Was "apostle" Paul a true apostle of Christ or an apostle from the devil? ( Revelations 2:2)

[JLB]

Brother JLB I was reading this article here below on Wikipedia, and it seems there was a disagreement between Peter and Paul Galatians 2:11–14
Also, it is proposed in that article Peter was a "bridge-man" between the opposing views of Paul and James the brother of Jesus, and writer of NT epistle of James, which I love to read. While reading this article/ piece, I realized you've become the "bridge-man" between me and Paul! I find his doctrine hard to swallow, Well I'm glad I'm not the only one. Peter and James also seemed to have some conflicts with him.

Incident at Antioch
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incident_at_Antioch

The Incident at Antioch was an Apostolic Age dispute between the apostles Paul and Peter which occurred in the city of Antioch around the middle of the first century. The primary source for the incident is Paul's Epistle to the Galatians 2:11–14. Since Ferdinand Christian Baur, scholars have found evidence of conflict among the leaders of Early Christianity; for example James D. G. Dunn proposes that Peter was a "bridge-man" between the opposing views of Paul and James the brother of Jesus. The final outcome of the incident remains uncertain, resulting in several Christian views of the Old Covenant to this day.

This was cleared up in Jerusalem and can be understood better by reading Acts 15.


24 Since we have heard that some who went out from us have troubled you with words, unsettling your souls, saying, “You must be circumcised and keep the law”—to whom we gave no such commandment— 25 it seemed good to us, being assembled with one accord, to send chosen men to you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul, 26 men who have risked their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. 27 We have therefore sent Judas and Silas, who will also report the same things by word of mouth. 28 For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things: 29 that you abstain from things offered to idols, from blood, from things strangled, and from sexual immorality. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well. Acts 15:24-29



JLB

 

[Edward]

I've heard this stuff about Paul before. They made a pretty darn good sounding case against Paul and really had me wondering for a while about him. So I dumped it in the Lord's lap and said what is this? After a short while, He showed me some things and gave me confirmation so that I would know the truth about Paul and be at peace about it within my spirit. This was quite awhile ago for me that this happened, and once I got peace about it, I basically forgot it.

So it's not like, I can go through notes or something and debate the finer points of the case against Paul or anything. I have no notes on it. And really no desire to jump into it again, but I will say that all anyone has to do to obtain the truth about the issue is to turn to the Holy Spirit and prayer. The scriptures have already been posted. 1 John 2:27
But you're prolly better off comparing Paul's words with Jesus's words rather than with other things that Paul also said. Paul doesn't really disagree with anything that Jesus said. He talked a little differently but it's still inline, just a different perspective and facets of the Lord and His Kingdom.

Paul is ok and I am at peace with that. Paul was no double agent.

 

[brujaq]

That's a good question - is physical circumscision required? I completely agree with him what he says in Romans 2: 29
29 On the contrary, a person is a Jew who is one inwardly, and circumcision is of the heart—by the Spirit, not the letter. That man’s praise is not from men but from God.
This is so true. It has a similar ring to what Jesus says in
Matthew 15:1 : "What goes into someone's mouth does not defile them, but what comes out of their mouth, that is what defiles them."
Jesus was looking for circumscision of the heart , a change if heart . So yes I absolutely agree with Paul on that one.
But let's examine what Paul is saying to Peter in Galatians 2 : 15-18
15 “You (Peter) and I ( Paul) are Jews by birth, not ‘sinners’ like the Gentiles. 16 Yet we know that a person is made right with God by faith in Jesus Christ, not by obeying the law. And we have believed in Christ Jesus, so that we might be made right with God because of our faith in Christ, not because we have obeyed the law. For no one will ever be made right with God by obeying the law.”
But suppose we seek to be made right with God through faith in Christ and then we are found guilty because we have abandoned the law. Would that mean Christ has led us into sin? Absolutely not!18 Rather, I am a sinner if I rebuild the old system of law I already tore down. 19 For when I tried to keep the law, it condemned me.
It appears that Paul had discarded ( torn down) the Law since it was condemning him . He also says he had abandoned the Law.
Now there is a difference in what Paul is saying and what Jesus replied to the Rich man (Mark 10:17–31) , and to the expert in law ( Luke 10:25-37) when they asked Jesus the same question on two different occasions " What must I do to inherit eternal life?"
What would Paul have answered had those two gentlemen asked him ( Paul) this question. Believe in Jesus and you will be saved . Well I'm assuming this since Paul had abandoned the law and torn it down.
But did Jesus says that to the two men this? No he didn't. He pointed to the Law instead. In both occasions Jesus " fails" to say " believe in me"
This is consistent with what Christ says in Matthew 5: 17
"Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill it. "
It is apparent to me Paul had done a deplorable thing by abandoning the Law. And it was obedience to the Law that Jesus pointed when the two men asked him how to be saved. So I see a contradiction in Jesus and Paul's teaching. The Law is not dead. We still sin when we break the law.
Would you or anyone reading this like to shed some light on why Paul abandoned and tore down the Law given by God ?

