Not another anti Paul thread?

[jgredline]

Re: Not another anti-Paul thread?

Georges, I just read through--or rather , skimmed through page 1, and my question is, What's your point or objective?

Yes, Saul was from the tribe of Benjamin, and like other Benjaminites in the OT, he was like a ravenous wolf persecuting, committing to prison and death the early Christians, those of The Way. There are many verses that tell of this.

But, God had a special purpose for him, and he was struck by a light greater than the new day sun, and became blind. It was Christ Jesus Himself who he saw before losing his sight, and when he asked who it was, the answer was Jesus of Nazereth. So, there is no mistake that Saul, who later was called Paul, was chosen by the Lord to be the apostle and teacher of the Gentiles (nations).

Many secrets were revealed to Paul, such as: the church (ecclesia=called out ones) being called out first by Paul and others, and continuing till today is the Body of Christ; we have been chosen and predestined to be conformed to the image of Christ for service; we have been justified by faith; we are heirs of God and joint-heirs with Christ; our being resurrected, changed and caught up to the heavenlies will be a secret event;
we will be witnessing to the unbelieving spirit beings in the heavenlies, the manifold grace and wisdom of God, in the ages to come.

That's just a little. Read Romans, Colossians and Ephesians.

Bye for now, Bick

Bick
Thank you

 

[Klee shay]

Here is an interesting prophecy in ZECHARIAH 13:1-2 which I would like to discuss. It has caused me to ponder what has come after Jesus, but I have not formed any conclusions yet.

"In that day there shall be a fountain opened to the house of David and to the inhabitants of Jerusalem for sin and for uncleanness. And it shall come to pass in that day, saith the LORD of hosts, that I will cut off the names of the idols out of the land, and they shall no more be remembered: and also I will cause the prophets and the unclean spirit to pass out of the land."

The text I have underlined declares that God will cause the prophets and unclean spirits to pass out of the land. Does that mean God will not be using prophets in the future, after Jesus (the fountain described in Zechariah 13-1) to deliver his message any more?

Was wondering what others made of the underlined text in Zechariah. What did God mean when he said after the fountain was opened to the house of David, the prophets and unclean spirits would pass out of the land?

My reason for pondering is that anyone else claiming to prophesi in the name of the Lord, after the fountain was opened (the living waters from Christ) would God have sent them?

As I said, I haven't drawn any conclusions and I am not outing Paul's contributions, but I did want to discuss the ramifications of Zechariah's prophecy and if indeed God did away with prophets after Jesus. I think it would be important to know if indeed this is what God was declaring through Zechariah.

 

[Georges]

John 5:43 I am come in my Father's name, and ye receive me not: if another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive.

Who is this other that Messiah is talking about who is going to come in his own name?


How many apostles are there?
Revelation 21:14 The wall of the city had twelve foundations, and on them twelve names of the twelve Apostles of the Lamb

Revelation shows that there are only 12 apostles.

Well in that case who replaced Judas Iscariot and became the 12th?

Act 1:24 And they prayed, and said, Thou, Lord, which knowest the hearts of all [men], shew whether of these two thou hast chosen,
Act 1:25 That he may take part of this ministry and apostleship, from which Judas by transgression fell, that he might go to his own place.
Act 1:26And they gave forth their lots; and the lot fell upon Matthias; and he was numbered with the eleven apostles.

People say Peter did wrong in casting the lots and chosing Matthias because the holy spirit wasn’t given to them yet. Well I beg to difer. Read on.

John 20:22And when he had said this, he breathed on [them], and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost:

That was the Messiah after resurrection when He appeared to the 11 apostles.

So we already know Paul doesn’t fit into being the 13th apostle from Revelation that there are only 12 foundations with the names of the 12 apostles. Paul evidently didn’t replace Judas. So who is it that came in his own name and the only one who refers to himself as an apostle? Why it is Paul indeed.

Georges, I still need to keep myself in prayer about this. But so far Paul doesn’t seem to be doing very well in my book.

If you would like pm me with an email address...I have a pdf file (book) that absolutely proves Paul to be a false prophet through Biblical standards...I just finished Chapter 6 and can't believe that this hasn't been addressed in some form or fashion...The offer goes out to all.....read it and tell me if Paul isn't an apostate....

