Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
pastorALly, I don't think Paul faked his own conversion. I just know that when I studied the entire Bible from beginning to end, I saw nothing seriously contradictory or problematic in the entire Old Testament, nor in the gospels, nor in Acts (other than lack of clarity concerning Jesus as God or as Son of God in the NT), but Paul is certainly a huge problem because he contradicts Jesus and the Father sometimes, so he made me look back at Acts and question the alleged apparition of Jesus to him; it could have been Satan. Satan (Lucifer means "bearer of light" in Latin) may have deceived Paul according to several analysts. That might be plausible because one of Satan's strategies is to divide us, which was accomplished through the Pauline letters. The state of Christianity today is disgraceful, with so many denominations claiming to have the truth. I had some very dear friends who always assumed I was an Evangelical Christian because I'm such a Social Conservative, but when I told them about my worries regarding Paul's teachings, our friendship fell apart. Paul is without a doubt the perfect example of a classical cult leader, who attracts the attention of people with low self-esteem (ex-boy prostitutes, ex-drunkards, ex-sodomites, ex-thieves, etc.), promises them great rewards (for example, they will judge angels - which is preposterous) as long as they blindly believe in what he teaches them, he claims that they will be the few that will be saved (another typical cult strategy to make you feel special and to control you), he says that the "wise" (the educated class which basically paid no attention to him) would stumble and fall (typical mind control tactic of a sect leader), and that the end of that era was coming during that very same generation (classical cult tactic to keep people in line). Of course the end of that era did not arrive. Paul was a liar, a deceiver, and has created great divisions among Christians to this day, which pleases Satan (do thorough research on demonology).
Dave_n_Tenn, I forgive your ignorance. I have pointed out undeniable contradictions between the teachings of Paul and the teachings of Jesus Christ, yet you say the devil is in me. You did not address any of my points because you can't. If you are a Christian then do not judge others. I wish these contradictions did not exist. Anyway, you prove the point I made in my previous paragraph: Paul was a cult leader who divided people for Satan's sake. There is no difference between you and other cult members like Mormons or Jehova's Witnesses or Moonies. Study classical cult characteristics. You are a victim.
Mike555, thanks for the analysis. Look:
1. You used some facts to defend Peter's authorship of the Petrine epistles, and indeed some scholars believe Peter wrote those two letters, but the reality is that the great majority of Biblical scholars who have studied the matter disagree with you. So I insist that when Peter allegedly validates Paul's letters, that's a weak tactic to use because most scholars believe Peter did not write those letters.
2. Your assertion that "God chose Paul to be an apostle to the Gentiles." is not based on Scripture. God never said that Paul would become an "apostle". The 12 had been restored with the ceremony that chose Matthias. How could Peter have been out of line? He had the Holy Spirit in him to guide him, and that's why the ceremony was held and Matthias was chosen as an apostle. Your argument that "The idea of choosing an apostle was Peter's idea but he was out of line." can be used against you. If that is so, and Peter had no real guidance from the Holy Spirit, then that would explain why he and the others failed to realize that Paul was an instrument of Satan to corrupt the Church and create the many divisions we see today among Christians.
3. Acts 13:1-2 is interesting but again, the Holy Spirit does not call Paul an "apostle"; however, if the Holy Spirit chose Paul for preaching the gospel to the nations, that would eliminate any suspicions that Paul was duped by Satan. The Holy Spirit would have known, and would not have chosen Paul if he was an instrument of Satan. Nevertheless I see a problem, and I will ask you and anybody here for help. According to that passage, the Holy Spirit spoke. Please, where else in the New Testament does the Holy Spirit say anything? My research indicates that on many occasions people spoke what the Holy Spirit in them told them to say, but other than in Acts 13:1-2 I cannot find the Holy Spirit directly saying anything. If I'm right, that strengthens the argument that it was not the Holy Spirit who spoke, but Satan instead, because Paul spread false doctrine to the nations by contradicting the words of Jesus Christ.
4. Ephesians 2:8-10 is a good example to claim that Paul did encourage good works, but Paul was not nearly that clear in other letters about good works. Even so, Paul did contradict the teachings of Jesus. For example, through obfuscation, Paul vilified the Law while saying it was good. And look at Romans 13:8-10:
"Let no debt remain outstanding, except the continuing debt to love one another, for whoever loves others has fulfilled the law. 9 The commandments, “You shall not commit adultery,” “You shall not murder,” “You shall not steal,” “You shall not covet,”[a] and whatever other command there may be, are summed up in this one command: “Love your neighbor as yourself.”[b] 10 Love does no harm to a neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law."
