Christian Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

A Question about Paul

  • Thread starter TheRealTruth777
  • Start date
T

TheRealTruth777

Guest
Hello everyone.

I am a Christian, with tremendous faith, who has been throught a lot, and I know that Jesus (Yashua) has carried me through all of it, and taught me a lot.

Recently, however, I have been having some questions about Paul.

One thing I am wondering, is how we can reconcile Paul's vision and conversion, with what Christ said, in JOHN 20:29, when he said:
From the NIV:
"Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed."
From the New Living Translation:
Then Jesus told him, "You believe because you have seen me. Blessed are those who believe without seeing me."


Paul never believed in Christ until he had "seen" him. Paul was persecuting and even killing Christians before his supposed conversion.

Christ also has an amazing track record with predicting and calling out the ones who would be against him, such as Judas, and the fact that Peter would deny him.

Does anyone have any comments on this?
 
I'm not quite sure I fully follow your line of thought. Are you thinking that becasue Saul had to "see the light" in order to believe it somehow demeans his conversion? Personally, I think Saul's conversion was something totally awesome. Here you have a guy that knows about Jesus and knows who He was but to him Jesus was nothing more than a man and a trouble-maker. Not only was he doing his job but he had a personal vendetta out to destroy anyone that even looked like they might be a follower of this criminal. Finally the risen Christ appears before him and he is so mesmerized that he begins a journey to become the greatest evangelist for Christ the world has ever known.

Contrast that with Thomas who lived intimately with Jesus for three years as He ministered to the people, healed the sick, brought the dead to life, fed thousands with a few fish and loaves of bread, predicted events to come including His resurrection and yet he refused to believe it was true until he saw Him standing before him. If anyone should have been able to believe Christ was risen it should have been Thomas. Saul did an about face, repented of everything, and was born again in an instant. All I can say is, "Wow!"
 
Hello WIP!

Well...it isn't a "line of thought" as much as putting Jesus (Yashua's) words first, which we ALWAYS MUST DO and applying simple logic. You can't just ignore the things Christ said.

The truth is, they both refused to believe it was true before they saw the lord standing before them. Christians who don't believe Christ was raised from the dead can't be saved. Period.

None of us Christians would get into Heaven if we refused to believe in Him until Christ appeared to us. That's what FAITH is all about.

I see nothing awesome about Paul's conversion. It would have been awesome if he were converted by an inward experience...like the rest of us true Christians are. Any one of us could easily do an about face and turn around his activities after seeing a powerful "vision" like that. Wouldn't you? Who do you know who would actually say that they wouldn't do an about face?

And in fact, there are instances where either Paul or the book of Acts contradicts what Christ said. And as well as this, in all 3 accounts of Paul's conversion in Acts...there are factual contradictions. I will list them if you like.

I am not completely convinced either way yet about Paul, but I know Christ is the Messiah, and as a truth-seeker and one who loves God with all his heart, I have a responsibility to defend truth.

Now one thing we know, is that truth mixed with lies is the most potent poison there is. If it were true that Paul contradicted Christ on many counts (and I can give some examples that you can comment on) then it would mean he did a disservice to the True Gospel, rather than a service.
 
Reminder

1 - This is a Christian site, therefore, any attempt to put down Christianity and the basic tenets of our Faith will be considered a hostile act. Statement of Faith

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 see what is said.
btw i opened a thread about peulsaying you have to come to me and take mark with you, to which i got a replie saying; i dont know where you red that, but i red it again, it's exactly in there besides allt he times he says i will come to you.

for the rest i do beleive pauls was a man of his own trying to get what christ had as he says too..

and he even argues directly with god at points.
further rest about the conversion spoken here, i recal reading paul/saul carried the scar of christ, which if taken right can mean more thenjust shed a tear...

and for truth, as far as it can go. why would we accept john's letters entirely, while it gives a very weird picture of who jesus christ trruly is. which is not john...(john is rather the back up)

and as to a returnal of jesus and letters directed possibly at the future, i personally think much more should be taken in consideration then simply a copy of christ returning......

think about this if you will.

btw i'll look it up now...

"last orders"
2 timothy 4:9
kom to me quick,10.....

if you know you know if you dont read the rest yourself..

x
 
In the hopes that this thread is about true inquiry into Paul, rather than a "bash Paul" fest....