 

[Georges]

Re: Not another anti-Paul thread?

Georges, I just read through--or rather , skimmed through page 1, and my question is, What's your point or objective?

To prove Paul was/is an apostate as claimed by the early Nazarene/Ebonite Chruch....to get people to recognize this and get back to worshiping God by obeying Torah....in a nutshell. To undo what Paul had done...

Yes, Saul was from the tribe of Benjamin, and like other Benjaminites in the OT, he was like a ravenous wolf persecuting, committing to prison and death the early Christians, those of The Way. There are many verses that tell of this.

I just pointed out also the circumstantial facts that Jesus said men would come in his name teaching the negation of the Law...they would be wolves in sheeps clothing....Jacobs prediction of Benjamin as wolves....Paul was a Benjaminite....things that make you go...HMMMMM.

But, God had a special purpose for him, and he was struck by a light greater than the new day sun, and became blind. It was Christ Jesus Himself who he saw before losing his sight, and when he asked who it was, the answer was Jesus of Nazereth.

Or so he says....no colaborating witness....read the entire thread....and it would help to read the other anti Paul threads to get the whole picture. More importantly, take me up on the offer I made on the post above.


So, there is no mistake that Saul, who later was called Paul, was chosen by the Lord to be the apostle and teacher of the Gentiles (nations).

As he said.....no consistant witness colaboration.


Many secrets were revealed to Paul, such as: the church (ecclesia=called out ones) being called out first by Paul and others, and continuing till today is the Body of Christ; we have been chosen and predestined to be conformed to the image of Christ for service; we have been justified by faith; we are heirs of God and joint-heirs with Christ; our being resurrected, changed and caught up to the heavenlies will be a secret event;
we will be witnessing to the unbelieving spirit beings in the heavenlies, the manifold grace and wisdom of God, in the ages to come.

Yeh yeh....I know all that....as Paul says...but what if Paul can be proven to be a false prophet? Then what...? Take me up on my offer and if you still believe that Paul is a stand up guy...my hats off to ya....

That's just a little. Read Romans, Colossians and Ephesians.

That's my point....you can't because they are penned by a false prophet....take me up on the offer...pm me with an email address and I send the pdf file proving Paul.....

Bye for now, Bick

I'm serious Mr. Bick......pm me, read it, and tell me you still accept Paul....

 

[KaerbEmEvig]

My MSN is piotr.stuglik@wp.pl. Send it over - I have already known this, but seems it will be a good read, anyways.

 

[Georges]

My MSN is piotr.stuglik@wp.pl. Send it over - I have already known this, but seems it will be a good read, anyways.

You may know it.....

I however have been around a long time...and didn't know much of it (although some of it I ran across from time to time). I'm in chap 6 and really can't believe how cut and dry it really is....

BTW...anyone pm'ing me, I need to have a conventional ending after the @. I wasn't able to send the pdf files because my mail administrator didn't like the ending...

So far 2 takers....anyone else....?

 

[Bick]

An anti-Paul thread?

Again I would say, "an anti-Saul" thread.

Klee Shay: Here is my understanding of Zech. 13:1-2:

First of all, read the whole context, starting with Chapt. 12. I see this as prophetic of the day of the Lord when Jesus as Messiah returns to rescue Jerusalem and his people, Israel.

Evidently there will be idols in the land which will be banished. The prophets and the spirit of the land are both impure. Note: not "spirits", which you wrongly quoted. If you read on in Chapt. 13, even the parents of their son, who was telling lies in the Lord's name, will slay him.

This future time (at the time of writing) is not of Jesus first advent, when he came as a servant to his people, Israel. Verse 12:10 , NIV, reads, "And I will pour out on the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem a spirit of grace and supplication. They will look on the one they have pierced, and they will mourn..." This is after he had been crucified and pierced, and when they see his wounds, they will be broken hearted.

And it is good to remember "prophet" means "one who speaks forth or openly", Vines Complete Expository Dictionary; Not necessarily fortelling the future.

Also, Klee shay, use a concordance, look up "prophet", and you will find that in the book of Acts and the epistles, there are a number of prophets mentioned. All after Jesus ascension to heaven.