That's false doctrine. "Love your neighbor as yourself" is not the fulfillment of the law. Jesus called this the second most important law, but Paul deliberately omits the first one because if he told the people to love the Father above all things, with all your mind, heart and strength, then that would have taken the focus off of Jesus. That's why today we see so many Christians who do not have a true relationship of love with the Father, which was Jesus' main commandment.
5. You made a big effort to show that the inherited sin of Adam which leads to death does not contradict Deuteronomy 24:16 or Ezekiel 18:20 but you used original research, not something based on Scripture. Same as with your defense of Peter as the author of 1 Peter and 2 Peter. I'm sorry, but the passages I gave you are as clear as water, and Rabbis always bring them up to show that the inherited sin is false doctrine, and it's a debate the rabbis always win against pastors.
6. Finally, I doubt the veracity of some of the Scriptures when there are contradictions. That's not my fault. I wish it was all consistent and clear, but that is simply not the case. If I am to believe blindly in a book with multiple contradictions, why shouldn't I believe in the Book of Mormon? Mormons are 100% sure that only THEY have the truth. But look, just in Stephen's account of the history of his people there are several contradictions, and the Jews POUNCE on that as an example to claim that the New Testament is fake. The Bible has flaws, and one of them is Paul. If Jesus had not only appeared to His followers after His resurrection but also to those who killed Him, and across the land, Judaism would not exist today, nor Islam. Not my fault. Thanks for your reply.
pastorALly, I don't think Paul faked his own conversion. I just know that when I studied the entire Bible from beginning to end, I saw nothing seriously contradictory or problematic in the entire Old Testament, nor in the gospels, nor in Acts (other than lack of clarity concerning Jesus as God or as Son of God in the NT), but Paul is certainly a huge problem because he contradicts Jesus and the Father sometimes, so he made me look back at Acts and question the alleged apparition of Jesus to him; it could have been Satan. Satan (Lucifer means "bearer of light" in Latin) may have deceived Paul according to several analysts. That might be plausible because one of Satan's strategies is to divide us, which was accomplished through the Pauline letters. The state of Christianity today is disgraceful, with so many denominations claiming to have the truth. I had some very dear friends who always assumed I was an Evangelical Christian because I'm such a Social Conservative, but when I told them about my worries regarding Paul's teachings, our friendship fell apart. Paul is without a doubt the perfect example of a classical cult leader, who attracts the attention of people with low self-esteem (ex-boy prostitutes, ex-drunkards, ex-sodomites, ex-thieves, etc.), promises them great rewards (for example, they will judge angels - which is preposterous) as long as they blindly believe in what he teaches them, he claims that they will be the few that will be saved (another typical cult strategy to make you feel special and to control you), he says that the "wise" (the educated class which basically paid no attention to him) would stumble and fall (typical mind control tactic of a sect leader), and that the end of that era was coming during that very same generation (classical cult tactic to keep people in line). Of course the end of that era did not arrive. Paul was a liar, a deceiver, and has created great divisions among Christians to this day, which pleases Satan (do thorough research on demonology).
Dave_n_Tenn, I forgive your ignorance. I have pointed out undeniable contradictions between the teachings of Paul and the teachings of Jesus Christ, yet you say the devil is in me. You did not address any of my points because you can't. If you are a Christian then do not judge others. I wish these contradictions did not exist. Anyway, you prove the point I made in my previous paragraph: Paul was a cult leader who divided people for Satan's sake. There is no difference between you and other cult members like Mormons or Jehova's Witnesses or Moonies. Study classical cult characteristics. You are a victim.
Quote:
Mike555, thanks for the analysis. Look:
1. You used some facts to defend Peter's authorship of the Petrine epistles, and indeed some scholars believe Peter wrote those two letters, but the reality is that the great majority of Biblical scholars who have studied the matter disagree with you. So I insist that when Peter allegedly validates Paul's letters, that's a weak tactic to use because most scholars believe Peter did not write those letters.
You are basing your belief on the false premise that the majority opinion is necessarily the correct opinion. And you are mistaken. It is liberal scholars who deny the Petrine authorship of 1 and 2 Peter. The same liberal scholars who also don't believe in the possibility of predictive prophecy and other things.
