Saturday 14 February 2015

Anti-Pauline Heresy: A response to jcabra19 2

This is a second response to jcabra19 and this I hope will be my last response as jcabra19 absolutely refuses to back down from his position that Paul was a false apostle.

The arguments he responds to shall be viewed in brackets but both previous points made by both of us will be in bold:

("To be honest, you don't have anything to say with respect to 2nd Peter, His letter refutes your point about Paul in the first place")

Oh how the conjecture continues.  Listen, if you cannot refute the context of 2Peter without only emphasizing the one portion you believe helps your cause, it is not I who has "nothing" to say.

You appealed to 2nd Peter to justify your heresy, the problem is the whole letter itself doesn't back up your claim. You don't read the letter in context. I did refute you, you just don't want to accept correct.

("and No I did NOT shrug of anti-semticism of Ignatius, which is something I need to look into.")
You infact have.  To ignorantly use the validation of a man who's role in the beginning persecution of Jew's as "authoritative" by means of apostolic lineage, not only show's for the lack of research you have for your own findings, it's also contra Biblical.  The Messiah specifically said, that no good tree can bear bad fruit.  So unless your under the impression that John taught Ignatius to hate Jew's, then it seems evident that you need further study in the matter.

John did not teach people to be anti-Semitic. Furthermore, Your dismissal of Ignatius' testimony of Paul doesn't invalidate his testimony of Paul. The fact you charge me with glossing over his anti-semitism is libel and quite frankly offensive. I condemn those who are anti-semitic with Jews and when I have admin on Paltalk, have dotted individuals for their hateful remarks.

("I wasn't brushing it aside or shrugging if off if you actually paid attention")

I have infact paid attention, this is exactly why it has taken you over 2 day's to address this point. And its not as if you haven't had time, you in fact managed to concoct another blog and comment further here for two day's with no mention.. Nice try, but lacking truth.

Who cares if I was late getting round to addressing it?

("Oh look, The writer regards Paul as a brother.")
I cannot begin to describe the smile I have from utter bewilderment as to the fallacy of this argument.  

Let me ask you this, have you ever heard of the "apostles" Quartus, Apollos, Timothy, Titus, Tychicus, Epaphroditus, Onesimus or Philemon?  Of course not, that's because they ARE NOT Apostles.  But Paul calls them brothers!  Your obvious false attempt to make "brother" and "Apostle" synonymous lacks serious credibility.

If by your standard of "brother" equating to "Apostle", then this means that the Book of Revelation should be revised to numerate to 21 instead of 12.  Which is a beautiful correlation by example as this proves, as your religion as well shows, that it has no problem in moving numbers and contextual meanings.  

My argument is not brother and apostle are synonymous terms, My argument is Paul is a true apostle and brother in the faith. This shows you don't read carefully what someone actually is saying.
As Keith Thompson notes:
Argument #7 - Paul would have to be the thirteenth apostle. How is this possible when the following verses say there are only twelve? Revelation 21:14, Matthew 19:28

Actually the New Testament broadens “apostle” from the twelve (Mark 3:14; Acts 1:2, 26) and those who helped historically found the church (Ephesians 2:20; Rev. 21:14) to others outside the twelve like Barnabas (Acts 14:14), James the brother of Jesus (Galatians 1:19) and others (Romans 16:7). Paul was not claiming he was in the group of the twelve. Daugherty just doesn’t realize according to the New Testament one can be an apostle without being one of the original twelve. Again, an “apostle” just means one who was sent as a representative of another who bears the authority of the sender (Kittel’s Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, Volume 1, [Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1964-1976], p. 421). Others besides the original twelve fit these criteria. Nowhere does the New Testament say there could not be other apostles outside the twelve.

The word apostle can be used in a general sense referring to those who are representatives of Christ or to the 12 specifically depending on the context. The individuals you mentioned are NOT THE 12 obviously, but are apostles in the general sense as mentioned above.

(" I already refuted your misuse of the letter in my article, so seriously, give up using 2nd Peter to condemn Paul, it's not your friend, it's your enemy")

If by "refuted" you mean give an explanation according to your doctrinal position despite what is factually recorded, then I hate to break it to you, but their is no consolation prize for an attempt at answering the misconceptions you portray.  Interjection  is not fact.

No I went through your points and corrected what you said about 2nd Peter, Don't give me this argument of you gave"an explanation according to your doctrinal position despite what is factually recorded", I could take that dismissal with you and completely disregard your points alltogether.

("The fact he mentions Paul in passing as a brother means that Paul is NOT who he has in mind when condemning false teachers.")

I was going to address this portion in the earlier response to your definition of what a "brother" is, but it actually fits here as well.