Bye for now, Bick

 

[Bick]

Anti-Saul?

Georges: I read your quotes from the Psuedo-Clementine Literature, and I did some reasearch on all of the literature. The fact is, Georges, they are fictional, written by someone the experts aren't agreed on. And the date of writing is said to be in the third century, or possibly in the last of the second century A.D.

There are so many falsehoods in the Recognitions and the Homilies, for I have skimmed through both of them.

First of all. there is no proof Peter was ever in Rome. History seems to indicate that all of the 12 apostles met violent deaths before 70 A.D. Peter traveled very little from Jerusalem.

I am going to paste the copy I made of Professor M.B. Riddle, D.D.:

INTRODUCTORY NOTICE TO PSEUDO-CLEMENTINE LITERATURE
By Professor M. B. Riddle, D.D.

------------

The name "Pseudo-Clementine Literature" (or, more briefly, "Clementina" ) is applied to a series of writings, closely resembling each other, purporting to emanate from the great Roman Father. But, as Dr. Schaff remarks, in this literature he is evidently confounded with "Flavius Clement, kinsman of the Emperor Domitian."1 These writings are three in number: (1) the Recognitions, of which only the Latin translation of Rufinus has been preserved;2 (2) the Homilies, twenty in number, of which a complete collection has been known since 1853; (3) the Epitome, "an uninteresting extract from the Homilies, to which are added extracts from the letter of Clement to James, from the Martyrium of Clement by Simeon Metaphrastes, etc."3 Other writings may be classed with these; but they are of the same general character, except that most of them show the influence of a later age, adapting the material more closely to the orthodox doctrine.

The Recognitions and the Homilies appear in the pages which follow. The former are given a prior position, as in the Edinburgh series. It probably cannot be proven that these represent the earlier form of this theological romance; but the Homilies, "in any case, present the more doctrinally developed and historically important form of the other treatises, which are essentially similar."4 They are therefore with propriety placed after the Recognitions, which do not seem to have been based upon them, but upon some earlier document.5

The critical discussion of the Clementina has been keen, but has not reached its end. It necessarily involves other questions, about which there is still great difference of opinion. A few results seem to be established:-

(1) The entire literature is of Jewish-Christian, or Ebionitic, origin. The position accorded to "James, the Lord's brother," in all the writings, is a clear indication of this; so is the silence respecting the Apostle Paul. The doctrinal statements, "though not perfectly homogeneous" (Uhlhorn), are Judaistic, even when mixed with Gnostic speculation of heathen origin. This tendency is, perhaps, not so clearly marked in the Recognitions as in the Homilies; but both partake largely of the same general character. More particularly, the literature has been connected with the Ebionite sect called the Elkesaites; and some regard the Homilies as containing a further development of their system.6 This is not definitely established, but finds some support in the resemblance between the baptismal forms, as given by Hippolytus in the case of the Elkesaites,7 and those indicated in the Recognitions and Homilies, especially the latter.8

(2) The entire literature belongs to the class of fictitious writing "with a purpose." The Germans properly term the Homilies a "Tendenz-Romance."

Bick

 

[jgredline]

Re: Anti-Saul?

Georges: I read your quotes from the Psuedo-Clementine Literature, and I did some reasearch on all of the literature. The fact is, Georges, they are fictional, written by someone the experts aren't agreed on. And the date of writing is said to be in the third century, or possibly in the last of the second century A.D.

There are so many falsehoods in the Recognitions and the Homilies, for I have skimmed through both of them.

First of all. there is no proof Peter was ever in Rome. History seems to indicate that all of the 12 apostles met violent deaths before 70 A.D. Peter traveled very little from Jerusalem.

I am going to paste the copy I made of Professor M.B. Riddle, D.D.:

INTRODUCTORY NOTICE TO PSEUDO-CLEMENTINE LITERATURE
By Professor M. B. Riddle, D.D.

