Did you consider Paul as false prophet?

by PeterNobody 15 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  PetrW

  Paul started splitting us - the Christians - from Jews. He started killing the Judean Christians on Jewish side, then they have been killed by Paul's "Christians". And his claiming about Jesus as "magician" is also used by Jews, this splits Jews and Christians.

  In his letters he blures the good and evil, he removed the God's Law - those are the fruits of his teachings. You are bible researchers, verify the Pauls teaching against the Jesus teachings also against the God's words! Not Moses words, but Gods words! And please be careful to not make our God liar!

  ---
  

  I think your basic argumentative and virtually (today) irremovable flaw, is that you are proving/disproving a claim from someone, but only from what they themselves claim. Proof in the round. To our regret, we have no other sources to confirm/disprove your hypothesis. That leaves the only (obviously for some - unpleasant) option, to understand what is written in the NT as it is written there. The later texts don't add much credible information anymore.
• 

  TonusOH

  PeterNobody: He claims, knowing 10 commandments makes the people sinners! Those are Satan's words!

  It sounds, to me, as if Paul is describing the concept of divine command. He's not slandering god, he's making god the sole arbiter of what constitutes sin. This isn't a foreign (or even controversial) concept to many Christians.
• 

  PetrW

  *
• 

  KalebOutWest

  This is not what I meant when I said we should be discussing things in public, and you know it.

  But I notice you did not write everything. Like all the things YOU said...

  Like your little rude Bible lesson you offered me that started this all?

  I notice you conveniently left that all out. What afraid of something?

  But go ahead, write whatever. PeterNobody.
• 

  peacefulpete

  At the most basic level that can be substantiated, we know very little about Christian origins. What we know is that at some point a movement 'perceived' that God sent an emissary. Did they arrive at that through eisegesis of the OT and visions? Some comments in the extant writings of Paul would suggest that. There are scholars who argue that the 'soft' start of Christianity was a hundred years before the time the Gospel story indicates, as a branch of the Essenes. Regardless, it would seem that the death of the emissary was an original tenet of that movement, but to be honest, there were even early Christians who did not believe this emissary died either through docetic Christology or substitution. There were many rival factions that held many very different views at a very early point, that makes certainty regarding any 'original' form impossible. The writings of Paul, at best, represent a selection of what was written. Some 'letters' are collections of snippets have been heavily redacted and supplemented. Through critical analysis, what seems to be authentic, reveals a man who is convinced of his importance, having been chosen before birth to deliver a message received through visions. Contrary to the 2nd century Acts of the Apostles conversion story, he adamantly denies indebtedness to any human.

  Paul is not the originator of Christianity; he encounters Christians of different types as he preaches his own unique form of the faith. However, his successes influence the broader Christian movement in profound ways a century later.

  Someone deeply influenced was Marcion. What we know of Marcion comes unfortunately, through the writings of his opposers and those writings themselves are suspect of redaction/pseudonymity. Nevertheless, in those writings we read of a Marcion convinced that the dominant Proto-orthodoxy, of which he is part, has altered the texts of Paul and the Gospel of the Lord and claimed to have restored the original form. He resolves the contradictions of a vengeful God of the OT with his more refined take on Christianity by adopting the view that Yahweh was an imposter who had planned his own Messiah to rule the world through. He is charged by some of his opposers of having read the OT too literally. Marcion adopted the OT Yahweh demiurge concept from Gnostics, and claimed the true God was not this creator of the physical world , but rather the heavenly Father of Jesus, who was sent to enlighten and inspire humanity to better itself and thwart the efforts of Yahweh. No judgement day no hellfire, no miracles in the church. It was a kinder gentler form of Christianity that attracted many for 100 years. It seems impossible now to separate the OT from Christianity, but the reformer Marcion tried. What doomed his efforts was likely the celibacy requirement, lol.

