ARGUMENTS OF APOSTLE PAUL .

by nightwarrior 6 Replies latest jw experiences

• 

  nightwarrior

  One of my brothers has had many j.w . bible studys over the years.

  Yet they still cnat pin him down,or are ever likely to ,he said to myself recently now that your not attending the meetings anymore,maybee you will now take note and listen ,we went back and forth agreeing that the society aserts a controling influence upon the sheep like ones,we coverd all manner of corresponding dates given by the society showing them all to have been sanctioned by the founding members ,whom where using the measurments of the pyramids andthe star constalations to try predict the begining and end of the system.

  What came next was a shock,do you wanna read on ,?????? close your ears ok .

  Well it concerns the apostle paul,

  AFTER, THE DISCIPLES RECEIVED HOLY SPIRIT, ALL AT THE SAME TIME, all having received acurate knowledge ,concerning the christ and the kingdom, and all that it entailed,

  Why then did the apostle paul shout rant and scream about circumcision & other matters, why were they not all thinking as one as in one frame of mind, unless holy spirit never decended on the apostle paul,if paul never agreed with the rest of the dicsiples , and he then went away from his friends therby not agreeing with the family of annointed but as is said he went to rome that is claimed the pope and his heirarchy started there then the question must be asked was paul IN OPPOSITION TO .?????????????WHOM AND WHY

  PLEASE CORRECT ME ,ANY KNOWLEDGABLE PEOPLE AROUND ,THANKS.
• 

  NeonMadman

  AFTER, THE DISCIPLES RECEIVED HOLY SPIRIT, ALL AT THE SAME TIME, all having received acurate knowledge ,concerning the christ and the kingdom, and all that it entailed,

  Why then did the apostle paul shout rant and scream about circumcision & other matters, why were they not all thinking as one as in one frame of mind, unless holy spirit never decended on the apostle paul,if paul never agreed with the rest of the dicsiples , and he then went away from his friends therby not agreeing with the family of annointed but as is said he went to rome that is claimed the pope and his heirarchy started there then the question must be asked was paul IN OPPOSITION TO .?????????????WHOM AND WHY

  I'm not sure I completely understand what you are asking, but let me offer some comments.

  First, Paul was not converted and did not receive the Holy Spirit at the same time as the other apostles. The others received the Spirit on Pentecost; Paul was converted much later, on the road to Damascus, after having persecuted the Christian church, even being present at the martyrdom of Stephen.

  The issue of circumcision was not introduced by either Paul or the other apostles. There were certain legalistic individuals, who have since been referred to as "Judaizers", within the congregation who asserted that some features of the Law were still binding upon Christian believers. Among these, they said, was circumcision. This legalism was not a teaching that was originated by the church or by the Holy Spirit; rather, it was a heresy that arose, and Paul wrote the letter to the Galatians largely to debunk this error. As Ephesians 2:8,9 tells us, salvation is a gift of God that cannot be earned by works of any sort, and this certainly includes circumcision.

  Finally, while Christians are required to be in unity as to their understanding of the main points of the Gospel (1 Cor 15:1-4), they are not required to be in lockstep unity, as the JW's are, on every point of doctrine. There is room for different understandings and interpretations on a wide variety of issues, provided that such disagreement is done in Christian love.

  Hope this helps.
• 

  Sargon

  Doesn't most of this argument center around the fact that all the original disciples thought that Christ was just for the Jews and Paul thought it should be preached to people of all nations?
• 

  NeonMadman

  Doesn't most of this argument center around the fact that all the original disciples thought that Christ was just for the Jews and Paul thought it should be preached to people of all nations?

  I don't think that's particularly true. It was, after all, not Paul, but Peter who initiated preaching to Gentiles and receiving them into the congregation. It may have been a hard concept for the early Jewish Christians to accept, but the Holy Spirit made it clear to Peter that Gentiles would also be accepted. Paul was particularly chosen to spread the Gospel among the Gentiles, but it appears that he was a relatively new convert at the time that Peter preached to Cornelius and his family. He was, however, an educated man and thus well suited to preaching among people of diverse beliefs.
• 

  Elsewhere

  This is a very interesting thought... I wonder if Paul was one of the Anti-Christs that Jesus talked about.
• 

  nightwarrior

  THAT WAS THE EXACT THOUGHT WHICH MY BROTHER MENTIONED,AS WAS APOSTLE PAUL

  ( ANTI CHRIST, )

  I Never mentioned it in my directly but the question points to was paul in oposition to the teachings of christ hence paul has been accredited by hearsay of having gone to rome and starting the line of popes,?

  wonder if this thread will go any further,

  thanks so far for the information friends
• 

  Sargon

  Doesn't most of this argument center around the fact that all the original disciples thought that Christ was just for the Jews and Paul thought it should be preached to people of all nations?

  I don't think that's particularly true. It was, after all, not Paul, but Peter who initiated preaching to Gentiles and receiving them into the congregation. It may have been a hard concept for the early Jewish Christians to accept, but the Holy Spirit made it clear to Peter that Gentiles would also be accepted

  Madman,

  We may both be right on this. I think that Peter's view of the future of Christianity lay within the bounds of the Jewish law. To follow Christ was to still obey all the old rules of the Torah. There is no biblical evidence that Peter preached to the Gentiles in Rome, this thought originated with the early Christian writer Irenaeus in the late 2nd century.

  I think that the whole 2nd chapter to the Galatians is central to this argument between Peter and Paul but particularly this:

  But on the contrary seeing that I had been entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter with the gospel to the circumcised. Gal:2:7

  I said to Cephas in the presence of all 'if you being a jew, live like the Gentiles and not like the jews, how is it that you compel the gentiles to live like jews.' Gal 2:14

  I think this goes to the heart of the arguments between Peter and Paul, and shows that the two had different views on the direction of Christianity.