------------

The name "Pseudo-Clementine Literature" (or, more briefly, "Clementina" ) is applied to a series of writings, closely resembling each other, purporting to emanate from the great Roman Father. But, as Dr. Schaff remarks, in this literature he is evidently confounded with "Flavius Clement, kinsman of the Emperor Domitian."1 These writings are three in number: (1) the Recognitions, of which only the Latin translation of Rufinus has been preserved;2 (2) the Homilies, twenty in number, of which a complete collection has been known since 1853; (3) the Epitome, "an uninteresting extract from the Homilies, to which are added extracts from the letter of Clement to James, from the Martyrium of Clement by Simeon Metaphrastes, etc."3 Other writings may be classed with these; but they are of the same general character, except that most of them show the influence of a later age, adapting the material more closely to the orthodox doctrine.

The Recognitions and the Homilies appear in the pages which follow. The former are given a prior position, as in the Edinburgh series. It probably cannot be proven that these represent the earlier form of this theological romance; but the Homilies, "in any case, present the more doctrinally developed and historically important form of the other treatises, which are essentially similar."4 They are therefore with propriety placed after the Recognitions, which do not seem to have been based upon them, but upon some earlier document.5

The critical discussion of the Clementina has been keen, but has not reached its end. It necessarily involves other questions, about which there is still great difference of opinion. A few results seem to be established:-

(1) The entire literature is of Jewish-Christian, or Ebionitic, origin. The position accorded to "James, the Lord's brother," in all the writings, is a clear indication of this; so is the silence respecting the Apostle Paul. The doctrinal statements, "though not perfectly homogeneous" (Uhlhorn), are Judaistic, even when mixed with Gnostic speculation of heathen origin. This tendency is, perhaps, not so clearly marked in the Recognitions as in the Homilies; but both partake largely of the same general character. More particularly, the literature has been connected with the Ebionite sect called the Elkesaites; and some regard the Homilies as containing a further development of their system.6 This is not definitely established, but finds some support in the resemblance between the baptismal forms, as given by Hippolytus in the case of the Elkesaites,7 and those indicated in the Recognitions and Homilies, especially the latter.8

(2) The entire literature belongs to the class of fictitious writing "with a purpose." The Germans properly term the Homilies a "Tendenz-Romance."

Bick

Bick
Thank you for defending the faith.
Thank you for your post . I really appreciate them
JG

 

[Bick]

Deleted

 

[Bick]

Anti- Saul?

Hi Karem Em Evig. I don't know where you get the idea that "almost none of the NT books were written by their supposed author." Practically every one whose given the credit for being the author has been attested.

The book of Hebrews is one with no known author, just speculation; First, Second and Third John are primarily credited to the Apostle John; while the compiler of Revelation only identifies himself as John, most historians believe it was the Apostle John.

As for the letters of Paul, it's true he dictated most of them, but signed them because there were spurious letters claiming to be written by him.

Bick

 

[Bick]

Anti- Saul?

Deleted-- a repeat.

 

[Georges]

Re: Anti-Saul?

Georges: I read your quotes from the Psuedo-Clementine Literature, and I did some reasearch on all of the literature. The fact is, Georges, they are fictional, written by someone the experts aren't agreed on. And the date of writing is said to be in the third century, or possibly in the last of the second century A.D.

Fictional...no...You may have a better case as far as historical accuracy is concerned...and Pseudo means "not Clement" but written under Clements name....or it could be Clement, no one knows for sure...but is you want to give Paul the benefit of the doubt good for you....for me there are way to many other things that point to Paul as the apostate the Nazarenes claim.

In regard to when it was written, be honest. Your research should have indicated that it's up for debate, anywhere from the 1st century to the 4th have been thrown around. The P. Clementines is referenced by Origen in 231 which means that it was written earlier than that...and the earliest date should be attributed because of the pro Jewish content of the Clementine history. In other words....I don't think you would find such a favorable Jewish friendly account of early Christianity and a "accurate" account of Paul if the document were written after 200 AD.



There are so many falsehoods in the Recognitions and the Homilies, for I have skimmed through both of them.

Falsehoods if you by into revisionist history as presented by Pauline Christianity....of course they are going to bias their historical documents towards a Paul friendly slant...

First of all. there is no proof Peter was ever in Rome. History seems to indicate that all of the 12 apostles met violent deaths before 70 A.D. Peter traveled very little from Jerusalem.