You can insist all that you wish, but you are wrong. Both 1 and 2 Peter bear Peter's name in the address. And since the Bible is the Word of God, it does not lie.
The internal evidence supports the Petrine authorship of the epistles which state that he is the author.
Quote:
2. Your assertion that "God chose Paul to be an apostle to the Gentiles." is not based on Scripture. God never said that Paul would become an "apostle". The 12 had been restored with the ceremony that chose Matthias. How could Peter have been out of line? He had the Holy Spirit in him to guide him, and that's why the ceremony was held and Matthias was chosen as an apostle. Your argument that "The idea of choosing an apostle was Peter's idea but he was out of line." can be used against you. If that is so, and Peter had no real guidance from the Holy Spirit, then that would explain why he and the others failed to realize that Paul was an instrument of Satan to corrupt the Church and create the many divisions we see today among Christians.
Your claim that my assertion that God chose Paul as an apostle to the Gentiles is not scriptural is simply a flat out denial and rejection of the following Scripture. And again, the Bible is the Word of God and does not lie. In Acts 26:17 the resurrected Jesus states that He was sending Saul/Paul to the Gentiles. Paul states that he was called as an apostle in Romans 1:1; 1 Cor. 1:1; 2 Cor. 1:1; Gal. 1:1; Eph. 1:1; 1 Tim. 1:1; 2 Tim. 1:1; Tit. 1:1.
Again, an apostle is called by God. Not chosen by men. Paul was God's choice. Not Matthias.
Quote:
3. Acts 13:1-2 is interesting but again, the Holy Spirit does not call Paul an "apostle"; however, if the Holy Spirit chose Paul for preaching the gospel to the nations, that would eliminate any suspicions that Paul was duped by Satan. The Holy Spirit would have known, and would not have chosen Paul if he was an instrument of Satan. Nevertheless I see a problem, and I will ask you and anybody here for help. According to that passage, the Holy Spirit spoke. Please, where else in the New Testament does the Holy Spirit say anything? My research indicates that on many occasions people spoke what the Holy Spirit in them told them to say, but other than in Acts 13:1-2 I cannot find the Holy Spirit directly saying anything. If I'm right, that strengthens the argument that it was not the Holy Spirit who spoke, but Satan instead, because Paul spread false doctrine to the nations by contradicting the words of Jesus Christ.
Acts 10:19. But how many times does the Bible have to say a thing for it to be true? Only ONCE!!!.
In Acts 13:1-2 Barnabas and Saul/Paul were called by the Holy Spirit for Paul's first Missionary journey in which they went first to Seleucia and then to Cyprus and the other places mentioned in the chapter. In Acts 13:46 Paul stated that because the Jews to whom he had witnessed did not believe, he was turning to the Gentiles.
Quote:
4. Ephesians 2:8-10 is a good example to claim that Paul did encourage good works, but Paul was not nearly that clear in other letters about good works. Even so, Paul did contradict the teachings of Jesus. For example, through obfuscation, Paul vilified the Law while saying it was good. And look at Romans 13:8-10:
"Let no debt remain outstanding, except the continuing debt to love one another, for whoever loves others has fulfilled the law. 9 The commandments, “You shall not commit adultery,” “You shall not murder,” “You shall not steal,” “You shall not covet,”[a] and whatever other command there may be, are summed up in this one command: “Love your neighbor as yourself.”[b] 10 Love does no harm to a neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law."
That's false doctrine. "Love your neighbor as yourself" is not the fulfillment of the law. Jesus called this the second most important law, but Paul deliberately omits the first one because if he told the people to love the Father above all things, with all your mind, heart and strength, then that would have taken the focus off of Jesus. That's why today we see so many Christians who do not have a true relationship of love with the Father, which was Jesus' main commandment.
Again, how many times does the Word of God have to state something for it to be true? Only Once!!! In Ephesians 2:8-10 Paul makes it clear that believers are to have works. But those works have nothing to do with receiving the free gift of eternal life. But that is far from the only time Paul speaks of works. In Romans 12 Paul speaks of the believer's dedicated service. Of using your spiritual gifts in service to the Lord. And that's works.
And Paul did not contradict Jesus or teach false doctrine. In Romans 13 Paul began by writing of the believer's responsibility to civil authorities which led him to begin thinking about believers debts toward others and so he wrote that the believer should not keep on owing anyone anything except love. Therefore, he quoted only that portion of the law which specifically applied to the believer's relationship with other believers.
