boasting in 2 Corinthians 11 is him defending himself against false teachers who maligning him, slandering him and falsely accusing him of spreading false teachings, to which he points out the suffering he has endured for the sake of Christ and the effort he has put in to get the Gospel to others. He is defending himself against the accusations of such people
Grace to You makes an interest observation on boasting here: http://www.gty.org/resources/Print/Sermons/47-78
" H.2Peter3:1-2. Peter compels the recipients to remember The Prophets and Teachings, especially those by The Apostles whom The Messiah chose. Paul never once mentions any teaching's of The Messiah while He was on Earth."
Hello, Jesus said he would give his life as ransom for many (Hence his death on the cross for our sins), WHICH PAUL AFFIRMS. It's a lie to say Paul "never once mentions any teaching's of The Messiah while He was on Earth."
"I.2Peter3:3-8. It seems here that the recipients are under the impression that His return is at any second. This could have come from on one else but Paul (Rom13:12). 1Thes4:16-18 say's we who are ALIVE twice, this really indicates that Paul believes that The Messiah would return before his death. And since he did not return in such a timely fashion as Paul describes, it leaves his disciples to scrutiny from others."
Paul is not indicating that Jesus is returning any second, that is not an accurate representation of what he is saying.
"Romans 13:11 And do this, understanding the present time: The hour has already come for you to wake up from your slumber, because our salvation is nearer now than when we first believed. 12 The night is nearly over; the day is almost here. So let us put aside the deeds of darkness and put on the armor of light. 13 Let us behave decently, as in the daytime, not in carousing and drunkenness, not in sexual immorality and debauchery, not in dissension and jealousy. 14 Rather, clothe yourselves with the Lord Jesus Christ, and do not think about how to gratify the desires of the flesh.[c]"
"1 Thessalonians 4:16 For the Lord himself will come down from heaven, with a loud command, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet call of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first. 17 After that, we who are still alive and are left will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And so we will be with the Lord forever. 18 Therefore encourage one another with these words."
In the context of Romans 13 Paul is warning his congregation of the approaching coming of Jesus and while he says the day is almost here, he doesn't mean it will happen at any second and in the context of 1 Thessalonians Paul is telling us WHAT happens when Jesus comes, NOT WHEN. Know the difference. Paul did not live say "Oh he'll come any second". In fact, the second letter he writes the Thessalonians, he corrects that misunderstanding:
"2 Concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered to him, we ask you, brothers and sisters, 2 not to become easily unsettled or alarmed by the teaching allegedly from us—whether by a prophecy or by word of mouth or by letter—asserting that the day of the Lord has already come. 3 Don’t let anyone deceive you in any way, for that day will not come until the rebellion occurs and the man of lawlessness[a] is revealed, the man doomed to destruction. 4 He will oppose and will exalt himself over everything that is called God or is worshiped, so that he sets himself up in God’s temple, proclaiming himself to be God."
Paul is dealing with a misconception that arose among the church that Jesus could come any minute and Paul corrects the Thessalonians on this point, saying that Jesus will not come UNTIL certain events has happened. Such a far cry from what jcabra was saying.
"J.2Peter3:10-13. Now, if your under the impression that The Law is done away due to the murder of The Messiah, even though He say's Heaven and Earth would go first. These verses reinforce that perspective. Peter describes HOW Heaven and Earth will pass, of which leaves to conclude that it has not occurred yet. Thus leaving Paul's doctrine of The Law to question."
My point about Matthew 5:17-20 has already been covered above.
"K.2Peter3:15-16. The coup de gras for the Christian reply to Sau'ls invalidity as an Apostle. I have shown you from the first chapter, all the way up till now how Peters letter addresses many inconsistencies that congregants have had to deal with, of which mirror Pauline doctrines.
(a)"And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.""
So where do you see that Peter call's Paul an "Apostle"? No where, he call's him a brother. Paul does this as well, yet they are not Apostles. Moreover, he say's that the wisdom given him is hard to understand, now to those who are believers, why would this be hard? Its because The Father is not the author of confusion, and his revelations are not from Him. Now, in order for you to conclude that Peter is speaking of people who are unstable, you must believe that the word "they" is referring to them. Yet "they" is referring to Paul's epistles, of which have been dissected from the first verse. Of which provably distort scriptures as We have proven here. "
No all you have done is show you are an abominable heretic who is willing to twist the Bible to discredit Paul. Shame on you and you'd better repent. I will address the verse you quoted in a moment.