Well, John did not...you are not quite honest here....Peter traveled to Mesopotamia to preach to the Jews in Babylon (the greatest concentration of Jews at that time). He could very well have traveled to Rome in persuit of Simon Magnus...Peter also went to Antioch and Ceaserea.....

I am going to paste the copy I made of Professor M.B. Riddle, D.D.:

INTRODUCTORY NOTICE TO PSEUDO-CLEMENTINE LITERATURE
By Professor M. B. Riddle, D.D.

------------

The name "Pseudo-Clementine Literature" (or, more briefly, "Clementina" ) is applied to a series of writings, closely resembling each other, purporting to emanate from the great Roman Father. But, as Dr. Schaff remarks, in this literature he is evidently confounded with "Flavius Clement, kinsman of the Emperor Domitian. (Domitian of Rome (51-96))"1 These writings are three in number: (1) the Recognitions, of which only the Latin translation of Rufinus has been preserved;2 (2) the Homilies, twenty in number, of which a complete collection has been known since 1853; (3) the Epitome, "an uninteresting extract from the Homilies, to which are added extracts from the letter of Clement to James, from the Martyrium of Clement by Simeon Metaphrastes, etc."3 Other writings may be classed with these; but they are of the same general character, except that most of them show the influence of a later age, adapting the material more closely to the orthodox doctrine.

The Recognitions and the Homilies appear in the pages which follow. The former are given a prior position, as in the Edinburgh series. It probably cannot be proven that these represent the earlier form of this theological romance; but the Homilies, "in any case, present the more doctrinally developed and historically important form of the other treatises, which are essentially similar."4 They are therefore with propriety placed after the Recognitions, which do not seem to have been based upon them, but upon some earlier document.5

The critical discussion of the Clementina has been keen, but has not reached its end. It necessarily involves other questions, about which there is still great difference of opinion. A few results seem to be established:-

(1) The entire literature is of Jewish-Christian, or Ebionitic, origin. The position accorded to "James, the Lord's brother," in all the writings, is a clear indication of this; so is the silence respecting the Apostle Paul.

Hello, the church was Jewish dominate for the first 40 years, of course it's going to be Nazarene in nature. Silence about Paul? He clearly is labeled "The Enemy". Peter clearly is indicating Paul in his Epistle to James...

The doctrinal statements, "though not perfectly homogeneous" (Uhlhorn), are Judaistic, even when mixed with Gnostic speculation of heathen origin.

Can't comment without seeing the passage he is referring to...

This tendency is, perhaps, not so clearly marked in the Recognitions as in the Homilies; but both partake largely of the same general character. More particularly, the literature has been connected with the Ebionite sect called the Elkesaites; and some regard the Homilies as containing a further development of their system.6 This is not definitely established, but finds some support in the resemblance between the baptismal forms, as given by Hippolytus in the case of the Elkesaites,7 and those indicated in the Recognitions and Homilies, especially the latter.8

(2) The entire literature belongs to the class of fictitious writing "with a purpose." The Germans properly term the Homilies a "Tendenz-Romance."

Well...shouldn't the Germans label the NT all ficticious then?
Bick

Mr. Bick....I'm sure I could come up with sources to counter your sources....but take me up on the offer I presented in the other post...Investigate Paul (or his intellectual descendents) for what he is....if he is proven false, then you are so much the better for finding that out...if he is proven true, then you are so much the better for finding that out as well.

Don't waste you time tracking down biased sources that use thier biased sources to promote a revisionist history of early Christianity....

Start with Paul...if he can be proven false "Biblically" how much more can the added extra history expose him....?

This offer goes out to any and all....email me and I'll send you the pdf documentation....prove it wrong, so I can correct my own error....

 

[Bick]

Another anti-Saul?

Georges, I'm just getting into this, and if I'm right, it sounds as if you are a proponent of salvation by works; that man can achieve the righteousness required by God by keeping the law; that faith alone in the death, burial and resurrection of Christ is not enough.

You keep bringing up the Torah as if man is capable of keeping it.

You are claiming Paul is a false prophet. When you dismiss his writings you dismiss the Law and the Prophets:

In the book of Romans alone, there are some 70 places where the Law and the Prophets are directly quoted or alluded to.

For example: Rom. 1:17, "The righteous shall live by faith." from Hab.2:4.