I am not completely convinced either way yet about Paul, but I know Christ is the Messiah, and as a truth-seeker and one who loves God with all his heart, I have a responsibility to defend truth.
I would say that as a truth-seeker and one who loves God with all his heart, you also have a responsibility to accept truth as well.

The disciples, who walked with Christ and were the humans who knew Him best, accepted Paul and his teachings. Even Peter, who went mano-a-mano with Paul over the issue of showing favoritism with the Jewish Christians (and how Paul rebuked Peter for that) said of Paul, "Therefore, beloved, since you look for these things, be diligent to be found by Him in peace, spotless and blameless, and regard the patience of our Lord as salvation; just as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, wrote to you, as also in all his letters, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction."

Peter nails it here...some of Paul's writings, according to the wisdom given him (by the Holy Spirit) are hard to understand. And, the untaught and unstable distort Paul's writings...and will often distort the rest of the Scriptures (Peter obviously regards Paul's writings as Scripture) to their own destruction.

I've studied the letters of Paul for a few years now, just as I studied the Gospels for a few years as well. I don't see a shred of evidence to the claims (and there have been many) that Paul contradicts Jesus on anything. I've found, without exception, that those making the claims are either distorting Paul's words, or don't truly understand the Gospels and the fulfillment of Jesus' work on the cross, or both.
 
I don't want to argue, and if this turns into a Paul bash fest I'm outta here (and this thread will be locked according to the ToS), but I would like to address some holes in your line of thinking.

Hello WIP!

Well...it isn't a "line of thought" as much as putting Jesus (Yashua's) words first, which we ALWAYS MUST DO and applying simple logic. You can't just ignore the things Christ said.

The truth is, they both refused to believe it was true before they saw the lord standing before them. Christians who don't believe Christ was raised from the dead can't be saved. Period.

None of us Christians would get into Heaven if we refused to believe in Him until Christ appeared to us. That's what FAITH is all about.

One problem here is that: None of us would make it to heaven if we refused to accept Christ's salvation. Period.

Christ has appeared to many, and He has His reasons. I know of someone (atheist) who put a loaded gun to their head and was about to pull the trigger, when suddenly Christ appeared before this person. There are many Christians who become believers through these types of encounters with Christ. Usually, the ones who meet Christ in this manner are the ones who become extremely zealous in a holy manner for the Lord. Ever heard of Esther Gulshan? She was a Pakistani Muslim who was crippled from a childhood disease. She did not believe in Christ, she was raised to deny Him, but when He healed her and appeared before her, she became a believer. Like Paul, she faced death threats and became alienated from her family and countrymen. She spent the rest of her life as a single woman traveling the world preaching the Gospel of Christ.

Christ said: "Blessed are those who believe without seeing." He didn't say "Those who believe without seeing are the only true believers" or "Those who believe only by seeing are not true believers." Those who believe without seeing will receive their reward in the heavenlies; those who believe because of seeing, receive their reward in the here and now.

I see nothing awesome about Paul's conversion. It would have been awesome if he were converted by an inward experience...like the rest of us true Christians are. Any one of us could easily do an about face and turn around his activities after seeing a powerful "vision" like that. Wouldn't you? Who do you know who would actually say that they wouldn't do an about face?
Why are the only true Christians those who believe without seeing. I think Esther Gulshan would be saddened and heart broken, by the fact that after she lost her family, her riches, her plan for her life, and endured harassment and persecution all while traveling the world to do the Lord's work for the entirety of her lifetime, would then have someone like you turn to her and say: "You're not a true believer".

And in fact, there are instances where either Paul or the book of Acts contradicts what Christ said. And as well as this, in all 3 accounts of Paul's conversion in Acts...there are factual contradictions. I will list them if you like.
I know which supposed "contradictions" you are referring too, but here's a little problem with your beliefs, Paul didn't write the Book of Acts, Luke did. If you want to discredit Paul then you discredit the Book of Acts, and you discredit Luke, and by default you also discredit the Gospel of Luke. That leaves you with 3 gospels instead of 4.

I am not completely convinced either way yet about Paul, but I know Christ is the Messiah, and as a truth-seeker and one who loves God with all his heart, I have a responsibility to defend truth.
That's great that you're a believer, but undermining Paul, undermines a majority of the New Testament. If you're a believer who doesn't believe that the entire Bible is free from errors, then what's the point of using the Scriptures to "defend" what you consider "truth"?