BTW, Thanks for refuting yourself, Peter calls Paul a brother, thus he is a brother in the faith and NOT a false teacher. The they that are mentioned in Peter's epistle are referring to false teachers and heretics generally, It's not a reference to Paul.
In fact the very verse actually condemns you jcabra along with these false teachers, let me explain:
1. Peter says Paul had wisdom given to him and wrote unto the apostles.
2. Paul's letters can be misunderstood.
3. Unstable and ignorant people distort them.
Sounds very similar to what you are doing jcabra, you are distorting Paul's own letters to your destruction, Just as Peter said many would. And you want to tell me that Peter is repudiating Paul, when he himself in that letter confirms THE OPPOSITE of what you are saying? Your entire tirade against Paul and using 2 Peter as the letter to refute Paul COMPLETELY DISARMS your points against Paul in the first place. You technically in light of this have said nothing.
"L .2Peter3:17. "Ye therefore, beloved, seeing ye know these things before, beware lest ye also, being led away with the error of the wicked, fall from your own stedfastness." Im going to draw your attention to the word "wicked". The word for wicked in Hebrew is "רָשָׁע", it means one who is guilty of sin. And according to 1John, sin is transgression against The Law. And the Greek word "ἄθεσμος" means LAWLESS. No coincidence that Paul teaches that following The Law is no longer necessary."
Show me in the New Testament where Gentiles are to observe the Torah in it's entirety? The only commands that are carried over are the ones reiterated in the New Covenant. Read here: http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2013/11/observance-of-torah-demanded-of-gentiles.html
You have to determine contextually WHICH laws from the Torah are carried over, not assume they all apply.
I challenge ANYONE to read 2 Peter in context and show me exegetically and biblically how Paul is condemned in that letter, because it's simply not there.
"("Either way, the early Christians accepted Paul's writings as authoritative, including such men as Ignatius of Antioch, who was a student of John the Apostle.")
Ignatius of Antioch is as provably a disciple of John as the popes claim to Apostolic lineage to Peter. And early christians accepted Paul's writings because it allowed them to ignore The Law, and they were BOUND by Constantine to accept as their emperor believes. But if your going to take the word on an anti semite, of whom spawned more Jew hating believers than himself, then be my guest."
What has this got to do with Ignatius' testimony that he is a disciple of John? The Roman Catholics claim to Peter being the Pope has nothing to do with confirming Ignatius is a student of the apostle John or not. Constantine did JACK ALL with Christianity and the only thing he ever did was call a council together, he had NO say in anything at any council AND HAS NOTHING to with Christianity.
Your dismissal of Ignatius as an anti-semite is nothing more than smoke and mirrors. No he should NOT of been anti-semitic but it doesn't change the fact that he saw Paul as a true believer and apostle, as did John, James and Peter and the other apostles.
"("Only Paul himself can be verified as reliable with respect to seeing Jesus and being a true believer and apostle in light of what I have said above. No other can make this claim.")
Yet you have to neglect The Messiah's own Words regarding how many witnesses is needed to establish any matter as true. And exactly how many witnesses did Paul have when he was miraculously "converted"?"
I covered how Paul can be verified as reliable already and if you are going to use the witnesses argument, you might as well condemn the apostles because they didn't witness his miraculous conversion firsthand. They witnessed the fruits of his conversion even though they didn't see the conversion when Ananias came to him. Also, whose to say that Ananias was the ONLY one who saw Paul?
"("If this is written by Peter, once again, you have an apostle of the Lord Jesus refuting you. If you are going to accept Jesus, you have to accept not only the apostles teaching, but Paul's as well.")
This is the heart of the matter yet again. Your WHOLE position is based on if's, but we KNOW 2 Peter was not written by Peter, that is fact. Even your own church fathers disputed that.
And If I accept The Messiah, why do I also have to accept someone who teaching contrary to what He say's Himself? You have a self defeating argument, because NO WHERE do any of The Apostles teach as Paul does in any manner concerning The Law. Neither does The "OT" Scriptures support what Paul claims."
