Edit
+jcabra19 I know I am late to comment here, but if you think Paul is a false apostle, I suggest you read these:
Read the following on the "Pauline" Conspiracy:
http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2013/10/pauline-conspiracy-examining-claims-of.html
http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2013/10/pauline-conspiracy-examining-claims-of_30.html
http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2013/10/pauline-conspiracy-examining-claims-of_31.html
Read also Contra Blumenthal on the issue of Acts 21:
http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2014/03/contra-blumenthal-examination-of-contra.html
Read the following on the "Pauline" Conspiracy:
http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2013/10/pauline-conspiracy-examining-claims-of.html
http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2013/10/pauline-conspiracy-examining-claims-of_30.html
http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2013/10/pauline-conspiracy-examining-claims-of_31.html
Read also Contra Blumenthal on the issue of Acts 21:
http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2014/03/contra-blumenthal-examination-of-contra.html
Show less
+bobo577
The first link you provide is hypocrisy at its finest, he accuses a certain rabbi for conflicting ideals. He then goes on to prove his own apostle as correct by trying to establish misunderstanding through The TANAK.
The heart of his multiple blogs STILL rely's on the words of Paul, and Paul alone. He or She spends most of thier time establishing what Paul really means, which is not factual to what Paul really writes. Their argument is no different from the multiple apologetic attempts at verifiying Paul's apostleship, as those who propose so here on youtube.
The first link you provide is hypocrisy at its finest, he accuses a certain rabbi for conflicting ideals. He then goes on to prove his own apostle as correct by trying to establish misunderstanding through The TANAK.
The heart of his multiple blogs STILL rely's on the words of Paul, and Paul alone. He or She spends most of thier time establishing what Paul really means, which is not factual to what Paul really writes. Their argument is no different from the multiple apologetic attempts at verifiying Paul's apostleship, as those who propose so here on youtube.
Show less
+jcabra19 You haven't even touched my arguments for Paul's apostleship. I have used church fathers as well as the NT. You haven't established that he is a false apostle. That's your point that you need to prove. The fact the apostles themselves extended fellowship TO Paul shows you to be wrong.
Show less
+bobo577
I have in fact made such argument, fortunately for you the author of this video chose to delete such comments that put your links to shame.
Moreover I should ask where you draw the conclusion that The Apostles "extended fellowship to Paul"? From what IS recorded in Acts, Paul was BROUGHT to the Apostles, not sought by them. Several times in His writing He seems to show that he is giving an interpretation rather than a command
And why use "church fathers" as a prime example and neglect what Scriptures have to say for themselves? If we are allowed to draw from exo biblical example, then this would only hurt your argument further.
The FACT, that Paul is not numbered as a recognized Apostle in Revelation, along with the fact that the "False apostle" mentioned therein taught laxation concerning idolic food consumption is proof positive that Paul is not an Apostle of The Lamb.
But I Am not expecting a relevant reply to those facts, as your own reply's to the quotations of the rabbi you choose are always answered in a manner that gives misdirection. And you call them a hypocrite?
You quote Pauls passages and give an interpretation that follows smoother logic, yet neglect the fact that what you claim or interpret is far from what is actually written. Such as how your doctrinal view's neglect The Messiahs own words concerning His Law.
I have in fact made such argument, fortunately for you the author of this video chose to delete such comments that put your links to shame.
Moreover I should ask where you draw the conclusion that The Apostles "extended fellowship to Paul"? From what IS recorded in Acts, Paul was BROUGHT to the Apostles, not sought by them. Several times in His writing He seems to show that he is giving an interpretation rather than a command
And why use "church fathers" as a prime example and neglect what Scriptures have to say for themselves? If we are allowed to draw from exo biblical example, then this would only hurt your argument further.
The FACT, that Paul is not numbered as a recognized Apostle in Revelation, along with the fact that the "False apostle" mentioned therein taught laxation concerning idolic food consumption is proof positive that Paul is not an Apostle of The Lamb.