Now one thing we know, is that truth mixed with lies is the most potent poison there is. If it were true that Paul contradicted Christ on many counts (and I can give some examples that you can comment on) then it would mean he did a disservice to the True Gospel, rather than a service.
Unless you are a Messianic Jew, Paul is the reason that you, a gentile, are a believer. Paul was sent to the gentiles, he gave his life up for the Christ, how much more of a service could he have done?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Hey guys!

Thanks so much for the replies. No..this isn't going to be a bash Paul fest. I just wanted to see if anyone could actually provide an answer to the issues that I brought up. I appreciate your contributions and will think them over!!


However...I don't necessarily agree that the other apostles all accepted Paul. There is some evidence to the contrary. There are also supposed to only be 12 apostles. Judas was already replaced. So now there are 13. But I will leave it at that. I have no need to distort Pauls' writings...and so far I haven't even mentioned any of Paul's writings. I am also not untaught or unstable..but very well taught, and very strong in my faith.

I know that Paul has said some wonderful things. So no problem with that. I have more questions that I could present, but out of respect I will withhold these...and bring them to a general Theology forum instead, where there are people that won't be offended by the dicsussion.

To me...the Christian faith is about CHRIST, and I see no reason personally to follow any of Paul's letters...when Christ said "ask and it shall be revealed to you." And we know that faith in Christ...that he came in the flesh, was born of a virgin, is the one and only son of God, was crucified and raised from the dead, and that by doing what Christ said will definitely lead to salvation. The number of times that I have been saved from death (too many times to count) and the number of things that have been revealed to me in life, and the fact that Christ (Yashua) is my close and dear friend...are enough for me to know that I have salvation. There is, interestingly enough, a sect of Jewish believers (the Ebionites) who don't accept Paul's teachings. I don't think Christ will tell them that they aren't going to heaven. Now, Paul's teachings are not hard for me to understand at all. And I think there is a LOT of great material in there. But there are also a lot of issues. If anyone wants to test me on my understanding of Christ's words, or on my understanding of Christian theology...go for it. We can leave my issues with Paul out of the equation. But I have to wonder why God would choose a servant that would confound things, and leave things open for so much misinterpretation, when even Christ's parables are easy to understand, to someone with a Spiritual mind.

Now...it may very well be true that Paul's letters help many Christians increase their faith. There is a lot of good material in Paul's letters.

One thing about Paul's work though, that I don't appreciate, is that he says there is only ONE commandment which is central to all things...to love one another...while Christ says that FIRST, you are 1) to love the God the Father with all your heart, mind, soul and strength, and 2) to love your neighbor as yourself. So I think at least all Christians should just be sure to remember that!!! Paul leaves the first part out...and that is a big deal to me!!

I have a good friend named Eugene..who wrote a prayer on a wall of mine, that I had reserved for friends to write on, and he was asking God for blessings and this and that, which is okay, but I said to him.."remember to send God all of your love in your prayers...because this is what Jesus has asked us to do." He was pleasantly surprised, and said "you know...I'm going to start to do that." Now it's interesting to note that Eugene goes to church regularly, and somehow this doesn't come up enough in his particular church.

So I guess that is my message to you now. I think that as long as a pastor or priest gives the proper focus to Christ's own words and teachings, everything should be okay. I am sorry if I offended anyone. God Bless all of you! Peace,
Randy
 
Hey TheLords. Thanks for replying to my post.

About the contraditions in Acts...I know that Paul didn't write Acts. And like I said in the beginning...my verdict is still out on Paul. But when you really look into it, it isn't certain whether Luke even wrote the book of Acts! There are actually a lot of other problems with the book of Acts itself...which also has me wondering whether THAT's actually where the problem is...and not even Paul, per se. And how can the inerrant Word of God have errors in it? It can't!!

And you can't sidestep the fact that the problems in Acts exist, just because you think it would create another problem...like being left with only 3 gospels. I also see no reason to discredit Luke, or his wonderful Gospel.

Now...also...no one really knows who wrote the book of Hebrews. It attributed to Paul...but every real scholar knows that no one actually knows who wrote it. HOWEVER...The Book of Hebrews is awesome, and indispensible. So why do they say that Paul wrote it?