Again, My "ifs" are not uncertain ifs. You miss my point. Regardless of who 2nd Peter was written by is irrelevant to the fact that it's a document THAT AFFIRMS the reliability of Paul. Best scenario, Peter wrote it, worst case, a contemporary of the apostles.
FYI, Since you have read my responses to Yisroel Blumenthal, you should know I already point at that the disciples themselves CONFIRM Paul to be true and not one trying to get people away from Jesus. Read them again because I refuse to repeat the points made in those papers.
"("Are you saying we CAN'T understand what Paul is saying and thus have to read on a surface level without understanding him? Surface level understanding of a text is not exegetical, you need to read in context and seek to understand it more than simply looking at the text on it's own. ")
What I Am saying is that your OWN interpretation of what Paul is saying is diametrically opposed to what is written. Your "exegetical" method is exactly why your religion has over 3,000 different denominations. You guy's interpret what you want, how you want and draw your own conclusions despite what is scribed on the parchment.
And please don't address "context" with me. Your whole religion uses Acts10:14 as proof positive evidence that ALL FOOD IS CLEAN for consumption."
YOU are doing the very thing you accuse me of, You are using YOUR OWN interpretation, but much worse, You make mincemeat out of the New Testament to try and pit Jesus and the apostles against Paul. Historically the church as well as the apostles saw NO problem with Paul.
Assuming you are a Messianic Jew, your own group interprets the Bible differently among themselves. So your point of interpreting "what you want, how you want and draw your own conclusions despite what is scribed on the parchment" is a charge that applies to you very forcefully.
Assuming you are a Messianic Jew, your own group interprets the Bible differently among themselves. So your point of interpreting "what you want, how you want and draw your own conclusions despite what is scribed on the parchment" is a charge that applies to you very forcefully.
Let me deal with your comment about Acts 10:
"15 The voice spoke to him a second time, “Do not call anything impure that God has made clean.”
16 This happened three times, and immediately the sheet was taken back to heaven.
17 While Peter was wondering about the meaning of the vision, the men sent by Cornelius found out where Simon’s house was and stopped at the gate. 18 They called out, asking if Simon who was known as Peter was staying there.
19 While Peter was still thinking about the vision, the Spirit said to him, “Simon, three[a] men are looking for you. 20 So get up and go downstairs. Do not hesitate to go with them, for I have sent them.”
21 Peter went down and said to the men, “I’m the one you’re looking for. Why have you come?”
22 The men replied, “We have come from Cornelius the centurion. He is a righteous and God-fearing man, who is respected by all the Jewish people. A holy angel told him to ask you to come to his house so that he could hear what you have to say.” 23 Then Peter invited the men into the house to be his guests.
The next day Peter started out with them, and some of the believers from Joppa went along. 24 The following day he arrived in Caesarea. Cornelius was expecting them and had called together his relatives and close friends. 25 As Peter entered the house, Cornelius met him and fell at his feet in reverence. 26 But Peter made him get up. “Stand up,” he said, “I am only a man myself.”
27 While talking with him, Peter went inside and found a large gathering of people. 28 He said to them: “You are well aware that it is against our law for a Jew to associate with or visit a Gentile. But God has shown me that I should not call anyone impure or unclean. 29 So when I was sent for, I came without raising any objection. May I ask why you sent for me?”
30 Cornelius answered: “Three days ago I was in my house praying at this hour, at three in the afternoon. Suddenly a man in shining clothes stood before me 31 and said, ‘Cornelius, God has heard your prayer and remembered your gifts to the poor. 32 Send to Joppa for Simon who is called Peter. He is a guest in the home of Simon the tanner, who lives by the sea.’ 33 So I sent for you immediately, and it was good of you to come. Now we are all here in the presence of God to listen to everything the Lord has commanded you to tell us.”
34 Then Peter began to speak: “I now realize how true it is that God does not show favoritism 35 but accepts from every nation the one who fears him and does what is right. 36 You know the message God sent to the people of Israel, announcing the good news of peace through Jesus Christ, who is Lord of all. 37 You know what has happened throughout the province of Judea, beginning in Galilee after the baptism that John preached— 38 how God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and power, and how he went around doing good and healing all who were under the power of the devil, because God was with him."