But I Am not expecting a relevant reply to those facts, as your own reply's to the quotations of the rabbi you choose are always answered in a manner that gives misdirection. And you call them a hypocrite?
You quote Pauls passages and give an interpretation that follows smoother logic, yet neglect the fact that what you claim or interpret is far from what is actually written. Such as how your doctrinal view's neglect The Messiahs own words concerning His Law.
Show less
+jcabra19 If the Lord Wills I may take a look into your objections, but right now, I'll leave it at that.
+bobo577
So you're attributing your own unwillingness to hear truth and weigh the facts as if G-d doesn't will it for you? This is just one of the many reasons I ask all of you to come out of this religion.
If you believe G-d doesn't want you to grow in understanding, you might as well keep to your doctrines.
But I should warn you, if you believe your religion is correct, and your "brothers" like "Keith Thompson" who feel no wrong doing in falsely portraying peoples own words, then I wish you the best of luck.
So you're attributing your own unwillingness to hear truth and weigh the facts as if G-d doesn't will it for you? This is just one of the many reasons I ask all of you to come out of this religion.
If you believe G-d doesn't want you to grow in understanding, you might as well keep to your doctrines.
But I should warn you, if you believe your religion is correct, and your "brothers" like "Keith Thompson" who feel no wrong doing in falsely portraying peoples own words, then I wish you the best of luck.
Show less
+jcabra19 It's not an unwillingness to hear truth, you made an assertion about Paul, so you were asked to back it up.
For your information, I do believe God DOES want us to grow in understanding.
Small interactions I have had with Rabbinic Jews have actually bolstered faith in Christ rather than diminish it. It gets me to think on their position and if what they say is valid. Anyway, i'll leave it at that.
For your information, I do believe God DOES want us to grow in understanding.
Small interactions I have had with Rabbinic Jews have actually bolstered faith in Christ rather than diminish it. It gets me to think on their position and if what they say is valid. Anyway, i'll leave it at that.
Show less
+bobo577
Lets say I was a totally unaware unbeliever and wanted to learn about Christianity, would it suffice If I learned from Mormons? In that same respect you shouldn't expect much nor judge much from small interactions with "Rabbinic" Jews.
Because the position I hold doesn't diminish The Messiah, it upholds Him and each of the smallest teachings He enforced.
Lets say I was a totally unaware unbeliever and wanted to learn about Christianity, would it suffice If I learned from Mormons? In that same respect you shouldn't expect much nor judge much from small interactions with "Rabbinic" Jews.
Because the position I hold doesn't diminish The Messiah, it upholds Him and each of the smallest teachings He enforced.
Show less
Red herring jcabra. Mormonism doesn't reflect Christianity. Your position doesn't uphold Jesus because it rejects the one HE appointed. You haven't dealt with what I have said in my paper.
I don't say EVERY conclusion by the Rabbinic camp is valid, I say some of their conclusions are valid and can fit with both the Old AND New Testament.
+bobo577
And Rabbinc Judaism doesn't reflect Judaism at all.
But just listen to your own reasoning, you claim that my position doesn't up hold The Messiah because I question someone claiming to have witnessed Him? You should judge my position on whether or not I believe every word of His in His Good News!
Not whether or not I believe every one making claims about Him. If thats the case, then you should believe EVERYONE who's ever made a claim about Him or claimed to have seen Him.
And I have "dealt" with everything you've said, but thanks to the hypocrisy of the author of this video, and what is obviously observable above, all my replys to you are deleted.
But your "blog" is self defeating because I Am not arguing for the sake of Rabbinic Judaism. Im not asking you to argue for Mormonism or Jehovah's Witnesses, so why expect me to counter arguments made by Rabbis? Moreover it should be pointed out that you've even left many holes in your arguments that even went un touched by you in your own article.
You took "Blumenthal's" argument and automatically deemed it a "conspiracy" without addressing what they've said, and in turn giving your doctirnal interpretation as to what Paul means. Despite judging what Paul himself writes. You are no different from the author of this video in means of hypocrisy. How much honesty can I expect from people like you when you purposefully over look obvious writings, yet choose to portray them in your own light?