In John 13:34-35 Jesus Himself spoke of loving one another without referring to loving God.
John 13:34 "A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another, even as I have loved you, that you also love one another. 35] "By this all men will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another."
Jesus did not teach a false doctrine by not mentioning God when He gave a new commandment to love one another, and neither did Paul.
Quote:
5. You made a big effort to show that the inherited sin of Adam which leads to death does not contradict Deuteronomy 24:16 or Ezekiel 18:20 but you used original research, not something based on Scripture. Same as with your defense of Peter as the author of 1 Peter and 2 Peter. I'm sorry, but the passages I gave you are as clear as water, and Rabbis always bring them up to show that the inherited sin is false doctrine, and it's a debate the rabbis always win against pastors.
Once again you make a false claim that what I said is not based on Scripture when in fact I gave Scripture to support what I said. As Genesis 3:17-18 shows, even nature was affected by Adam's sin.
And as I told you, Deuteronomy 24:16 and Ezekiel 18:20 have nothing to do with original sin. In Psalm 51:5 David acknowledged that he was born a sinner.
Psalm 51:5 Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, And in sin my mother conceived me.
He was not saying that his mother bore him illegitimately but that he had inherited a sin nature from his parents who had inherited a sin nature from their parents, all the way back to Adam.
Quote:
6. Finally, I doubt the veracity of some of the Scriptures when there are contradictions. That's not my fault. I wish it was all consistent and clear, but that is simply not the case. If I am to believe blindly in a book with multiple contradictions, why shouldn't I believe in the Book of Mormon? Mormons are 100% sure that only THEY have the truth. But look, just in Stephen's account of the history of his people there are several contradictions, and the Jews POUNCE on that as an example to claim that the New Testament is fake. The Bible has flaws, and one of them is Paul.
Appealing to apparent contradictions is a common argument of the Skeptic. There are no real contradictions in the Bible. Just because something is not clear to you does not mean there is contradiction. I do not think that Stephen was in error in anything that he said concerning the history of his people, but even if he had been, the Bible accurately records what he said. The Bible in the original autographs is inerrant and so without flaws.
Quote:
If Jesus had not only appeared to His followers after His resurrection but also to those who killed Him, and across the land, Judaism would not exist today, nor Islam. Not my fault. Thanks for your reply.
And now you are criticizing Jesus Himself for not appearing to more people.
You are in serious error. And your lack of understanding is your own fault.
Last edited by Michael Way; 01-21-2014 at 04:03 AM..
pastorALly, I don't think Paul faked his own conversion. I just know that when I studied the entire Bible from beginning to end, I saw nothing seriously contradictory or problematic in the entire Old Testament, nor in the gospels, nor in Acts (other than lack of clarity concerning Jesus as God or as Son of God in the NT), but Paul is certainly a huge problem because he contradicts Jesus and the Father sometimes, so he made me look back at Acts and question the alleged apparition of Jesus to him; it could have been Satan. Satan (Lucifer means "bearer of light" in Latin) may have deceived Paul according to several analysts. That might be plausible because one of Satan's strategies is to divide us, which was accomplished through the Pauline letters. The state of Christianity today is disgraceful, with so many denominations claiming to have the truth. I had some very dear friends who always assumed I was an Evangelical Christian because I'm such a Social Conservative, but when I told them about my worries regarding Paul's teachings, our friendship fell apart. Paul is without a doubt the perfect example of a classical cult leader, who attracts the attention of people with low self-esteem (ex-boy prostitutes, ex-drunkards, ex-sodomites, ex-thieves, etc.), promises them great rewards (for example, they will judge angels - which is preposterous) as long as they blindly believe in what he teaches them, he claims that they will be the few that will be saved (another typical cult strategy to make you feel special and to control you), he says that the "wise" (the educated class which basically paid no attention to him) would stumble and fall (typical mind control tactic of a sect leader), and that the end of that era was coming during that very same generation (classical cult tactic to keep people in line). Of course the end of that era did not arrive. Paul was a liar, a deceiver, and has created great divisions among Christians to this day, which pleases Satan (do thorough research on demonology).
Obviously, I don't agree with your assessment. There's no way I could change your thinking so there is no sense in trying.
The early church, most likely Luke, collected Paul's letters which were circulated as an authoritative collection by the end of the 1st century. This collection by the early 2nd century was known and referred to by both orthodox and heterodox. While there were detractors even then the Pauline Corpus has been allowed to persevere. It's difficult for me to believe God would allow 2000 years of tainted Christianity.