I was pleased to hear what you said about Messianic Jews. Thank you for that. I was born of a Jewish father and a Catholic mother myself.

I appreciate all your feedback. It has really helped me to keep all this in perspective...though like I said I have problem with the Book of Acts. Another problem i have is the part where the Jewish Priest, who believed in Christ, was overcome by a demon..and right before this happened, the demon said "Christ I know..and Paul I know...but who are you?" and then the demon overcame him. I myself have the power to cast out demons (I have healed people this way)..but this passage seems to be designed to make people lose faith in what Christ said, when he said that all those whose names are written in heaven, will have power over all evil sprits. Not just Christ and Paul and "certain people" but all true beleivers. This part of Acts I also don't like!! It seems designed to make people afraid, when Christ said "never fear...only believe!!"
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Hey TheLords. Thanks for replying to my post.

About the contraditions in Acts...I know that Paul didn't write Acts. And like I said in the beginning...my verdict is still out on Paul. But when you really look into it, it isn't certain whether Luke even wrote the book of Acts! There are actually a lot of other problems with the book of Acts itself...which also has me wondering whether THAT's actually where the problem is...and not even Paul, per se. And how can the inerrant Word of God have errors in it? It can't!!

It's good to see you're open to discussion and not simply here to dump on the man. With this attitude, I'm certain, that we can all have a blessed and fruitful discussion.

Now, you testify, that you believe the Word of God is inerrant. This is the first step. The Holy Bible was wholly written and inspired by the Holy Spirit. (Nice use of alliteration, ey?) That means that there are no true problems and contradictions in the Word, only perceived contradictions based on misunderstanding. It seems for you, Paul is an area of struggle, for me the problem of evil is an area of struggle. For whatever reason, the Holy Spirit allows these issues to come up in our walk so that we can grow and "be transformed into the image of Christ." (2 Cor. 3:18)

And you can't sidestep the fact that the problems in Acts exist, just because you think it would create another problem...like being left with only 3 gospels. I also see no reason to discredit Luke, or his wonderful Gospel.
I'm not choosing to side step the perceived "problem" in Acts. What I'm choosing to do is address the root of the problem and not merely the fruit. As you addressed earlier, your problem doesn't seem to be Paul, but the entire Book of Acts. This leads me to perceive a bigger problem at hand. The root of the issue is "Do I truly believe God's Word to be inerrant?" the fruit of the problem is "I see many problems/contradictions in Scripture". (Now, I'm not saying these are your specific issues, though, only the Lord can reveal to you what they actually are, these are just examples for the sake of clarity).

If we pick and choose the parts of the Bible which we believe are true and leave out the parts we don't like...then we have what is plaguing the Christian church today...lots of feel good doctrine and other heresy.

Traditionally, Luke is regarded as being the author of Acts, but you're right it's not 100% certain. Regardless of that fact, the Holy Spirit wrote the entirety of the Holy Bible, which means the problem gets worse!

If Luke wrote Acts and you consider it problematic and uninspired, then you simply lose the Book of Acts, as well as, the Gospel of Luke.

But let's take it further, we know for certain, that the Holy Spirit inspired every single book within the Bible, including Acts. If we lose the Book of Acts, we lose the entire Scripture.

The Lord's faithfulness is a black and white issue: (1) either the Lord is completely faithful all the time, or (2) the Lord is completely faithless all the time. He cannot however be faithful in some instances and faithless in others. Either God got the entirety of Scripture correct, or He got the entirety of Scripture incorrect, but He definitely didn't get some portions correct and fail in other portions.

Does that make my position clearer for you?

