Was Paul a self proclaimed/false Apostle? (punishment, virgin, Pilate)
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.
Dear Mike, I don't want to appear to be ganging up on you, but the author of Acts appeared to be an associate of Paul's, and probably the same author of Luke. Luke had admitted that he just compiled stories from other people (Luke 1:2), and most probably his best source was Paul. Besides the point that second party witnesses are not able to establish any matter (Dt 19:15, Mt 18:16), either Paul didn't deliver the letter or didn't believe in it, for his "Christian" church engages in the things forbidden in the letter supposedly given to him by James. A story from Paul, about Paul, does not give Paul any standing. John 5:31 The fact that the note contained material, that was characterized by James as "in my judgment" was included as the Word of God, is just another nail in the coffin for Paul and his church and its canon. Paul, nor Peter is not the "Rock" the church is built on.. (Mt 7:24) Dt. 32:4 "The rock! His work is perfect, For all His ways are just; God of faithfulness and with injustice, righteous and upright is He."
The Bible is the Word of God. That refers to each and every Book of the Bible, both Old Testament and New Testament. Paul was appointed by God to be an apostle to the Gentiles whether you understand that or not. The problem is not with the Bible, the problem is not with the apostle Paul. The problem is with you. The fact that the Bible accurately records the opinions of Paul or others when given, in no way negates the fact that the Bible is God's Word. Whether you like it or not, Paul was allowed to express an opinion. You are either very confused or you are purposely attempting to discredit the Bible.
Last edited by Michael Way; 01-24-2014 at 07:26 PM..
The Bible is the Word of God. That refers to each and every Book of the Bible, both Old Testament and New Testament. Paul was appointed by God to be an apostle to the Gentiles whether you understand that or not. The problem is not with the Bible, the problem is not with the apostle Paul. The problem is with you. The fact that the Bible accurately records the opinions of Paul or others when given, in no way negates the fact that the Bible is God's Word. Whether you like it or not, Paul was allowed to express an opinion. You are either very confused or you are purposely attempting to discredit the Bible.
Dear Mike,
The current canon of the bible is the "Word of God" by the authority of the Roman church, whose power resided with the Roman state, and this did not even occur tell the late 4th century, well after the falling away (Mt 24:10). This with respect to a time when the false apostles could even deceive the elect, if possible. (Mt 24:24)
If you look at what Rome represented, either from the viewpoint of Daniel 2, or Revelation 13 & 17, it took its authority from the "dragon" (devil, Satan, deceiving serpent)Rev 20:2 In John 14:30, Yeshua said, "the ruler of the world is coming and he has nothing in Me". It is not until the "end of the age" that the "kingdom of the world has become the kingdom of our Lord" (Rev 11:16) The ruler of the world is not Yeshua. The principles of faith of the Roman church were conceived by the Council of Nicaea, convened by the Roman emperor, and enforced by his edict and by the power of his military might. The penalty for variance was "death", by edict of the Roman emperor. As per Daniel 7:24-25, this king "WILL INTEND TO MAKE ALTERATIONS IN TIMES AND IN LAW". This is exactly what Constantine and his established church did. They changed the Law, and the Times. The present canon was compiled by one of the scribes who sat with the emperor at the Council of Nicaea, and his name was Athanasius. Athanasius, the emperor Constantine, nor the church is holy, just because they have deemed themselves holy. In the case of Constantine, only the Eastern Orthodox church deemed him a saint. Neither is Paul a prophet or apostle because he deems himself so. John 5:31," If I alone bear witness of myself, my testimony is not true". Mt 7:15-16 "you will know them (false prophets) by their fruits".