Obviously, I don't agree with your assessment. There's no way I could change your thinking so there is no sense in trying.
The early church, most likely Luke, collected Paul's letters which were circulated as an authoritative collection by the end of the 1st century. This collection by the early 2nd century was known and referred to by both orthodox and heterodox. While there were detractors even then the Pauline Corpus has been allowed to persevere. It's difficult for me to believe God would allow 2000 years of tainted Christianity.
Unfortunately, it is true that no matter what you say to these 'Paul haters' they will continue to attempt to discredit Paul. It is nothing less than an attack on the Word of God. If you can discredit Paul then you discredit his epistles which are almost half of the New Testament.
Appealing to apparent contradictions is a common argument of the Skeptic. There are no real contradictions in the Bible. Just because something is not clear to you does not mean there is contradiction.
I'm going to make note of this statement. I can think of many instances in which it could apply.
Unfortunately, it is true that no matter what you say to these 'Paul haters' they will continue to attempt to discredit Paul. It is nothing less than an attack on the Word of God. If you can discredit Paul then you discredit his epistles which are almost half of the New Testament.
I have read the following attempt to discredit Christianity by attacking Paul......
Quote:
Muslims Methods Muslims use to attack Christianity | Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry Muslims often make the claim that Paul never met Jesus and was not a disciple or apostle of Jesus. Of course, this is not true. Paul encountered Jesus on the road to Damascus in Acts 9, after Jesus' resurrection. Jesus spoke to him and commissioned him. So, Paul met Jesus. Furthermore, Paul visited the Jerusalem apostles Peter, James, and John who affirmed Paul's mission and message (See Gal. 2:9. Also, see the context of Galatians 1:18 - 2:10.) Peter, who was a disciple of Jesus, personally authenticated Paul's writings by calling them scripture in 2 Pet. 3:15-16. If they are inspired, then they cannot contradict Jesus' words.
Quote:
Jews http://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-arts...4/who-was-paul Jews don’t like the apostle Paul. Jesus they can live with; he was a good-hearted rebbe whose words were twisted to say things he didn’t mean. But Paul was the twister, and can’t be forgiven. “Jesus, yes; Paul, never!†as one Jewish biographer of Paul puts it. As a zealous convert who equated the Torah with death, Paul is deemed the father of anti-Judaism (the theological critique of Judaism as a religion), the grandfather of anti-Semitism (the hatred of Jews as people), and the inventor of the theology of the Cross (an excuse for many massacres of Jews). Even Friedrich Nietzsche, no friend of the Jews, said Paul “falsified the history of Israel so as to make it appear as a prologue to his mission†and was “the genius in hatred, in the standpoint of hatred, and in the relentless logic of hatred.â€
Quote:
The Hebrew Roots Movement, THE HEBREW ROOTS MOVEMENTI remember my last time while flying to Israel I met a very interesting man. We were both talking about how excited we were to be going to the “Promise Land†and how great it will be to check out all the great places referred to in the Scriptures. He appeared to be a devote believer, so he said, and yet before long I found out that he believed the Apostle Paul was the worse thing that happened to the followers of Christ. He said that all the writings of the Apostle Paul – which make up the majority of the epistles – are wrong. I WAS DUMBFOUNDED! Little did I know I had encountered my first devotee of the “Hebrew Roots Movementâ€, a cult within the Christian Church.
I have read the following attempt to discredit Christianity by attacking Paul......
Yes, many are the lies that are being circulated. For instance, this quote from the second excerpt that Paul is deemed - 'the grandfather of anti-Semitism (the hatred of Jews as people),'.
In point of fact Paul had a great love for his fellow Jews and said,
Romans 9:3 For I could wish that I myself were accursed, separated from Christ for the sake of my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh, 4] who are Israelites, to whom belongs the adoption as sons, and the glory and the covenants and the giving of the Law and the temple service and the promises,
It grieved Paul greatly that the majority of the Jews rejected the gospel message concerning Christ.
Here is another short but informative article on the Hebrew Roots Movement to which you referred.
Appealing to apparent contradictions is a common argument of the Skeptic. There are no real contradictions in the Bible. Just because something is not clear to you does not mean there is contradiction.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katzpur
I'm going to make note of this statement. I can think of many instances in which it could apply.
Which just goes to show that once in a while even I can write something that is noteworthy.