I was pleased to hear what you said about Messianic Jews. Thank you for that. I was born of a Jewish father and a Catholic mother myself.
Were you raised Jewish or Catholic? Or we you raised a Messianic Jew? Either way, brother, your mother and her ancestors could not be Catholics if it weren't for men like Paul, who died to spread the Gospel of Christ. :nod

I appreciate all your feedback. It has really helped me to keep all this in perspective...though like I said I have problem with the Book of Acts. Another problem i have is the part where the Jewish Priest was overcome by a demon..and right before this happened, the demon said "Christ I know..and Paul I know...but who are you?" and then the demon overcame him. I myself have the power to cast out demons (I have healed people this way)..but this passage seems to be designed to make people lose faith in what Christ said, when he said that all those whose names are written in heaven, will have power over all evil sprits. Not just Christ and Paul and "certain people" but all true beleivers. This part of Acts I also don't like!! It seems designed to make people afraid, when Christ said "never fear...only believe!!"
I think your issue here is one of mere misperception. The only reason that Paul was addressed in this verse was specifically because of what the Sons of the Jewish Priest said:

Acts 19:13-15

Then certain of the vagabond Jews, exorcists, took upon them to call over them which had evil spirits the name of the LORD Jesus, saying,
We adjure you by Jesus whom Paul preacheth. And there were seven sons of one Sceva, a Jew, and chief of the priests, which did so. And the evil spirit answered and said, Jesus I know, and Paul I know; but who are ye?

I think this portion of Scripture is nothing more than a description of events. Like much of the Bible it's just a narrative of events that occurred. What's actually happening in this passage is some, unbelievers, are evoking the name of Christ to control this demon. And, yes, when unbelievers who do not have the power and authority of Christ, meddle in the affairs of the supernatural terrifying things can happen to them.

My advice to you, in order to discover the root of your problem, is to take a look at the circumstances around your life occurring when you began to have these issues with Paul/Acts. Is there a broken or painful area in your heart? Unanswered prayers somewhere? Take a look at your personal non-biblical struggles because I can assure you that it's somehow related to the doubts and struggles you're having with God's Word. These struggles are manifesting themselves as doubts with the Word of God, but it's merely a distraction point. Your humility and the description of your relationship with Christ leads me to believe Christ is trying to get your attention because he wants to heal an area of your heart/life. There's a deeper issue here. I truly believe the Lord is calling for you to find it.

Blessings.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I had to address this portion in a separate post due to a character limitation, but here it is:

Now...also...no one really knows who wrote the book of Hebrews. It attributed to Paul...but every real scholar knows that no one actually knows who wrote it. HOWEVER...The Book of Hebrews is awesome, and indispensible. So why do they say that Paul wrote it?
It's true, no one really knows who wrote the Book of Hebrews. Yes, traditionally, it is attributed to Paul because there is a large amount of reason to believe that he wrote it. Interestingly enough, here's what gotquestions.com has to say about the issue:

GotQuestions.com said:
Question: "Who wrote the Book of Hebrews? Who was the author of Hebrews?"

Answer:
Theologically speaking, scholars generally regard the book of Hebrews to be second in importance only to Paul's letter to the Romans in the New Testament. No other book so eloquently defines Christ as high priest of Christianity, superior to the Aaronic priesthood, and the fulfillment of the Law and the Prophets. This book presents Christ as the Author and Perfecter of our faith (Hebrews 12:2). However, both the authorship and audience are in question.

The title, "To the Hebrews," which appears in the earliest known copy of the epistle is not a part of the original manuscript. There is no salutation, the letter simply begins with the assertion that Jesus, the Son of God, has appeared, atoned for our sins, and is now seated at the right hand of God in heaven (Hebrews 1:1-4).

The letter closes with the words "Grace be with you all" (Hebrews 13:25), which is the same closing found in each of Paul's known letters (see Romans 16:20; 1 Corinthians 16:23; 2 Corinthians 13:14; Galatians 6:18; Ephesians 6:24; Philippians 4:23; Colossians 4:18; 1 Thessalonians 5:28; 2 Thessalonians 3:18; 1 Timothy 6:21; 2 Timothy 4:22; Titus 3:15; and Philemon 25). However, it should be noted that Peter (1 Peter 5:14; 2 Peter 3:18) used similar—though not identical—closings. Possibly that it was simply customary to close letters like this with the words "Grace be with you all" during this time period.

Church tradition teaches that Paul wrote the book of Hebrews, and until the 1800s, that issue was closed. However, though a vast majority of Christians—both and scholars and the laity—still believe Paul wrote the book, there are some tempting reasons to think otherwise.

First and foremost is the lack of a salutation. Some sort of personal salutation from Paul appears in all of his letters. So it would seem that writing anonymously is not his usual method; therefore, the reasoning goes, Hebrews cannot be one of his letters. Second, the overall composition and style is of a person who is a very sophisticated writer. Even though he was certainly a sophisticated communicator, Paul stated that he purposely did not speak with a commanding vocabulary (1 Corinthians 1:17; 2:1; 2 Corinthians 11:6).