Your view is not only logically flawed, it is also flawed in contrast to what Paul say's in his epistles.  Paul himself gives various examples as to how a "brother" is not always as you define, and is in fact far from one who acts or believes in concordance with what is taught as doctrinally orthodox.

Rom14:10, 15 and 21

The contrast is even much more evident with Paul's own words in 1Cor5:11

"But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat."

Even Paul himself admits that one who is called a "brother", can still merit exclusion by basis of heretical practices.  

So why believe as you do in regards to Peter when Pauls own measure validates what I've already said?  Lets not by hypocritical about this.

Yes, the word brother can apply to false brethren, but my argument is not that brother in and of it's self proves my case, it's how the word brother is used in context.

"9 I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people— 10 not at all meaning the people of this world who are immoral, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters. In that case you would have to leave this world. 11 But now I am writing to you that you must not associate with anyone who claims to be a brother or sister[c] but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or slanderer, a drunkard or swindler. Do not even eat with such people."

Such an example is found in the one presented. HOWEVER, That is not how Paul is called a brother, read carefully 2nd Peter again and you'll see:
"2 Peter 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."

Paul is confirmed to be a true brother in the faith by Peter, not the brother that Paul mentions in 1 Corinthians 5. Peter's point here is that Paul's letters as well as the books of the Old Testament are distorted by heretics. Notice again it is NOT JUST the Old Testament that these false teachers distort, but Paul's own writings. This shows that Paul's writings were an authoritative source. I demonstrated in the previous paper that Paul is not who Peter has in mind when writing his condemnation:

It makes no sense that Paul is the one who is being condemned by Peter because that would make absolutely no sense, It would mean that Paul is distorting himself.

For that matter, Why would Peter show to his audience that Paul is a false apostle and false believer in Jesus because of false teachers who misuse the scriptures, when it that same context Peter AFFIRMS that Paul was given wisdom BY GOD and wrote to the congregations across the land?

Do you see why your twisted mishandling of 2 Peter doesn't work and WHY I said 2 Peter was your enemy? If you don't see it, then again you are a spiritually blind individual continuing in his error despite me correcting you.

("Only a spiritually blind individual such as you would continue with this argument despite being exposed.")

The only thing being exposed, is that the belief that a brother equating to an "apostle" somehow means that their status as such does not merit the fact that even THEY can be viewed as heretical enough for excommunication.  Might I add that this "exposure" did not come by on your part.

Again my argument is NOT brother is synonymous with apostle or vice versa. That point about the usage of the word brother has bee answered above.

("I am not convinced by Jewish arguments or Muslim arguments with respect to Paul because they twist the Bible")

You're accusing others of Scriptural misrepresentations when in fact your religion chooses to translate "חָדָשׁ" as "New" from Jeremiah 31!? If this isn't the most hypocritical of all replies thus far. Your whole religion is based on a mistranslation viewed on purpose to promote the doctrines in "Hebrews".  
Not to mention the fact that even your own Apostle scripturally mishandled the context of supposed quotes he uses in his epistles.  Yet your religion is still adamant that Paul is correctly quoting and correctly contextualizing the Scriptures he's obviously abusing.

Gal3:10// Gal3:12-13// Rom3:10// 1Cor10:8// 1Cor 2:9 and countless others.

Already Refuted the misuse of Galatians 3 in a previous article:

The point of Jeremiah 31 will need some looking into if the Lord Wills.

As for the passages in 1st Corinthians, let's look. First the context of Exodus 32:
"Exodus 32:2 Aaron answered them, “Take off the gold earrings that your wives, your sons and your daughters are wearing, and bring them to me.” 3 So all the people took off their earrings and brought them to Aaron. 4 He took what they handed him and made it into an idol cast in the shape of a calf, fashioning it with a tool. Then they said, “These are your gods,[b] Israel, who brought you up out of Egypt.”

5 When Aaron saw this, he built an altar in front of the calf and announced, “Tomorrow there will be a festival to the Lord.” 6 So the next day the people rose early and sacrificed burnt offerings and presented fellowship offerings. Afterward they sat down to eat and drink and got up to indulge in revelry.

7 Then the Lord said to Moses, “Go down, because your people, whom you brought up out of Egypt, have become corrupt. 8 They have been quick to turn away from what I commanded them and have made themselves an idol cast in the shape of a calf. They have bowed down to it and sacrificed to it and have said, ‘These are your gods, Israel, who brought you up out of Egypt.’"