Rom.2:24, speaking of the Jews, "For the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles through you..", from Isa. 52:5, AV.

Rom.3:10, "As it is written, 'There is none righteous, no not one' ", from Psalms 14:1.

Rom.3:13, "Their throat is an open sepulchre; with their tongues they have used deceit; the poison of asps is under their lips", from Psa.5:9 & 140:3.

Rom.3:18, "There is no fear of God before their eyes", from Psa.36:1.

Rom.3:20, "Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law if the knowledge of sin", from Psa.143:2.

I'll conclude for now with this remark: Paul, indeed preached that the righteousness of God without the law is made known, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets (Rom.3:21). And in verse 31 he says we do not make void the law, yea, we establish the law.

Al for now, Bick

 

[Georges]

Re: Another anti-Saul?

Georges, I'm just getting into this, and if I'm right, it sounds as if you are a proponent of salvation by works; that man can achieve the righteousness required by God by keeping the law; that faith alone in the death, burial and resurrection of Christ is not enough.

Mr. Bick....you are/have fallen for the Paulinist propaganda machine..(That being the misconception that the Torah was provided to show man his sin)...God knows that man sins, the Torah is provided to show man how he can rectify that.....I've never stated salvation by "works" alone. Yes, man can achieve righteousness by obeying the Torah, and atoning when he has sinned against the Torah (God's will). God provides for that, hence no sacrifice needed. Actually, it's the "repentent, obedient" heart providing the sacrifice that causes atonement, not the sacrifice itself. So, I'm a proponent of James' "Faith and Works". As to the last part of your last sentence? that is correct, however that is not for me to decide, that is God's job.

You keep bringing up the Torah as if man is capable of keeping it.

No, and I've never said that if you read my posts. My opinion is can we keep Torah all of the time? No. Parts of it, all the time? Yes. Parts of it, all the time? No. You may not know this, but you "Mr. Bick" as being a conciencious Chrisitian, probably keep 90% of Torah Law (or most of them as applicable to you) as it is.....it's the "man made" Laws surrounding the Torah Law, that is the problem. Again, that is part of the Paulinist propaganda machine. Having said that, God knows that man is incapable of keeping the Torah 100% all of the time that is why he always provides a way for atonement, most of the ways for atonement are sacrifices w/o blood. A repentent and contreit heart are the factors for atonement.


You are claiming Paul is a false prophet. When you dismiss his writings you dismiss the Law and the Prophets:

I am claiming that Paul is the perfect candidate as put forth by the rules set in Deut and suggested by Jesus himself....Again Mr. Bick...I suggest the pdf (book) that explains it without a doubt.....you haven't taken me up on it.....other's have.....Maybe I should cut and paste the chapters on the forum board for discussion.

In the book of Romans alone, there are some 70 places where the Law and the Prophets are directly quoted or alluded to.

Yes, Paul is very clever....he does quote and that gives him a perception of validity....

For example: Rom. 1:17, "The righteous shall live by faith." from Hab.2:4.

Paul quotes scripture....who else quoted scripture?

Mat 4:5 Then the devil taketh him up into the holy city, and setteth him on a pinnacle of the temple,


Mat 4:6 And saith unto him, If thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down: for it is written, He shall give his angels charge concerning thee: and in [their] hands they shall bear thee up, lest at any time thou dash thy foot against a stone.


Rom.2:24, speaking of the Jews, "For the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles through you..", from Isa. 52:5, AV.

Uh huh....Again Paul is misleading, the context of the Isa passage is eschatological concerning the future and Israels redemption....A clear passage where Paul takes one verse and using it out of context, misleads the reader...

Rom.3:10, "As it is written, 'There is none righteous, no not one' ", from Psalms 14:1.

Uh huh....and it's clear that Psalm 14:7 that things with Israel will be rectified....a case of Paul misleading?

Rom.3:13, "Their throat is an open sepulchre; with their tongues they have used deceit; the poison of asps is under their lips", from Psa.5:9 & 140:3.

Again...Paul using single verses (out of context) to give the allusion of validity to his argument.

Rom.3:18, "There is no fear of God before their eyes", from Psa.36:1.

Again...picking another verse out of context to give an allusion to his credibility...