Both sides like to focus on one meaning of the vision or the other. The vision in actuality is a double vision. It has the meaning of not only foods being made clean under the New Covenant, but also the fact that Gentiles are not lesser than Jews, and are able to participate in being part of God's family. Not only are foods clean as stated before, but Gentiles now have equal access through the merits of the Messiah.
There is a twofold application of this vision, which is something you miss.
"("Plus your point "What you fail to realize is that the majority of the apprehension of Christianity that Jew's have is Paul and his doctrinal teachings. " is a false statement. With or without Paul, the Rabbinic side at best sees Jesus as a mistaken Rabbi and at worst, a miserable heretic in Judaism.")
You again prove my point, your whole premise is a strawman itself as you cannot differentiate Rabbinic Judaism from the rest. And no, it is not a false statement because Deuteronomy 13 PLAINLY say's that anyone coaxing you to follow a g-d you do not know is a test from Him to see if you love Him. Your g-d is a g-d who negates The Fathers Law, thus your apostle is false by this very criteria. This is also reflected in Deuteronomy 4:2"
I know the difference between Rabbinic, Chasidic, Messianic and other forms of Judaism. Plus, Paul is not condemned by Deuteronomy 13, Paul proclaimed the true God YHWH as the true God, he didn't invent a false God. Since Jesus himself appoints Paul to be the instrument to bring the Gospel to the nations and entrusted him with this task, there is no violation of Deuteronomy 4:2 on the part of Paul.
Need I remind you of the Torah Observance article?
("Oh, And BTW, Keith refutes more Anti-Pauline nonsense ")
"And? If someone like Keith, feels it is okay to erase the words of those who question your doctrines, you both are no different from the religious hierarchies that attempted to quell Martin Luther.
Revelation2:2
" 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""
Instead if getting in a fit about him removing your comments, Actually address them instead of tap dancing.
Repent jcabra19, or you'll fall under the condemnation of Matthew 7:21-23.
Repent jcabra19, or you'll fall under the condemnation of Matthew 7:21-23.
Answering Judaism.
PS. Some of the Pharisees came to believe in Jesus, Paul included. Not every Pharisee rejected him, so jcabra19's point about Paul being a pharisee, is pointless.
14th of Febuary 2015: Galatians 4:9 was quoted earlier in the paper. This is what it says:
"Galatians 4:8 Formerly, when you did not know God, you were slaves to those who by nature are not gods. 9 But now that you know God—or rather are known by God—how is it that you are turning back to those weak and miserable forces[d]? Do you wish to be enslaved by them all over again? 10 You are observing special days and months and seasons and years! 11 I fear for you, that somehow I have wasted my efforts on you."
The weak and miserable or beggarly forces are a reference to false gods or idols and vain religious traditions, Paul is not mocking the angels in the context of the passage. He is questioning and saddened as to why the Galatians are being pulled back into those traditions, or even forcing special days upon one other. He is condemning them for their legalism specifically. There is nothing about mocking the angels here, Just another case of jcabra19 grasping at straws.
16th of October 2018: Some parts have been tweaked to tidy the article up. Either a typo or to make a sentence make more sense. Also, For the past few months, Keith's website is known now as "Exegetical Apologetics" His article response can be found in that new link.
PS. Some of the Pharisees came to believe in Jesus, Paul included. Not every Pharisee rejected him, so jcabra19's point about Paul being a pharisee, is pointless.
14th of Febuary 2015: Galatians 4:9 was quoted earlier in the paper. This is what it says:
"Galatians 4:8 Formerly, when you did not know God, you were slaves to those who by nature are not gods. 9 But now that you know God—or rather are known by God—how is it that you are turning back to those weak and miserable forces[d]? Do you wish to be enslaved by them all over again? 10 You are observing special days and months and seasons and years! 11 I fear for you, that somehow I have wasted my efforts on you."
The weak and miserable or beggarly forces are a reference to false gods or idols and vain religious traditions, Paul is not mocking the angels in the context of the passage. He is questioning and saddened as to why the Galatians are being pulled back into those traditions, or even forcing special days upon one other. He is condemning them for their legalism specifically. There is nothing about mocking the angels here, Just another case of jcabra19 grasping at straws.
16th of October 2018: Some parts have been tweaked to tidy the article up. Either a typo or to make a sentence make more sense. Also, For the past few months, Keith's website is known now as "Exegetical Apologetics" His article response can be found in that new link.
No comments:
Post a Comment