That is just as how Keith Thompson chooses to portray peoples words, by hiding them.
What both of you do is no different from what Catholics do to those who they view as "heretics". They attempt to discredit them and attempt to remove their words from ever being seen.. This is exactly how and why Rabbinic (Pharisaic) Jew's see The Messiah as a heretical false teacher.
And Rabbinc Judaism doesn't reflect Judaism at all.
But just listen to your own reasoning, you claim that my position doesn't up hold The Messiah because I question someone claiming to have witnessed Him? You should judge my position on whether or not I believe every word of His in His Good News!
Not whether or not I believe every one making claims about Him. If thats the case, then you should believe EVERYONE who's ever made a claim about Him or claimed to have seen Him.
And I have "dealt" with everything you've said, but thanks to the hypocrisy of the author of this video, and what is obviously observable above, all my replys to you are deleted.
But your "blog" is self defeating because I Am not arguing for the sake of Rabbinic Judaism. Im not asking you to argue for Mormonism or Jehovah's Witnesses, so why expect me to counter arguments made by Rabbis? Moreover it should be pointed out that you've even left many holes in your arguments that even went un touched by you in your own article.
You took "Blumenthal's" argument and automatically deemed it a "conspiracy" without addressing what they've said, and in turn giving your doctirnal interpretation as to what Paul means. Despite judging what Paul himself writes. You are no different from the author of this video in means of hypocrisy. How much honesty can I expect from people like you when you purposefully over look obvious writings, yet choose to portray them in your own light?
That is just as how Keith Thompson chooses to portray peoples words, by hiding them.
What both of you do is no different from what Catholics do to those who they view as "heretics". They attempt to discredit them and attempt to remove their words from ever being seen.. This is exactly how and why Rabbinic (Pharisaic) Jew's see The Messiah as a heretical false teacher.
Show less
+bobo577 Yet their conclusions about The Messiah and Who He is and Was are far from valid, despite His Own words which are harmonized with Torah. What you fail to realize is that the majority of the apprehension of Christianity that Jew's have is Paul and his doctrinal teachings.
Show less
+jcabra19 OK, You are not a Rabbinic Jew, that's fine and I never said Rabbinic Judaism is Biblical, if you hold up the Messiah, Answer me this jcabra19
Why is it in Acts 9 Jesus tells Ananias the following:15 But the Lord said to Ananias, “Go! This man is my chosen instrument to proclaim my name to the Gentiles and their kings and to the people of Israel. 16 I will show him how much he must suffer for my name.”
You also strawmanned my point about Paul, my argument was not "Then you should believe EVERYONE who's ever made a claim about Him or claimed to have seen Him."
This is Jesus telling Ananias that HE appointed Paul. Do you dare speak against Jesus on this?
If Jesus and the APOSTLES acknowledged Paul as a true apostle, then your argument is refuted. Let me reitirate a point I made to a Rabbinic Jew on Paul:
"In my articles on the Pauline Conspiracy, I go through Yisroel Blumenthal's points about Paul ONE by ONE. But I am happy to reiterate certain points here. regarding Paul.
"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. If what Paul received went against what Jesus himself taught, then the apostles would have to reject him just like the other candidates you mentioned.
Muhammad and the others cannot speak to the apostles, thus it is very easy to deny their claims when comparing them to Paul.
Additionally in 2nd Peter 3:16, Peter treats Paul's writings as authoritative as the TANAKH. Best case scenario, the apostle Peter wrote it, Worst Case, another man wrote it. 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." This can be found in the comments section here: http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2014/03/critique-of-judge-not-response-to.html
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.
This is what 2nd Peter has to say about Paul: "3:14 So then, dear friends, since you are looking forward to this, make every effort to be found spotless, blameless and at peace with him. 15 Bear in mind that our Lord’s patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. 16 He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction."
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.
But carrying on with my point since you won't let it go. I do address Yisroel's arguments in the article itself and am CORRECTING what he says about Paul.