The book of Hebrews quotes extensively from the Old Testament. Paul, as a Pharisee, would have been familiar with the Scripture in its original Hebrew language. In other letters, Paul either quotes the Masoretic Text (the original Hebrew) or paraphrases it. However, all of the quotes in this epistle are taken out of the Septuagint (the Greek Old Testament), which is inconsistent with Paul's usage. Finally, Paul was an apostle who claimed to receive his revelations directly from the Lord Jesus (1 Corinthians 11:23; Galatians 1:12). The writer of Hebrews specifically says that he was taught by an apostle (Hebrews 2:3).

If Paul didn't write the letter, who did? The most plausible suggestion is that this was actually a sermon Paul gave and it was transcribed later by Luke, a person who would have had the command of the Greek language which the writer shows. Barnabas is another likely prospect, since he was a Levite and would have been speaking on a subject that he knew much about. Martin Luther suggested Apollos, since he would have had the education the writer of this letter must have had. Priscilla and Clemet of Rome have been suggested by other scholars.

However, there is still much evidence that Paul wrote the letter. The most compelling comes from Scripture itself. Remember that Peter wrote to the Hebrews (that is, the Jews; see Galatians 2:7, 9 and 1 Peter 1:1). Peter wrote: "...just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him [emphasis added]" (2 Peter 3:15). In that last verse, Peter is confirming that Paul had also written a letter to the Hebrews!

The theology presented in Hebrews is consistent with Paul's. Paul was a proponent of salvation by faith alone (Ephesians 2:8, 9), and that message is strongly communicated in this epistle (Hebrews 4:2, 6:12, 10:19-22, 10:37-39, and 11:1-40). Either Paul wrote the epistle, or the writer was trained by Paul. Although it is a small detail, this epistle makes mention of Timothy (Hebrews 13:23), and Paul is the only apostle known to have ever done that in any letter.

So, who actually wrote Hebrews? The letter fills a needed space in Scripture and both outlines our faith and defines faith itself in the same way that Romans defines the tenets of Christian living. It closes the chapters of faith alone and serves as a prelude to the chapters on good works built on a foundation of faith in God. In short, this book belongs in the Bible. Therefore, its human author is unimportant. What is important is to treat the book as inspired Scripture as defined in 2 Timothy 3:16-17. The Holy Spirit was the divine author of Hebrews, and of all Scripture, even though we don't know who put the physical pen to the physical paper and traced the words.
 
If we pick and choose the parts of the Bible which we believe are true and leave out the parts we don't like...then we have what is plaguing the Christian church today...lots of feel good doctrine and other heresy.

:


But see the problem with this argument, is that this is how the Bible was put together to begin with. Several people had to get together and sort it all out and pick and choose and decide what they thought was Canon and what was not. If you look at a good article on how the Bible came to be, you'll see that this is true. There are also 4 books that were originally in The Bible, that were later excluded for some reason. There is also not only ONE bible...but many many bibles existing in the world today, each with different books included and excluded. Go look at the Ethiopian Bible for instance.


And the fact that there is "feel good doctrine" and other heresy is a great point that you are making...but I have not introduced anything other than Christ's own words in my arguments...so there is zero chance of any heresy in anything I am saying. I can say to myself..it feels good to make 3=4..in the same way that Acts has problems that I can pretend aren't there. It may feel good to pretend the problems aren't there..but they are still there.


I can help you with the "problem of evil", by the way. Evil has to exist in order for us to have a reward in heaven. Christ said "if you love only those who love you...where is your reward?" It is only by resisting and overcoming evil that we grow spiritually. It's like spiritual weightlifting...or the spiritual equivalent of natural selection. It's by STRIVING to overcome evil, and by raising our vibration...that we grow. It's kind of the spiritual equivalent of becoming resistant to infections...and similar to how the brain and mind gets much more tenacious as a result of environmental triggers...that stimulate it into action and growth!

We are here to do spritual work...and then comes our rest, with the Lord.
 