And indeed, Paul or even James can express an opinion, and claim it as an opinion, but that would kind of make it an opinion, and not the "Word of God". Paul can claim he speaks for God, and that he has visions, but according to Ez 13:3 the Lord says," Woe to the foolish prophets who are following their own spirit and have seen nothing". And Is 8:20 says, "To the law & the testimony! If they do not speak according to this word, it is because they have no dawn". Following the traditions of men is considered an abomination to the Lord.(Dt 12) One must never consider something holy without proper investigation. (Proverbs 20:25)
Dear Mike,
The current canon of the bible is the "Word of God" by the authority of the Roman church, whose power resided with the Roman state, and this did not even occur tell the late 4th century, well after the falling away (Mt 24:10). This with respect to a time when the false apostles could even deceive the elect, if possible. (Mt 24:24)
If you look at what Rome represented, either from the viewpoint of Daniel 2, or Revelation 13 & 17, it took its authority from the "dragon" (devil, Satan, deceiving serpent)Rev 20:2 In John 14:30, Yeshua said, "the ruler of the world is coming and he has nothing in Me". It is not until the "end of the age" that the "kingdom of the world has become the kingdom of our Lord" (Rev 11:16) The ruler of the world is not Yeshua. The principles of faith of the Roman church were conceived by the Council of Nicaea, convened by the Roman emperor, and enforced by his edict and by the power of his military might. The penalty for variance was "death", by edict of the Roman emperor. As per Daniel 7:24-25, this king "WILL INTEND TO MAKE ALTERATIONS IN TIMES AND IN LAW". This is exactly what Constantine and his established church did. They changed the Law, and the Times. The present canon was compiled by one of the scribes who sat with the emperor at the Council of Nicaea, and his name was Athanasius. Athanasius, the emperor Constantine, nor the church is holy, just because they have deemed themselves holy. In the case of Constantine, only the Eastern Orthodox church deemed him a saint. Neither is Paul a prophet or apostle because he deems himself so. John 5:31," If I alone bear witness of myself, my testimony is not true". Mt 7:15-16 "you will know them (false prophets) by their fruits".
And indeed, Paul or even James can express an opinion, and claim it as an opinion, but that would kind of make it an opinion, and not the "Word of God". Paul can claim he speaks for God, and that he has visions, but according to Ez 13:3 the Lord says," Woe to the foolish prophets who are following their own spirit and have seen nothing". And Is 8:20 says, "To the law & the testimony! If they do not speak according to this word, it is because they have no dawn". Following the traditions of men is considered an abomination to the Lord.(Dt 12) One must never consider something holy without proper investigation. (Proverbs 20:25)
The Roman Catholic church did not make the Books of the Bible the Word of God. The Bible is the Word of God because the Books of the Bible were God-breathed. They were written by men under the inspiration of God the Holy Spirit. Each Book of the Bible has divine authority because while God used men to write it, He is the divine author of it. The church could not invest divine authority and therefore canoncity in any Book of the Bible. It could only recognize the divine authority that was already inherent in those Books.
The process of recognizing which Books were canonical was guided by the Holy Spirit. The criteria used in recognizing the divine authority of the Books of the Bible included apostolic authority meaning that they had to have been written by an apostle or by someone closely associated with an Apostle. Luke was associated with the apostle Paul. Mark was associated with the apostle Peter. And each Book had to be consistent with the doctrine the church already possessed-namely the Old Testament and apostolic teaching. Twenty one of the twenty seven New Testament Books were already recognized as canonical by the end of the 2nd century and are listed in the Muratorian Canon which is dated to around 170-200 AD.
The Bible which is the word of God accurately records the opinions of men, the lies that men told, the lie of Satan to Eve, the mistaken belief of Eve who thought that God had said that she and Adam could not even touch the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil when in fact God had said only that they were not to eat it. The Bible accurately records the fact that even though David had committed adultery and murder, he was a man after God's own heart (1 Samuel 13:14; Acts 13:22). All of this and much more is accurately recorded in the Word of God.
Your beliefs about the apostle Paul are in error. Your low opinion regarding the Bible is in error. You are in error.