By what you are meaning " Despite judging what Paul himself writes. You are no different from the author of this video in means of hypocrisy. How much honesty can I expect from people like you when you purposefully over look obvious writings, yet choose to portray them in your own light?"
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.
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. With or without Paul, Jesus is still rejected by the Rabbinic Jews in the first place. You cannot pin the blame on Paul for the Jews rejection of Jesus.
Here is an article I wrote responding to a Muslim: http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2014/11/pauls-mission-to-gentiles-response-to.html, I mention that there were Jews that converted and Paul was the one WHO BROUGHT them the Gospel, as well as the other apostles conveying it to their people.
Why is it in Acts 9 Jesus tells Ananias the following:15 But the Lord said to Ananias, “Go! This man is my chosen instrument to proclaim my name to the Gentiles and their kings and to the people of Israel. 16 I will show him how much he must suffer for my name.”
You also strawmanned my point about Paul, my argument was not "Then you should believe EVERYONE who's ever made a claim about Him or claimed to have seen Him."
This is Jesus telling Ananias that HE appointed Paul. Do you dare speak against Jesus on this?
If Jesus and the APOSTLES acknowledged Paul as a true apostle, then your argument is refuted. Let me reitirate a point I made to a Rabbinic Jew on Paul:
"In my articles on the Pauline Conspiracy, I go through Yisroel Blumenthal's points about Paul ONE by ONE. But I am happy to reiterate certain points here. regarding Paul.
"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. If what Paul received went against what Jesus himself taught, then the apostles would have to reject him just like the other candidates you mentioned.
Muhammad and the others cannot speak to the apostles, thus it is very easy to deny their claims when comparing them to Paul.
Additionally in 2nd Peter 3:16, Peter treats Paul's writings as authoritative as the TANAKH. Best case scenario, the apostle Peter wrote it, Worst Case, another man wrote it. 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." This can be found in the comments section here: http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2014/03/critique-of-judge-not-response-to.html
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.
This is what 2nd Peter has to say about Paul: "3:14 So then, dear friends, since you are looking forward to this, make every effort to be found spotless, blameless and at peace with him. 15 Bear in mind that our Lord’s patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. 16 He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction."
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.
But carrying on with my point since you won't let it go. I do address Yisroel's arguments in the article itself and am CORRECTING what he says about Paul.
By what you are meaning " Despite judging what Paul himself writes. You are no different from the author of this video in means of hypocrisy. How much honesty can I expect from people like you when you purposefully over look obvious writings, yet choose to portray them in your own light?"
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.
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. With or without Paul, Jesus is still rejected by the Rabbinic Jews in the first place. You cannot pin the blame on Paul for the Jews rejection of Jesus.
Here is an article I wrote responding to a Muslim: http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2014/11/pauls-mission-to-gentiles-response-to.html, I mention that there were Jews that converted and Paul was the one WHO BROUGHT them the Gospel, as well as the other apostles conveying it to their people.
Show less
+jcabra19 Oh, And BTW, Keith refutes more Anti-Pauline nonsense here: http://www.reformedapologeticsministries.com/2014/07/jeffrey-daughertys-apostle-paul.html
Anyway, I am done here. I may pen an article if the Lord Wills to respond to some of your comments, but I think this is fine for now.
I brush the dust of my feet.
Anyway, I am done here. I may pen an article if the Lord Wills to respond to some of your comments, but I think this is fine for now.
I brush the dust of my feet.
Show less
+bobo577
(" 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.
("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"?
I might as well ask you why "jesus" say's what "he" say's to his disciples in the book of nephi.
("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.
("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.
("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.
("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.
("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?
("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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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 relfected in Acts 15. He was instructed to teach his disciples to observe dietary restriction.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
("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.
("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"?
("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.
("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.
("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
("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"
(" 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.
("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"?
I might as well ask you why "jesus" say's what "he" say's to his disciples in the book of nephi.
("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.
("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.
("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.
("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.
("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?