Were you raised Jewish or Catholic? Or we you raised a Messianic Jew? Either way, brother, your mother and her ancestors could not be Catholics if it weren't for men like Paul, who died to spread the Gospel of Christ. :nod


I was actually raised Christian by my mother! We went to Catholic churches briefly (Italian ones) and then some Protestant churches. My father unfortunately does not accept our Messiah.

One thing to note though, is that Christ told his apostles (prior to Paul's arrival) to go unto the nations and baptize and to spread the word. The Church existed even before Paul.

Paul did not baptize...unless I am mistaken. He also did not heal Timothy...but instead told him to drink wine for his stomach.
 
But see the problem with this argument, is that this is how the Bible was put together to begin with. Several people had to get together and sort it all out and pick and choose and decide what they thought was Canon and what was not. If you look at a good article on how the Bible came to be, you'll see that this is true. There are also 4 books that were originally in The Bible, that were later excluded for some reason. There is also not only ONE bible...but many many bibles existing in the world today, each with different books included and excluded. Go look at the Ethiopian Bible for instance.

I understand what you're saying. I went to Christian school so I was well taught in the history of Christianity :P

Let's take a look at this argument from another perspective, do you believe in a Triune God? If you're answer is yes, I would be glad to proceed, if no, then I can use a different example.


And the fact that there is "feel good doctrine" and other heresy is a great point that you are making...but I have not introduced anything other than Christ's own words in my arguments...so there is zero chance of any heresy in anything I am saying. I can say to myself..it feels good to make 3=4..in the same way that Acts has problems that I can pretend aren't there. It may feel good to pretend the problems aren't there..but they are still there.

I didn't accuse you of speaking heresy. Nothing in your approach has been about condemnation. What I was trying to address was that some "Christians" are on both sides of the extreme. One side allows homosexuals to be pastors and ministers in the church, while allowing and blessing gay marriage. And others, are picketing events they deem offensive with signs like "God hates <whom we hate>". As believers, we can both easily see that those on either side are picking and choosing from the Bible to develop their doctrines. It's a result of regarding some of the Bible over another portion of it.

I can help you with the "problem of evil", by the way. Evil has to exist in order for us to have a reward in heaven. Christ said "if you love only those who love you...where is your reward?" It is only by resisting and overcoming evil that we grow spiritually. It's like spiritual weightlifting...or the spiritual equivalent of natural selection. It's by STRIVING to overcome evil, and by raising our vibration...that we grow. It's kind of the spiritual equivalent of becoming resistant to infections...and similar to how the brain and mind gets much more tenacious as a result of environmental triggers...that stimulate it into action and growth!

We are here to do spritual work...and then comes our rest, with the Lord.

This may be true, my brain tells me to give you the benefit of the doubt, but my heart tells me "No way, Jose! This is an outright unbiblical lie!"

You may be right or you may be wrong, regardless, I can't look at this issue objectively yet. I have more growing in the Lord to do, but thank you for trying!
 
It sounds as if you have more of an issue with what is to be considered biblical canon, than about Paul himself.

Luke, Paul, Peter, James, John, whomever the writer of Hebrews was...I do believe that they were just as inspired to write as Matthew and Mark were. If you can trust Luke's writings about Jesus, why not his writings about the acts of the apostle?

You brought up one issue about Paul that I've seen before:

Romans 13:9 For this, “YOU SHALL NOT COMMIT ADULTERY, YOU SHALL NOT MURDER, YOU SHALL NOT STEAL, YOU SHALL NOT COVET,†and if there is any other commandment, it is summed up in this saying, “YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF.â€

Because Jesus said that we are to love God with all our heart, soul and mind as well as love your neighbor as yourself, some who want to deny that Paul was an apostle and was inspired try to make out that he was somehow contradicting Jesus when he didn't specifically state both commandments.

But, context is always important when reading the Scriptures and when we look at the context of Romans 13 we see that Paul is specifically speaking to how the Romans Christians should treat other people. He is speaking to the fact that if the Romans remain law abiding citizens and good neighbors, there is no reason to fear the Roman authorities or the Roman laws. The whole of what Paul states here is:
For rulers are not a cause of fear for good behavior, but for evil. Do you want to have no fear of authority? Do what is good and you will have praise from the same; for it is a minister of God to you for good. But if you do what is evil, be afraid; for it does not bear the sword for nothing; for it is a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath on the one who practices evil. Therefore it is necessary to be in subjection, not only because of wrath, but also for conscience’ sake. For because of this you also pay taxes, for rulers are servants of God, devoting themselves to this very thing. Render to all what is due them: tax to whom tax is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honor to whom honor. Owe nothing to anyone except to love one another; for he who loves his neighbor has fulfilled the law. For this, “YOU SHALL NOT COMMIT ADULTERY, YOU SHALL NOT MURDER, YOU SHALL NOT STEAL, YOU SHALL NOT COVET,†and if there is any other commandment, it is summed up in this saying, “YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF.†Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfillment of the law.