Dear Mike,
[font=Arial] The current canon of the bible is the "Word of God" by the authority of the Roman church, whose power resided with the Roman state, and this did not even occur tell the late 4th century, well after the falling away (Mt 24:10).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555
The Roman Catholic church did not make the Books of the Bible the Word of God. The church could not invest divine authority and therefore canoncity in any Book of the Bible. It could only recognize the divine authority that was already inherent in those Books.
Twenty one of the twenty seven New Testament Books were already recognized as canonical by the end of the 2nd century and are listed in the Muratorian Canon which is dated to around 170-200 AD.
Just my two cents worth since I'm reading a book on this subject.
185-254. Origen, born at Alexandria, names all the books of both the Old and New Testaments.
270. Eusebius, bishop at Caesarea, called the Father of ecclesiastical history, gives an account of the persecution of Emperor Diocletian whose edict required that all churches be destroyed and the Scriptures burned. He lists all the books of the New Testament.
As Mike said, the Muratorian Fragment listed 21 NT books. Additionally, other NT collections, circulated among churches prior to the RCC.
Just my two cents worth since I'm reading a book on this subject.
185-254. Origen, born at Alexandria, names all the books of both the Old and New Testaments.
270. Eusebius, bishop at Caesarea, called the Father of ecclesiastical history, gives an account of the persecution of Emperor Diocletian whose edict required that all churches be destroyed and the Scriptures burned. He lists all the books of the New Testament.
As Mike said, the Muratorian Fragment listed 21 NT books. Additionally, other NT collections, circulated among churches prior to the RCC.
Thanks PastorALly. There is a lot of false information given out by people who simply do not know what they are talking about.
Excerpt:
The Canon Of Eusebius Of Caesarea (A.D. 265 - 340)
From Eusebius' Ecclesiastical History, III. xxv. 1-7.
At this point it seems appropriate to summarize the writings of the New Testament which have already been mentioned. In the first place must be put the holy quaternion of the Gospels, which are followed by the book of the Acts of the Apostles. (1) After this must be reckoned the Epistles of Paul; next in order the extant former Epistle of John, and likewise the Epistle of Peter must be recognized. After these must be put, if it really seems right, the Apocalypse of John, concerning which we shall give the different opinions at the proper time. (3) These, then, [are to be placed] among the recognized books. Of the disputed books, which are nevertheless familiar to the majority, there are extant the Epistle of James, as it is called; and that of Jude; and the second Epistle of Peter; and those that are called the Second and Third of John, whether they belong to the evangelist or to another person of the same name. Early lists of the books of the New Testament
Last edited by Michael Way; 01-25-2014 at 12:01 PM..
The Roman Catholic church did not make the Books of the Bible the Word of God. The Bible is the Word of God because the Books of the Bible were God-breathed. They were written by men under the inspiration of God the Holy Spirit. Each Book of the Bible has divine authority because while God used men to write it, He is the divine author of it. The church could not invest divine authority and therefore canoncity in any Book of the Bible. It could only recognize the divine authority that was already inherent in those Books.
The process of recognizing which Books were canonical was guided by the Holy Spirit. The criteria used in recognizing the divine authority of the Books of the Bible included apostolic authority meaning that they had to have been written by an apostle or by someone closely associated with an Apostle. Luke was associated with the apostle Paul. Mark was associated with the apostle Peter. And each Book had to be consistent with the doctrine the church already possessed-namely the Old Testament and apostolic teaching. Twenty one of the twenty seven New Testament Books were already recognized as canonical by the end of the 2nd century and are listed in the Muratorian Canon which is dated to around 170-200 AD.
The Bible which is the word of God accurately records the opinions of men, the lies that men told, the lie of Satan to Eve, the mistaken belief of Eve who thought that God had said that she and Adam could not even touch the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil when in fact God had said only that they were not to eat it. The Bible accurately records the fact that even though David had committed adultery and murder, he was a man after God's own heart (1 Samuel 13:14; Acts 13:22). All of this and much more is accurately recorded in the Word of God.