("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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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 relfected in Acts 15. He was instructed to teach his disciples to observe dietary restriction.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
("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.
("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"?
("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.
("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.
("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
("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"
Show less
+bobo577
So instead of addressing the issue at hand, you concoct yet another blog with the same measure of ill context as you do with the "Rabbi".
Moreover make assumptions as to whether or not I Am a Messianic Jew and continue to comment under the premise that your assumption is correct? I cannot begin to explain how faulty that criteria is.
Furthermore, you transpose the commentary here onto your blog to make it seem as if I was addressing your blogs in the first place, when in fact it was YOU who made the issue of your blogs, and not the other way around. I can only imagine that you took the same dishonest liberty with the "conversations" with that "Rabbi". Of which is not exclusive to your religion, as your doctrines are derived from mis contextualized and mis translated portions of Scripture you choose.
And then you have the gall to proclaim shame and tap dancing on my part? You've purposefully neglected to include the argument in its entirety in attempts to discredit facts that provably refute your assertions. In addition, you play on the lack of visible comments on my part and suppose that my argument is being represented fairly. How hypocritical.
Listen, just because you post a blog with doctrinal teachings that are not supported by Scriptures as they read (of which you take great liberty to define on your own), does not justify nor solidify your heretical teachings and beliefs as orthodox. Your WHOLE premise is only supported by your own explanation of what Paul is "saying", instead of reading what he say's as is. Your attempts to contextualize Paul's words are neglectful as you must jump from different books to gather a definition of the context you see fit. Thats horrible exegesis.
You really should take your own advice in regards to repentance, because you are just as guilty as you like to view others.
So instead of addressing the issue at hand, you concoct yet another blog with the same measure of ill context as you do with the "Rabbi".
Moreover make assumptions as to whether or not I Am a Messianic Jew and continue to comment under the premise that your assumption is correct? I cannot begin to explain how faulty that criteria is.
Furthermore, you transpose the commentary here onto your blog to make it seem as if I was addressing your blogs in the first place, when in fact it was YOU who made the issue of your blogs, and not the other way around. I can only imagine that you took the same dishonest liberty with the "conversations" with that "Rabbi". Of which is not exclusive to your religion, as your doctrines are derived from mis contextualized and mis translated portions of Scripture you choose.
And then you have the gall to proclaim shame and tap dancing on my part? You've purposefully neglected to include the argument in its entirety in attempts to discredit facts that provably refute your assertions. In addition, you play on the lack of visible comments on my part and suppose that my argument is being represented fairly. How hypocritical.
Listen, just because you post a blog with doctrinal teachings that are not supported by Scriptures as they read (of which you take great liberty to define on your own), does not justify nor solidify your heretical teachings and beliefs as orthodox. Your WHOLE premise is only supported by your own explanation of what Paul is "saying", instead of reading what he say's as is. Your attempts to contextualize Paul's words are neglectful as you must jump from different books to gather a definition of the context you see fit. Thats horrible exegesis.
You really should take your own advice in regards to repentance, because you are just as guilty as you like to view others.
Show less
I never said you addressed my blog anyway. I'll be happy to post our conversation in it's entirety on the site, that way all can see the conversation.
For your information, Yisroel Blumenthal in his paper was addressing Michael L. Brown and considering Brown had not responded to Contra Brown or it's supplement for nearly 6 years, I'd thought i'd take a crack at dealing with some of his objections. I first began to tackle some of those objectiosn back in 2013.
For that matter, Yisroel Blumenthal in an article he did, did clarify his points to me so I could understand and then I responded again with a much better understanding of the point he was making.
For your information, Yisroel Blumenthal in his paper was addressing Michael L. Brown and considering Brown had not responded to Contra Brown or it's supplement for nearly 6 years, I'd thought i'd take a crack at dealing with some of his objections. I first began to tackle some of those objectiosn back in 2013.
For that matter, Yisroel Blumenthal in an article he did, did clarify his points to me so I could understand and then I responded again with a much better understanding of the point he was making.
Answering Judaism
No comments:
Post a Comment