Nothing in this contradicts Jesus in anyway...as a matter of fact, it simply amplifies what Jesus said and made it specific to those Christians struggling to live in Rome.

A contradiction would read something along the lines of..."Jesus said to love God with all your heart, mind and soul and love your neighbor as yourself...but, you'll have fulfilled the law if you forget about loving God and just concentrate on loving your neighbor." But, Paul is saying nothing of the sort...he is simply using Christ's words about the second of His commandments and applying them to the Roman Christian's predicaments that he is addressing.
 
I was actually raised Christian by my mother! We went to Catholic churches briefly (Italian ones) and then some Protestant churches. My father unfortunately does not accept our Messiah.

One thing to note though, is that Christ told his apostles (prior to Paul's arrival) to go unto the nations and baptize and to spread the word. The Church existed even before Paul.

Paul did not baptize...unless I am mistaken. He also did not heal Timothy...but instead told him to drink wine for his stomach.

Paul addresses this all himself, and I look forward to continuing our discussion, but I gotta go now! :waving
 
Acts 19:13-15

Then certain of the vagabond Jews, exorcists, took upon them to call over them which had evil spirits the name of the LORD Jesus, saying, We adjure you by Jesus whom Paul preacheth. And there were seven sons of one Sceva, a Jew, and chief of the priests, which did so. And the evil spirit answered and said, Jesus I know, and Paul I know; but who are ye?

I think this portion of Scripture is nothing more than a description of events. Like much of the Bible it's just a narrative of events that occurred. What's actually happening in this passage is some, unbelievers, are evoking the name of Christ to control this demon. And, yes, when unbelievers who do not have the power and authority of Christ, meddle in the affairs of the supernatural terrifying things can happen to them.

My advice to you, in order to discover the root of your problem, is to take a look at the circumstances around your life occurring when you began to have these issues with Paul/Acts. Is there a broken or painful area in your heart? Unanswered prayers somewhere? Take a look at your personal non-biblical struggles because I can assure you that it's somehow related to the doubts and struggles you're having with God's Word. These struggles are manifesting themselves as doubts with the Word of God, but it's merely a distraction point. Your humility and the description of your relationship with Christ leads me to believe Christ is trying to get your attention because he wants to heal an area of your heart/life. There's a deeper issue here. I truly believe the Lord is calling for you to find it.

Blessings.

Thank you for your reply on this. The version of scripture that I have makes it sound like the Jewish Priest had strong faith in Christ...so it gives the impression of going against what Christ said would be the case.

But as far as my life...my life has never been better! My faith in Christ has never been stronger, and my experiences with prayer, especially recently, have been nothing short of miraculous.

I am just now taking a much more serious look at any and all problems there could be with scripture..in order to help others...because if I am capable of having these questions...then other people will also...and I know that the evil one will stop at nothing in order to create division and fear, and to try to separate even the elect, if it were possible, from The Truth.
 
Paul addresses this all himself, and I look forward to continuing our discussion, but I gotta go now! :waving

Actually, I gotta run now too!! Looking forward to our next dicsussion! See ya next time!

Peace,
Randy
 
This is a busy thread...a lot was posted just as I was composing my last post.

Randy, you said, "And the fact that there is "feel good doctrine" and other heresy is a great point that you are making...but I have not introduced anything other than Christ's own words in my arguments...so there is zero chance of any heresy in anything I am saying."

I'm not accusing you as an heretic...but I do caution that line of thinking. As theLord's pointed out, a lot of people now claim that God has nothing at all against homosexuality, because Jesus never said anything against it. Christ's words certainly can be twisted into heresy and anything that He didn't speak to can become wide open, if we are to ignore the rest of the New Testament...not that I'm saying that you are doing this.
 
Back
Top