Your beliefs about the apostle Paul are in error. Your low opinion regarding the Bible is in error. You are in error.
Dear Mike, The current list of books of the bible are "God breathed" by the formal decree of the Roman "Christian" church in the 4th century, whose foundation of dogma is based not on Yeshua, whose testimony has been effectively nailed to the cross, but on the visions of the self professed apostle and prophet Paul. As for what Yeshua considered "Scripture", that would be the Law and the prophets, which the "Christian" church has deemed "obsolete", and this by an unknown writer of Hebrews, who by the way, is considered the "voice of God". As for books already being in existence in the 2nd century, sure, Paul's followers were evident in the first century as well. Antioch was the center of Paul's realm. The "ruler of the world" came after Yeshua left. The "falling away" occurred after Yeshua left. The false "Christs" and false prophets occurred before and after Yeshua left. When Yeshua comes back, the feet of iron and clay of Daniel 2, which includes the remnant power of Rome, will be crushed. Along with that remnant power being crushed, will be the woman riding on the back of that power (Rev 17:2). That would be the Roman church and her daughters who all have the mark of the beast, which is keeping the laws of that 7th head (Rev 17), which is known as the beast with the two horns like a lamb (Rev 13) & (Dt 6:8). Keeping the laws of Constantine. Such as changing God's Law & Times (Dan 7:24-25) and keeping the "day of the sun" (4th commandment), and having more than one god (1st commandment), and his son instituting graven images(3rd commandment) is the "mark". (Dt 6:8)
Just my two cents worth since I'm reading a book on this subject.
185-254. Origen, born at Alexandria, names all the books of both the Old and New Testaments.
270. Eusebius, bishop at Caesarea, called the Father of ecclesiastical history, gives an account of the persecution of Emperor Diocletian whose edict required that all churches be destroyed and the Scriptures burned. He lists all the books of the New Testament.
As Mike said, the Muratorian Fragment listed 21 NT books. Additionally, other NT collections, circulated among churches prior to the RCC.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555
Thanks PastorALly. There is a lot of false information given out by people who simply do not know what they are talking about. Excerpt:
The Canon Of Eusebius Of Caesarea (A.D. 265 - 340)
From Eusebius' Ecclesiastical History, III. xxv. 1-7.
At this point it seems appropriate to summarize the writings of the New Testament which have already been mentioned. In the first place must be put the holy quaternion of the Gospels, which are followed by the book of the Acts of the Apostles. (1) After this must be reckoned the Epistles of Paul; next in order the extant former Epistle of John, and likewise the Epistle of Peter must be recognized. After these must be put, if it really seems right, the Apocalypse of John, concerning which we shall give the different opinions at the proper time. (3) These, then, [are to be placed] among the recognized books. Of the disputed books, which are nevertheless familiar to the majority, there are extant the Epistle of James, as it is called; and that of Jude; and the second Epistle of Peter; and those that are called the Second and Third of John, whether they belong to the evangelist or to another person of the same name. Early lists of the books of the New Testament
I assume you both accept the apologetic attempts to excuse or explain away Eusebius' tendency to include only those things that support his preferred view of the doctrine and exclude those that cast any doubt on it. These two excerpts of his have been variously interpreted and used to conclude Eusebius was not averse to lying or misrepresenting material. This:
'But even if the case were not such as our argument has
now proved it to be, if a lawgiver, who is to be of ever so little
use, could have ventured to tell any falsehood at all to the young
for their good, is there any falsehood that he could have told
more beneficial than this, and better able to make them all do
everything that is just, not by compulsion but willingly?
'Truth, O Stranger, is a noble and an enduring thing; it seems,
however, not easy to persuade men of it.'
and This:
Now you may find in the Hebrew Scriptures also
thousands of such passages concerning God as though
He were jealous, or sleeping, or angry, or subject to any
other human passions, which passages are adopted for the
benefit of those who need this mode of instruction.