Rom.3:20, "Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law if the knowledge of sin", from Psa.143:2.

The same as above....

I'll conclude for now with this remark: Paul, indeed preached that the righteousness of God without the law is made known, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets (Rom.3:21). And in verse 31 he says we do not make void the law, yea, we establish the law.

Thus sayeth the Chameleon Paul......

Al for now, Bick

Mr. Bick....I was going to quit the forum....I hate being an antagonist all the time...so in winding down to obscurity, I will respond to your post.

 

[Bick]

Another anti-Saul?

Hi George. You say you are tired of being an antagonist. I don't see you as an antagonist, exactly, I'm just trying to figure out your point. You believe Paul was a false prophet, so you would exclude all his letters?

Then, the Bible would be the Hebrew Scriptures plus these in the Greek Scriptures: The four Gospels, Acts?, Hebrews, 1 & 2 Peter, James, 1,2 and 3 John, Jude and Revelation. Is this correct?

What is the gospel the "good news" that you would preach today?

Are you a Hebrew looking for the promised messiannic kingdom on earth?

Actually you don't have to answer any of this. Your goal must be to enlighten others that Paul is misleading them when he preaches that man is saved solely by the grace of God through the sacrifice of Christ Jesus.

Well, personally, my testimony is that the Spirit bears witness with my spirit that I am a child of God, by faith in Christ's sacrifice, apart from any works.
And being "in Christ" by faith, because He fulfilled the Law, I do also.

Bick

 

[Bick]

Another anti-Saul post?

Hi George. No "Mr.", please. "Bick" is a nick name. My full name is Arnold Bickham.

I feel I must respond to your latest post. As for bias, that is the way I view the Pseudo-Clementine writings which you came across.

As for 'atoning for sin', you no doubt are aware that the word in Hebrew, kaphar, means 'atone' or 'to cover'. All the sacrifices only provided a cover for sins, they were not taken away. I know, traditional Christian theology tells of the 'atoning work of Christ'; but His sacrifice takes away the sins of the world, they are not just 'covered'.

George, I don't know what pdf(book)you are talking about. I could see it being biased in you direction. My suggestion is, let's stick to just the whole Bible for further discussion.

Bick

 

[Klee shay]

Re: An anti-Paul thread?

Again I would say, "an anti-Saul" thread.

Klee Shay: Here is my understanding of Zech. 13:1-2:

First of all, read the whole context, starting with Chapt. 12. I see this as prophetic of the day of the Lord when Jesus as Messiah returns to rescue Jerusalem and his people, Israel.

Evidently there will be idols in the land which will be banished. The prophets and the spirit of the land are both impure. Note: not "spirits", which you wrongly quoted. If you read on in Chapt. 13, even the parents of their son, who was telling lies in the Lord's name, will slay him.

This future time (at the time of writing) is not of Jesus first advent, when he came as a servant to his people, Israel. Verse 12:10 , NIV, reads, "And I will pour out on the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem a spirit of grace and supplication. They will look on the one they have pierced, and they will mourn..." This is after he had been crucified and pierced, and when they see his wounds, they will be broken hearted.

And it is good to remember "prophet" means "one who speaks forth or openly", Vines Complete Expository Dictionary; Not necessarily fortelling the future.

Also, Klee shay, use a concordance, look up "prophet", and you will find that in the book of Acts and the epistles, there are a number of prophets mentioned. All after Jesus ascension to heaven.

Bye for now, Bick

Thanks for your input Bicks.

I will have to look closer at these particular prophecies in Zechariah.

 

[Georges]

Re: Another anti-Saul?

Hi George. You say you are tired of being an antagonist. I don't see you as an antagonist, exactly, I'm just trying to figure out your point. You believe Paul was a false prophet, so you would exclude all his letters?

Yes...and no....I won't necessarily throw the baby out with the bathwater...I think that his work should be scrutinized very carefully...and weighed. As I've mentioned (several times) the pdf book concerning Paul and the criteria concerning false prophets pretty much proves one thing, can you really trust Paul? If no, then what do you do? Ans...go back and worship the way James, Peter, John and the Church at Jerusalem did...