  As has been said many times here, the Canonical Gospels, especially the Synoptics, Mark, Matt and Luke, are anonymous recensions of the same anonymous work. They are not separate works, as can be seen by a parallel examination. G.Matt and G.Luke are rewrites of G.Mark, incorporating nearly the entirety of the shorter version verbatim, with many additions and redactions. The end products are different enough to pass as separate Gospels. The names attached to them is the result of a later effort to give them authoritative clout by the proto-orthodoxy with its doctrine of Apostolic succession (i.e. only works of direct companions of the Apostles can be authoritative) 'Luke', is a name mentioned in Paul's Philemon 24 as a "fellow worker". (The name reappears in the later Deutero-Pauline Colossians and 2 Timothy.) We know nothing else about Luke other than very late tradition and there is no reason to be convinced he was involved in the writing of G.Luke (or an early form of Acts which a later editor combined with it). There were many other Gospel versions in use that were not favored by the emerging orthodoxy. It was the golden age of pseudonymous Christian writing. The Gospel of Mark, itself anonymously produced, perhaps in Rome, has been convincingly argued to have been a narrative version of a stage production, in Homeric style, utilizing OT typology (and possibly Sayings Gospels) to 'flesh out' the emissary's experiences and make what may have been an already aging movement a new contemporary touch. It certainly influenced many Christians that followed. Paul, apart from some late glosses, seems to know of no such extensive tradition such as is described in the story of Mark. Neither does the author of Hebrews. Even Justin (150ish), (unlike Papias his predecessor) who favors written over oral tradition quotes from what he calls Memoires of the Apostles (a later gloss identifies them as Gospels) but doesn't use the names as assigned later nor does he refer to them as 'scripture' reserving that for the OT. If the extant copies of Irenaeus can be trusted, at some point between Justin and Irenaeus (180ish) the Gospels were given their names.
• 

  PeterNobody

  TonusOH:

  If you consider Book 5, chapter 25 of Clementine Recognition, as a kind of point of view of the Judeo-Christians you will find the words those were assigned to St. Peter:

  "Because, therefore, there is in everyone liberty to choose good or evil, he either acquires rewards, or brings destruction on himself. No it is said, God brings to our minds whatever we think. What mean you, O then? You blaspheme. For if he brings all our thoughts into our minds, then it is he that suggests to us thoughts of adultery, and covetousness, and blasphemy, and every kind of effeminacy. Cease, I ask of you, these blasphemies, and understand what is the honour worthy of God."

  So here you could see how the blasphemy was understood then, I understand it a in similar way.

  Also there you can find the 1st suggestion of old serpent:

  "And first of all he suggests to men's thoughts not to hear the words of truth, by which they might put to flight the ignorance of those things which are evils. And this he does, as by the presentation of another knowledge, making a show of that opinion which very many hold, to think that they shall not be held guilty if they have been in ignorance, and that they shall not be called to account for what they have not heard; and thereby he persuades them to turn aside from hearing the word. But I tell you, in opposition to this, that ignorance is in itself a most deadly poison, which is sufficient to ruin the soul without any aid from without. And therefore there is no one who is ignorant who shall escape through his ignorance, bill it is certain that he shall perish. For the power of sin naturally destroys the sinner. But since the judgment shall be according to reason, the cause and origin of ignorance shall be enquired into, as well as of every sin. For he who is unwilling to know how he may attain to life, and prefers to be in ignorance in case he thereby be made guilty, from this very fact is judged as if he knew and had knowledge. For he knew what it was that he was unwilling to hear; and the cunning obtained by the artifice of the serpent will avail him nothing for an excuse, for he will have to do with him to whom the heart is open. But that you may know that ignorance of itself brings destruction, I assure you that when the soul departs from the body, if it leave it in ignorance of him by whom it was created, and from whom in this world it obtained all things that were necessary for its uses, it is driven forth from the light of his kingdom as ungrateful and unfaithful."
  
  And this is how I receive Pauls teaching about the laws.
  