Dear Mike, The current list of books of the bible are "God breathed" by the formal decree of the Roman "Christian" church in the 4th century, whose foundation of dogma is based not on Yeshua, whose testimony has been effectively nailed to the cross, but on the visions of the self professed apostle and prophet Paul. As for what Yeshua considered "Scripture", that would be the Law and the prophets, which the "Christian" church has deemed "obsolete", and this by an unknown writer of Hebrews, who by the way, is considered the "voice of God". As for books already being in existence in the 2nd century, sure, Paul's followers were evident in the first century as well. Antioch was the center of Paul's realm. The "ruler of the world" came after Yeshua left. The "falling away" occurred after Yeshua left. The false "Christs" and false prophets occurred before and after Yeshua left. When Yeshua comes back, the feet of iron and clay of Daniel 2, which includes the remnant power of Rome, will be crushed. Along with that remnant power being crushed, will be the woman riding on the back of that power (Rev 17:2). That would be the Roman church and her daughters who all have the mark of the beast, which is keeping the laws of that 7th head (Rev 17), which is known as the beast with the two horns like a lamb (Rev 13) & (Dt 6:8). Keeping the laws of Constantine. Such as changing God's Law & Times (Dan 7:24-25) and keeping the "day of the sun" (4th commandment), and having more than one god (1st commandment), and his son instituting graven images(3rd commandment) is the "mark". (Dt 6:8)
No they are not. All the Books of the Bible are God breathed because they were written by men who were superintended by God the Holy Spirit.
As for what Yeshua considered "Scripture", that would be the Law and the prophets
2ndpillar, the OT is in 3 sections that Jesus referred to often; The Law, The Prophets and The Psalms. Not only does Jesus speak of The Psalms, but The Psalms speak of Jesus.
I assume you both accept the apologetic attempts to excuse or explain away Eusebius' tendency to include only those things that support his preferred view of the doctrine and exclude those that cast any doubt on it. These two excerpts of his have been variously interpreted and used to conclude Eusebius was not averse to lying or misrepresenting material. This:
'But even if the case were not such as our argument has
now proved it to be, if a lawgiver, who is to be of ever so little
use, could have ventured to tell any falsehood at all to the young
for their good, is there any falsehood that he could have told
more beneficial than this, and better able to make them all do
everything that is just, not by compulsion but willingly?
'Truth, O Stranger, is a noble and an enduring thing; it seems,
however, not easy to persuade men of it.'
and This:
Now you may find in the Hebrew Scriptures also
thousands of such passages concerning God as though
He were jealous, or sleeping, or angry, or subject to any
other human passions, which passages are adopted for the
benefit of those who need this mode of instruction.
Your attempt to refute the Canonicity of the Books of the New Testament by attempting to discredit what Eusebius' said is futile. As already stated, the Muratorian Fragment which is dated to 170-200 AD. lists 21 of the 27 New Testament Books.
Eusebius did in fact mention that the Book of Revelation was rejected by some.
Among the spurious books must be reckoned also the Acts of Paul, and the Shepherd, as it is called, and the Apocalypse of Peter; and, in addition to these, the extant Epistle of Barnabas, and the Teachings of the Apostles, as it is called. And, in addition, as I said, the Apocalypse of John, if it seem right. (This last, as I said, is rejected by some, but others count it among the recognized books.) (5) And among these some have counted also the Gospel of the Hebrews, with which those of the Hebrews who have accepted Christ take a special pleasure. Early lists of the books of the New Testament
And if you had bothered to read what I posted earlier concerning Eusebius's list of the canon, he stated that he was going to give the different opinions about the Book of Revelation at the proper time which means that he did not exclude other views.
He did in fact mention that certain Books were disputed,
Those that are 'Disputed Books', yet familiar to most, include
the epistles known as James, Jude, and II Peter
and those called II John and III John
(the work either of the Evangelist John or of someone else with the same name). Eusebius and the Early Church
But you may assume whatever you wish.
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.