1. You wrote: "It is liberal scholars who deny the Petrine authorship of 1 and 2 Peter."
If you are so sure about that, then please provide names.
2. You wrote: "Paul states that he was called as an apostle in Romans 1:1; 1 Cor. 1:1; 2 Cor. 1:1; Gal. 1:1; Eph. 1:1; 1 Tim. 1:1; 2 Tim. 1:1; Tit. 1:1."
Exactly, he himself makes the claim. Likewise, I could call myself an apostle... so what?
Also, you added, "Again, an apostle is called by God. Not chosen by men. Paul was God's choice. Not Matthias."
Are you saying that the Holy Spirit is useless? Have you forgotten that Jesus also gave the Holy Spirit to the apostles before the day of Pentecost?
John 20:21-22 Again Jesus said, “Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you.” 22 And with that he breathed on them and said, “Receive the Holy Spirit.
Also, have you forgotten this?
Matthew 18:18-20 “Truly I tell you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven. 19 “Again, truly I tell you that if two of you on earth agree about anything they ask for, it will be done for them by my Father in heaven. 20 For where two or three gather in my name, there am I with them.”
That's exactly what happened in Acts 1:23-26: So they nominated two men: Joseph called Barsabbas (also known as Justus) and Matthias. 24 Then they prayed, “Lord, you know everyone’s heart. Show us which of these two you have chosen 25 to take over this apostolic ministry, which Judas left to go where he belongs.” 26 Then they cast lots, and the lot fell to Matthias; so he was added to the eleven apostles.
So how can you continue to say that Matthias was wrongly named an apostle? Was his status withdrawn after Pentecost? Of course not. So in Revelation 21:14, Paul could not have been one of the 12 apostles of the Lamb. It just adds to the case against Paul as a liar and a deceiver.
Although there have been many discussions with the MJ's, Paul was by no means a "false apostle". Even the 11 originals Apostles recognized Paul as an authentic Preacher of the Gentiles. Because Gentiles don't "convert" to Judaism, doesn't make them less Christians. That Law of Moses was FOR them, TO Them, By God, in the COVENANT with Israel, the nation of the 12 tribes.
Peter even said that most people would confuse the letters of Paul, to there own destruction. This wasn't Paul's doing. This was the blindness of not following Christ in purity. The delusional influence as it is called, is given to those NOT seeking the Truth for His Glory, but THEIR OWN.
I personally have the deepest respect for authentic Messianic Jews, as they have a heritage that was shattered between two worlds, the carnal and the spiritual. 2 covenants, 1 Messiah. Some have a hard time between the two of them, and sometimes the lines of precepts of the old, get blurred with the new.
For Gentiles, it is a whole lot harder for them. The were not raised with the strict covenant teachings of Rabbis. Turning to Christ means a complete change of EVERYTHING we know. And I mean everything.
Dear Hot,
The problem with Acts, beside that it has contradicting tales, is that this singular 2nd party witnessed event was probably written by Paul's associate Luke, who stated in Luke 1:1-2, that he wasn't a first person witness to anything. This does not meet the criteria Yeshua set for establishing any matter (Mt 18:16 & Dt 19:15).
The problem with 2 Peter, is that 2 Peter is generally acknowledged as having been written after Peters death. This despite the fact that Peter fits the description of the "worthless" shepherd who "left the flock" (Ze 11:17). That would line up with what Peter supposedly said in Acts 15:7. Peter had a bad habit of making assurance he never kept. This is just another one of them (John 21:15-17)
As for the "New Covenant", per Hebrews 8:13, which infers that the old covenant is becoming obsolete. That verse references Jer 31:31-34, which is addressed to the house of Israel and the house of Judah, and it doesn't make the original covenant "obsolete", it takes a Law written on stone and places it in their hearts. According to Joel 2:28 - Joel 3:4, this will occur prior to the judgment of the nations (Tribulation), and the restoration of the fortunes of Judah and Jerusalem. As for Israel, Joel 3:2, God will enter into judgment with the nations for "My inheritance, Israel, whom they have scattered among the nations". For the lost sheep of Israel are among the nations, and unless one has a DNA test, it would be difficult to tell the difference between the lost tribes and the Gentiles.
As for what the foreigner does, one must look to Is 56:6, ....everyone who keeps from profaning the Sabbath, and holds fast My covenant; Even those I will bring to My holy Mountain.
Ecclesiates 12:13,"The conclusion, when all has been heard, is fear God and keep his commandments, because this applies to every person"
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