Paul quotes this to the congregation but I am not sure where the misquotation is: Let's see what he said:
"1 Corinthians 10:1 For I do not want you to be ignorant of the fact, brothers and sisters, that our ancestors were all under the cloud and that they all passed through the sea. 2 They were all baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea. 3 They all ate the same spiritual food 4 and drank the same spiritual drink; for they drank from the spiritual rock that accompanied them, and that rock was Christ. 5 Nevertheless, God was not pleased with most of them; their bodies were scattered in the wilderness.

6 Now these things occurred as examples to keep us from setting our hearts on evil things as they did. 7 Do not be idolaters, as some of them were; as it is written: “The people sat down to eat and drink and got up to indulge in revelry.”[a] 8 We should not commit sexual immorality, as some of them did—and in one day twenty-three thousand of them died. 9 We should not test Christ,[b] as some of them did—and were killed by snakes. 10 And do not grumble, as some of them did—and were killed by the destroying angel.

11 These things happened to them as examples and were written down as warnings for us, on whom the culmination of the ages has come. 12 So, if you think you are standing firm, be careful that you don’t fall! 13 No temptation[c] has overtaken you except what is common to mankind. And God is faithful; he will not let you be tempted[d] beyond what you can bear. But when you are tempted,[e] he will also provide a way out so that you can endure it."

Paul isn't mixing up the events, He is talking about the history of Israel generally with respect to the mistake they made of falling into idolatry.At first glance it looks like he seems to be getting the events mixed up, but that isn't the case. The thrust of his point of mentioning these moments in history is to warn the church, not to go down the same route that the Israelite people did in the Old Testament, There is no evidence of him misquoting the passage.

As for the other passage, there are some good commentaries on this particular section found here:
Gill's exposition says the following with respect to this passage and more but i'll quote the relevant part:
"But as it is written,.... Not in an apocryphal book, called the Apocalypse of Elijah the prophet, as some have thought, but in Isaiah 64:4 with some variation; and is brought to prove that the Gospel is mysterious and hidden wisdom, unknown to the princes of this world, and ordained before the world was, for the glory of the saints: for the following words are not to be understood of the glories and happiness of the future state; though they are indeed invisible, unheard of, and inconceivable as to the excellency and fulness of them, and are what God has prepared from all eternity, for all those on whom he bestows his grace here; but of the doctrines of grace, and mysteries of the Gospel, as the context and the reason of their citation abundantly show; and are what 

eye hath not seen, nor ear heard: which could never have been seen to be read by the eye of man, nor the sound thereof ever heard by the ear of man, had not God been pleased to make a revelation of them; and though they are to be seen and read in the sacred writings, and to be heard either read or expounded, with the outward hearing of the ear; yet are neither to be seen nor heard intellectually, spiritually, and savingly, unless, God gives eyes to see, and ears to hear; the exterior senses of seeing and hearing are not sufficient to come at and discover the sense of them; flesh and blood, human nature cannot search them out, nor reveal them, no nor the internal senses, the intellectual capacity of men: "

Feel free to check the others out.

Carrying on.

("just like you are, to try and make out Paul to be against Jesus.")

And again you call "me" blind?  The Messiah in Matthew 6:14-15 say's that forgiveness is merited on whether or not you forgive others.  Yet Paul in his own delusional thinking seems to equate forgiveness with the murder of an innocent man.  This is far from synonymous preaching. 

So it is not "I" who try to make Paul to be against Him, Paul does a fine job doing that on his own.  The problem lies with those who's delusion allows them to overlook obvious preachings yet determine they are some how in line with each other.

Where does Paul say what you are saying? I already point out their teachings don't contradict each other. Please show me where Paul is against what Jesus says in Matthew 6:14-15?

(" to be valid, you have to butcher and defame Paul's writings.")

Defame? Not on my part, his words speak clearly for them selves.  And butcher? Let me ask you this, who is the one representing Paul's words as they are, and who is the one giving endless explanation with little regard for what is actually recorded? Hint, that would be you.

This point can be turned against you. You give an "endless explanation with little regard for what is actually recorded" according to your silly logic with respect to 2nd Peter. You don't know the difference between exegesis and trying to gloss over points, I am exegeting what Paul said, you are twisting what he said. You do defame Paul because of your portrayal of him as a rancid deceiver and you distort his words rather than read them in context.

("You yourself are a heretic who has NO SHAME in twisting the words of the blessed apostle ")

Oh great, the ever redundant and hypocritical use of the word "heretic".  Was Martin Luther a heretic for questioning the catholic hierarchy? In the same respect, hold your allegations against others as your religion is viewed as heretical amongst others.  This is personified by The Messiah's own parable of the servant with debt.  But because your doctrinal basis surrounds Paul, and not HIm, I wouldn't expect much of an intelligent response to this as well.