Why was the temple veil torn in two ?

 

[Razeontherock]

That's a good question - is physical circumscision required? I completely agree with him what he says in Romans 2: 29
29 On the contrary, a person is a Jew who is one inwardly, and circumcision is of the heart—by the Spirit, not the letter. That man’s praise is not from men but from God.
This is so true. It has a similar ring to what Jesus says in
Matthew 15:1 : "What goes into someone's mouth does not defile them, but what comes out of their mouth, that is what defiles them."
Jesus was looking for circumscision of the heart , a change if heart . So yes I absolutely agree with Paul on that one.
But let's examine what Paul is saying to Peter in Galatians 2 : 15-18
15 “You (Peter) and I ( Paul) are Jews by birth, not ‘sinners’ like the Gentiles. 16 Yet we know that a person is made right with God by faith in Jesus Christ, not by obeying the law. And we have believed in Christ Jesus, so that we might be made right with God because of our faith in Christ, not because we have obeyed the law. For no one will ever be made right with God by obeying the law.”
But suppose we seek to be made right with God through faith in Christ and then we are found guilty because we have abandoned the law. Would that mean Christ has led us into sin? Absolutely not!18 Rather, I am a sinner if I rebuild the old system of law I already tore down. 19 For when I tried to keep the law, it condemned me.
It appears that Paul had discarded ( torn down) the Law since it was condemning him . He also says he had abandoned the Law.
Now there is a difference in what Paul is saying and what Jesus replied to the Rich man (Mark 10:17–31) , and to the expert in law ( Luke 10:25-37) when they asked Jesus the same question on two different occasions " What must I do to inherit eternal life?"
What would Paul have answered had those two gentlemen asked him ( Paul) this question. Believe in Jesus and you will be saved . Well I'm assuming this since Paul had abandoned the law and torn it down.
But did Jesus says that to the two men this? No he didn't. He pointed to the Law instead. In both occasions Jesus " fails" to say " believe in me"
This is consistent with what Christ says in Matthew 5: 17
"Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill it. "
It is apparent to me Paul had done a deplorable thing by abandoning the Law. And it was obedience to the Law that Jesus pointed when the two men asked him how to be saved. So I see a contradiction in Jesus and Paul's teaching. The Law is not dead. We still sin when we break the law.
Would you or anyone reading this like to shed some light on why Paul abandoned and tore down the Law given by God ?

You are misunderstanding Paul's words. He adamantly stated the Grace of God is not to be used as a cover for sin.

When Paul speaks of "the Law," he refers to earning our own right standing before God; i.e. Salvation by works.

You do know we cannot do that, right?

 

[stovebolts]

Rajesh Sahu
Good morning. I want to first remind you that this site believes that Paul's writings are inspired scripture.

Through the years, we have had our share of controversial waves that have come through, and this topic was one of them. The discussions became so heated that this discussion has been added to TOS 2.1

"We consider Paul's writings to be part of the inspired Word of God. This is a Christian forum and any posting(s) that is intended to purposely distort Paul's writings will not be tolerated."

I am going to lock this thread, but I am not going to issue any points at this time.

We do not believe in easy believism. However, I understand how others take Paul's writings and distort them.

2 Peter 3:15-16

English Standard Version
And count the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him
as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures.

Peter understands how people twist Paul's writings. Just as some twist his words into easy believism, others twist and pit them against the other Apostles and Jesus himself, which you yourself are doing.

I urge you to think of Peter's words in this matter.