  PetrW:
  

  I assume God is consistent, the same is with Jesus. So when I search, I try to find consistency in the teachings, I couldn't find such with Paul's teachings and the rest of the sources. Of course I know how people are reading them, but it doesn't convince me, as the result is the same - we are lawless.
  

  But, I could find such consistence in the sources those were as Judeo-Christians.

  Just to explain you what I mean as the "consistency" - see the example - like the:

  "If someone slaps you on your right cheek, turn your other cheek to him as well" - so you can receive it as to be just a victim.

  But if you read carefully Jesus during the arrest asked why he was slapped, so kind of resistance, so there is no consistency in the teaching or.. there is some different truth.

  Here probably everyone knows - slapping in the right cheek was assigned to the slaves, slapping to the left cheek was assigned to the equal people - a culture factor.

  So the teaching is consistent, but to read it you need to know the culture from those years, if you know it, you will see the reasons why Jesus behaved that way, and it's not something strange or so.

  Similar like with "The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit"

  it's strange but if you go into the aramaic it looks different:

  You can read it as "The Spirit breathes where He will, and you hear His voice, but you do not know from where He comes and where He goes; thus is everyone who is born from The Spirit"
  
  I cannot see such consistency in Paul's statements. Even if you link the past to the future:

  There is prophecy - Isaiah 56 that says the foreign nations that wants to join God's nation, they should follow the Law, and Sabbaths, and Paul says otherwise... so either Paul is wrong, or prophecy is wrong.

  But Isaiah was confirmed by Jesus, moreover the same claiming was from Judeo-Christians, that people should follow the Law.
  
  Revelation of John says about the people who are following laws etc.
  
  If you add all the other points I mentioned, you will find something is wrong with Paul, including his prophecies, like it was mentioned.
  
  KOW:
  You called me as an idiot, and anti-semitic. My family risked their life to protect Jews like you during the 2nd ww and is on the list righteous among the nations.
  I may not agree with your beliefs, I mean I believe Jews refused their Messiah, but you also are thinking that believer in Jesus is wrong as it's your faith.
  But, probably if you would be in the troubles like it happened during the 2nd ww, I would be one of a small amount of people you could count on, the idiot and anti-semitic like you said.
  
  Returning to the subject, you mentioned Paul said Jews will be in Heaven, please see how the early judeo-christians teachings are about the Jews:
  
  

  69. James proves Jesus as the Christ, and calls the Jews to baptism

  "To him our James began to show, that whatever things the prophets say they have taken from the law, and what they have spoken is in accordance with the law. He also made some statements respecting the books of the Kings in: what way, and when, and by whom they were written, and how they ought to be used. And when he had discussed most fully concerning the law, and had, by a most clear exposition, brought into light whatever things are in it concerning Christ, he showed by most abundant proofs that Jesus is the Christ, and that in him are fulfilled all the prophecies which related to his humble advent. For he showed that two advents of him are foretold: one in humiliation, which he has accomplished; the other in glory, which is hoped for to be accomplished, when he shall come to give the kingdom to those who believe in him, and who observe all things which he has commanded. And when he had plainly taught the people concerning these things, he added this also: That unless a man be baptised in water, in the name of the threefold blessedness, as the true Prophet taught, he can neither receive remission of sins nor enter into the kingdom of heaven; and he declared that this is the prescription of the unbegotten God. To which he added this also: "Do not think that we speak of two unbegotten Gods, or that one is divided into two, or that the same is made male and female. But we speak of the only-begotten Son of God, not sprung from another source, but ineffably self-originated; and in the same way we speak of the Paraclete. But when he had spoken some things also concerning baptism, through seven successive days he persuaded all the people and the high priest that they should hasten immediately to receive baptism.
  
  

  It's different than you stated from Paul, but what to do, those words are assigned to James The Just, and he was a Jew, so probably not anti-semitic, just stated the way of his faith.
  
  So from my point of view - as my faith Jews who are not Christians - may/may not go to Heaven, but I believe in God's justice, maybe it's not that obvious like it's in the early christianity, but based on judgement.
  
  May God bless you all