Apples and Oranges jcabra19, You are condemning one who is regarded even by the apostles of Christ as genuine and comparing that to Martin Luther standing against an apostate church, Here's the difference, Luther was justified in challenging the apostate Roman Catholic Church, whereas you are unjustified in standing against Paul who Peter even regarded as a brother in the faith and a co-worker.

("who, need I remind you was appointed by Jesus.")

And your proof of this is where? 3 times Paul gives his conversion experience, and all three times he changes the details therein. Anyone who cannot re-tell their own story more than once correctly, is obviously a liar.  This is exactly why Anania's words are spoken by "the messiah" in Acts 26, yet not mentioned as being said by "him" in chapters 9 or 22. 

Its the equivalent of proclaiming that the prince of York told you that you would be knighted, only to retell the same story by implicating that it was the queen herself that told you.  Obvious lie

Nothing more than a conspiracy here, I already showed why Paul's details where different in the previous paper:

As said before, Ananias functions as a proxy on behalf of Jesus, the same can be said of the prince of York functioning as a proxy on behalf of the queen. Read the article again.

("Keith isn't claiming that Muslims are the first individuals to argue against Paul, If you paid attention, ")

On the contrary, if YOU had paid attention, you would notice the lack of such disclaimer on the title of the video.  Nice try though.

(" His documentary addresses the Muslims specifically, because his ministry is directed TO THAT GROUP as one of the groups whose arguments he responds to.")

And again, he's an apologist for who? That right, answering islam. Not answering "the Ebionim".  And that is because more people are willing to listen to any condemnation aimed at muslims who already have the international spot light.  It is nothing more than a sensationalists attempt to pander for donations, such as obvious by the "donate" button right under his picture.  But again, asking for money for "spiritual" seed IS a Pauline doctrine.  How convenient.

And again, if you're done advertising for his monetary purpose, you might want to ask him why he feels the need to remove comments that provably proves his doctrines wrong.  That is far from the attitude and work of one claiming to be a servant of The Most High, 

How Keith deals with comments on his YouTube page is his business.

Furthermore, he writes for two websites, Answering Islam (co-writer) and Reformed Apologetics ministries (head of ministry). He mainly deals with Roman Catholics, Pelagians and Semi-Pelagians, Atheists and Muslims. Writing for Answering Islam doesn't mean he CANNOT address other groups.

I myself despite the name of my ministry Answering Judaism, don't address Rabbinic Jews early, but sometimes I address some Messianic Jews (Not all since I don't believe all are heretical), Roman Catholics, Muslims and the Eranoites, a cult group from the Philippines.

Just because one writer writes for a specific website, doesn't mean he cannot address a multitude of groups.

You don't even get WHY Keith brought up the Ebionites. The Ebionites were used by the Muslims to deny Paul was a true apostle and Keith was pointing out that the Ebionites were a SECOND CENTURY group that has NO basis for rejecting Paul.
He is answering the Muslim individuals who raise this argument as an argument against Paul.

Prove your point that Paul is a false apostle instead of ranting against my fellow co-worker in Christ.

Oh and BTW, There is nothing with donating money to a ministry to assist them in giving the Gospel to others, that is why Paul asked for donations. What do you assume EVERY ministry that asks for a donation is somehow a snake and slave of Satan? Only Heretics and false teachers shouldn't be given money, such as those prosperity preachers who are greed mongering snakes who exploit the general public.

("Anyway, I am done with talking to you, because all you want to do is continue in your belief system and not accept correction. This conversation is over.")

Your conversation is over because you still fail to address many of the inconsistencies with your reply's, and cannot remedy a factual and Scriptural reply to support your obvious use of personal interjection.  So please don't attribute your concession to a lack of brain washing of your doctrines on my part.  Because the last portion of your reply can easily be said of you. Let's not be a pharisee now.

I gave you scripture and factual support FROM the scripture. Don't give me this excuse of using it to "support your obvious use of personal interjection." because that isn't going to get us anyway.

You are the one who cannot even read 2nd Peter let alone the Bible correctly. Believing Paul to be a brother and apostle in the faith is not the result of brain washing. That is just as silly as the argument "You are a Trinitarian because of Sunday school". I don't accept Paul because I am brain washed, I accept him because his writings are part of the Bible and God inspired the canon and gave it to us.

Don't give me this pathetic rhetoric of "Constantine influenced the church this" or "Roman Catholics gave you Paul's canon that". The Roman Catholics and Constantine did NOT give us Paul's letters, that is a lie, you know it and Jesus is against liars. Repent of your wickedness jcabra19 and your lies, for one day all stand before the judgement seat of Christ on the day of Judgement.

Not much to say except, Thanks for reading.

Answering Judaism.

16th of October 2018: 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