Then, the Bible would be the Hebrew Scriptures plus these in the Greek Scriptures: The four Gospels, Acts?, Hebrews, 1 & 2 Peter, James, 1,2 and 3 John, Jude and Revelation. Is this correct?

OT, plus the Gospels (although they've been edited, historically), James, Jude, and Revelation. Also, 1 Peter.


What is the gospel the "good news" that you would preach today?

God loved the world so much that he gave his only begotten Son so that we should not perish but have eternal life....How? Jesus showed us how to live a righteous life...and if we live by God's rules, we will be resurrected to Christ's Messianic Kingdom (as will the righteous Jews) to worship and live during the Millennial Sabbath. Jesus abolished the man made laws...but not the Torah laws.


Are you a Hebrew looking for the promised messiannic kingdom on earth?

Nope...I just a God fearer (ie Cornelius) who understands (I hope) the importance of Judaism in trying to keeping God's word. The more I study it, the more I'm apt to proselyte (recognizing Jesus as the Messiah of course). And, yes I am hoping to be resurrected to enter the Messianic Kingdom if I should die before it comes.

Actually you don't have to answer any of this. Your goal must be to enlighten others that Paul is misleading them when he preaches that man is saved solely by the grace of God through the sacrifice of Christ Jesus.

That pretty much sums it up....I think Paul swings the door wide open for the "Carte Blanc sin get out of jail free card"....Sin...go ahead, as long as you have faith you are in...

Well, personally, my testimony is that the Spirit bears witness with my spirit that I am a child of God, by faith in Christ's sacrifice, apart from any works.
And being "in Christ" by faith, because He fulfilled the Law, I do also.

I can't make that claim (about the spirit and all). I believe I'm a child of God by faith as well...and I honor Christ because he removed the burden of the man made law allowing us to observe Torah (as it applies to each) in freedom.

Bick

 

[Georges]

Re: Another anti-Saul post?

Hi George. No "Mr.", please. "Bick" is a nick name. My full name is Arnold Bickham.

Mine is George Sukach.....

I feel I must respond to your latest post. As for bias, that is the way I view the Pseudo-Clementine writings which you came across.

That's what the forum is for, right? Of course the PC may be biased....now the question is what bias is right?
The PC agree with Josephus and some of the Qumron documents. It also agrees with what historically the Nazarene and Ebionites attest to.


As for 'atoning for sin', you no doubt are aware that the word in Hebrew, kaphar, means 'atone' or 'to cover'. All the sacrifices only provided a cover for sins, they were not taken away. I know, traditional Christian theology tells of the 'atoning work of Christ'; but His sacrifice takes away the sins of the world, they are not just 'covered'.

So animal sacrifice covers and Christ's aones (takes away)? Why don't they both cover, or take away?

anyway....

kaphar {kaw-far'}

TWOT Reference Root Word
TWOT - 1023,1024,1025,1026 a primitive root
Part of Speech
v
Outline of Biblical Usage
1) to cover, purge, make an atonement, make reconciliation, cover over with pitch

a) (Qal) to coat or cover with pitch

b) (Piel)

1) to cover over, pacify, propitiate

2) to cover over, atone for sin, make atonement for


3) to cover over, atone for sin and persons by legal rites

c) (Pual)

1) to be covered over

2) to make atonement for

d) (Hithpael) to be covered


So...given all of these...you can take you pick to fit your theology.

George, I don't know what pdf(book)you are talking about.

PM me your email address.....I will send it (nothing else) and respect your privacy. I've had several "askings" from other posters and have sent it...JM is the only Mod that I had sent it to...PM him to see if it is worth consideration.

I could see it being biased in you direction.

I'm telling you it proves pretty convincingly (using biblical sources only) that Paul is a false prophet....By what the OT says, what Jesus says, and what Paul says....now if that is biased in my direction...what can I say. I'll error on the side of Jesus rather than Paul...

My suggestion is, let's stick to just the whole Bible for further discussion.

By suggesting the pdf book, It's already done and layed out in progressive revelation ...I guess I can start topics fromt the Chapters in the book to "Biblically" prove it, but since it is already done, I'd rather send the whole thing for you to review.....
Bick

Bick, PM If you are concerned, PM JM and see if the pdf has merit, if not posting it is....