Twilight Posted February 8, 2010 Author Share Posted February 8, 2010 Good point, Twilight. If Paul was a false prophet... Why did none of the apostles EVER oppose him? He would have been one of the worst deceivers in the early church, but they never refuted him. Two options: 1. He did, but it was "destroyed". (unprovable). 2. He didn't because it was truth. (provable). Quote The best wisdom is always second hand... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Twilight Posted February 8, 2010 Author Share Posted February 8, 2010 Good point, Twilight. If Paul was a false prophet... Why did none of the apostles EVER oppose him? He would have been one of the worst deceivers in the early church, but they never refuted him. Remember, he was also a profound enemy of Christians as Saul of Tarsus. Yet we are to believe that later he became a "hidden" enemy and Peter and John did nothing about it? Quote The best wisdom is always second hand... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members rudywoofs (Pam) Posted February 8, 2010 Members Share Posted February 8, 2010 p:Your idea is that the Holy Spirit was the literal breath of Christ? So when Christ breathed upon them, they sucked in His breath, and thus received the Holy Spirit? T:No. It is not my idea pnat. P: That is what the bible says. T:Ok, I'll rephrase this. It's your understanding that Christ breathed upon them, they sucked in His breath, and this is how they received the Holy Spirit. The disciples did not receive the Holy Spirit by faith, but by inhaling. This is correct? Originally Posted By: Mark You seem to want to define what I am saying Pnat. It is almost like you want to box it and label it? But what does the bible say? It says He breathed on them. As to the detail of that, we can only say that we could possibly draw the comparison from the creation of man, where man was also "breathed on/into". Beyond that, what could we say? Why are you pressing for a detail that I have not stated? C,mon Pnat. What does the bible say happened? Mark :-) When the breath goes out of someone, the molecules of the breath disperse in the air. It's not unlikely that the disciples breathed in some of Christ's breath (as they had been doing ever since they had been with Him). I think Christ's breath in this case was more like a covering, or a blanket. Just my thoughts... Quote Pam      Meddle Not In the Affairs of Dragons; for You Are Crunchy and Taste Good with Ketchup. If we all sang the same note in the choir, there'd never be any harmony. Funny, isn't it, how we accept Grace for ourselves and demand justice for others? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Rich Posted February 8, 2010 Share Posted February 8, 2010 It appears that you (the ones writing on this thread) have not taken the time to investigate this question. The answer is easy to find by googling what Peter said to Paul which was written down by Peter's scribe 'Clementine' (see the Pseudo Clementine's Homily's 17, 18 and 19.) You can also do a search on youtube for "Paul, a false apostle". You can also read all about this in a heavy duty book called "James, the brother of Jesus". You don't have to agree with the author on this book to see that there were many problems between the disciples and Paul and between James and Paul. Not only this, but the whole Ephesian church was against Paul's teaching. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SivartM Posted February 8, 2010 Share Posted February 8, 2010 And your evidence for the authenticity of the Clementina is...? Why not believe the Gospel of Peter too? Think about it. Paul was one of the most influential preachers in the early church. And there is hardly any evidence (and shaky at best) that any of the apostles opposed his teachings. Quote "Always forgive your enemies; nothing annoys them so much." - Oscar Wilde�Do to others whatever you would like them to do to you. This is the essence of all that is taught in the law and the prophets." - Jesus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Rich Posted February 8, 2010 Share Posted February 8, 2010 I am not going to argue the issue because you can't even show me the evidence for authenticity for any of Paul's writings either! Years ago, while yet a rookie on the police department, the Secret Service taught a class on how to spot a counterfeit 20 dollar note. They passed out counterfeit bills to the class and asked us to find the real one. Most of us thought we had the real one, but they never did pass out a real one at that time. Yes, a real one is absolute and singular and there is no way one can have any relative thoughts or ideas about it. And you couldn't argue that just because most of the class and the public would accept a counterfeit one, that it therefore must be a real one for that person. No-a counterfeit is always a counterfeit. What happened next was that the teacher then passed out a real 20 dollar note and we spent the next 3 hours going over in high detail everything in it that was different than a fake. By the end of the class, when the teacher again passed out the counterfeit ones, none of us made a mistake because every detail on a counterfeit jumped out at us. You see, we all had to study the real one in pains taken detail, and then spotting a counterfeit would be a simple and easy thing to do. Therefore, may I suggest that if you truly want to know the truth, then one must diligently study the words of Jesus that was given to us by His eyewitnesses FIRST! After that you can read anything and the counterfeit will be easily spotted. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SivartM Posted February 8, 2010 Share Posted February 8, 2010 Almost 2,000 years of universal Christian consensus? Quote "Always forgive your enemies; nothing annoys them so much." - Oscar Wilde�Do to others whatever you would like them to do to you. This is the essence of all that is taught in the law and the prophets." - Jesus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Musicman1228 Posted February 8, 2010 Share Posted February 8, 2010 They DID oppose him, which is why Paul got so mad at them, calling the 'so called pillars of the church'. All was not sweetness and light between the Disciples of Jesus Christ and Paul. The reason why Luke does not report this is that Luke worked for Paul and he wanted everyone to think that he was an apostle just like the others. Doing your homework on this situation would be very revealing. You might try "James the Brother of Jesus" by Eisenman as a start. Also, "The Spirit of the Church" by Neufeld and Sterling would also be helpful. They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us. But they went out, that it might become plain that they all are not of us. 1 John 2:19. This is an example of a legitimate disciple of Jesus Christ questioning the motives and authority of 'others' in teaching something other than what was being taught by the Jerusalem Assembly. There is no question in my mind that since Paul admitted preaching a 'different' gospel from the gospel that was being taught by the 'so called pillars' that he is one of the people that John is referring to here. I am not trying to be a stick in the mud, here. I am just trying to get to the truth as to why there appears to be two different theologies with respect to how salvation works; one from Jesus Christ, the other from Paul. The problem stems from the fact that most Christians don't want to acknowledge that there are major differences between the two, rather saying that there are no conflicts in the Bible merely because God would not allow that to happen. If that was the case then why did the Sanhedrin, Pharisees and Saducees continually find fault with the 'interpretation' of Scripture that Jesus Christ taught? Just this fact alone proves beyond reasonable doubt that that there are conflicting theologies. Now add Paul into that mix and it becomes even more convoluted and obscure. This is why I continue to say that in order to find the real truth we must go to the words of Jesus Christ as given to us by the eyewitnesses to His ministry, comparing everything else to that. If there is a discrepancy then we MUST go with the words of Jesus over all else. Then and only then will we be able to find truth. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Musicman1228 Posted February 8, 2010 Share Posted February 8, 2010 SivartM said, "Almost 2,000 years of universal Christian consensus?" Just because there is consensus does not mean that consensus is valid. The majority is not always correct. If the majority is for the most part right then why did Jesus 'buck' the system by teaching an alternative theology to that of the Jewish leadership? The 'majority' is on the wide road, the 'minority' is on the narrow road (at least according to Jesus). I find no comfort in being in the majority. If being in the majority makes you feel safe then maybe you need to reassess your commitment to Jesus Christ, who was anything but in the majority. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Rich Posted February 8, 2010 Share Posted February 8, 2010 Hey SivartM, sounds like the wide gate and the wide road you are talking about. Perhaps it is no wonder Jesus could not come all this time--because everyone up until now who called himself a Christian were believing and practicing in lies! Lies given to us by Paul. When looking around me on this little narrow road I am on, I don't see many people--perhaps only a handful at this time. Choose what you will, but I choose to follow the words and teaching of Jesus given to us by His eyewitnesses. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Twilight Posted February 8, 2010 Author Share Posted February 8, 2010 It appears that you (the ones writing on this thread) have not taken the time to investigate this question. The answer is easy to find by googling what Peter said to Paul which was written down by Peter's scribe 'Clementine' (see the Pseudo Clementine's Homily's 17, 18 and 19.) You can also do a search on youtube for "Paul, a false apostle". You can also read all about this in a heavy duty book called "James, the brother of Jesus". You don't have to agree with the author on this book to see that there were many problems between the disciples and Paul and between James and Paul. Not only this, but the whole Ephesian church was against Paul's teaching. Hey Dr Rich. Can we keep this on topic please? We are fully aware of yours and MM's views on Paul etc. But this thread is not discussing that. Mark :-) Quote The best wisdom is always second hand... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Twilight Posted February 8, 2010 Author Share Posted February 8, 2010 Back topic please folks... Quote The best wisdom is always second hand... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pnattmbtc Posted February 8, 2010 Share Posted February 8, 2010 p:Ok, I'll rephrase this. It's your understanding that Christ breathed upon them, they sucked in His breath, and this is how they received the Holy Spirit. The disciples did not receive the Holy Spirit by faith, but by inhaling. This is correct? Mark:You seem to want to define what I am saying Pnat. It is almost like you want to box it and label it? But what does the bible say? It says He breathed on them. As to the detail of that, we can only say that we could possibly draw the comparison from the creation of man, where man was also "breathed on/into". Beyond that, what could we say? Why are you pressing for a detail that I have not stated? C,mon Pnat. What does the bible say happened? Isn't it reasonable to define what you're saying? This is to say, I want to know what you mean. What's the point of saying something if your meaning isn't understood? What I'm hearing you say is you think the Bible says that Christ breathed upon them, they sucked in His breath, and this is how they received the Holy Spirit. The disciples did not receive the Holy Spirit by faith, but by inhaling. Am I hearing you correctly? Quote Christ exalted the character of God, attributing to him the praise, and giving to him the credit, of the whole purpose of his own mission on earth,--to set men right through the revelation of God. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Twilight Posted February 8, 2010 Author Share Posted February 8, 2010 Originally Posted By: Twilight p:Ok, I'll rephrase this. It's your understanding that Christ breathed upon them, they sucked in His breath, and this is how they received the Holy Spirit. The disciples did not receive the Holy Spirit by faith, but by inhaling. This is correct? Mark:You seem to want to define what I am saying Pnat. It is almost like you want to box it and label it? But what does the bible say? It says He breathed on them. As to the detail of that, we can only say that we could possibly draw the comparison from the creation of man, where man was also "breathed on/into". Beyond that, what could we say? Why are you pressing for a detail that I have not stated? C,mon Pnat. What does the bible say happened? Isn't it reasonable to define what you're saying? This is to say, I want to know what you mean. What's the point of saying something if your meaning isn't understood? What I'm hearing you say is you think the Bible says that Christ breathed upon them, they sucked in His breath, and this is how they received the Holy Spirit. The disciples did not receive the Holy Spirit by faith, but by inhaling. Am I hearing you correctly? Please read the bible texts I have supplied Pnat. Then share your own conclusions. I am not trying to state anything beyond what they say. It says Jesus breathed on them and they received the Holy Spirit. We also know that Jesus breathed into mans nostrils to give man his spirit. Those are the only comparable texts. What conclusions you draw is up to you. But I am not about to commit to a detail I cannot prove from scripture and I am not sure why you would ask me to do such a thing. Mark :-) Quote The best wisdom is always second hand... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Rich Posted February 8, 2010 Share Posted February 8, 2010 Mark, the question on this thread is WHEN---. Either what John gives us is true, or what Luke gives us is true. It can't be both ways. People want to introduce evidence for what they believe is true-right? All I did was present an objection to evidence submitted that would be thrown out of a court of law--namely hearsay evidence. This was NOT an attempt to change the question. It was my pleading (if you call it that) to prove my point--hearsay evidence is not as good as eyewitness evidence. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SivartM Posted February 8, 2010 Share Posted February 8, 2010 Why can't both be true? My prediction of what you will say: Why would God send the Holy Spirit twice in two different ways? Why wouldn't He? Quote "Always forgive your enemies; nothing annoys them so much." - Oscar Wilde�Do to others whatever you would like them to do to you. This is the essence of all that is taught in the law and the prophets." - Jesus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Twilight Posted February 8, 2010 Author Share Posted February 8, 2010 Mark, the question on this thread is WHEN---. Either what John gives us is true, or what Luke gives us is true. It can't be both ways. People want to introduce evidence for what they believe is true-right? All I did was present an objection to evidence submitted that would be thrown out of a court of law--namely hearsay evidence. This was NOT an attempt to change the question. It was my pleading (if you call it that) to prove my point--hearsay evidence is not as good as eyewitness evidence. I didn't want this to turn into another "Paul was not an apostle" thread Dr Rich. Mark :-) Quote The best wisdom is always second hand... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators John317 Posted February 8, 2010 Moderators Share Posted February 8, 2010 I agree. Let's not do that, Dr. Rich and Wayfinder. Please take that debate to the private thread made for it. We just can't allow every thread dealing with the NT or with the early church to become a debate about the same issue, attacking Paul, Luke, etc. A better approach would be to closely analyze the various writings of the NT, such as the theology of Paul and the gospel that Jesus proclaimed, showing how they differ or how they are similar. Quote John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [17] For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Rich Posted February 8, 2010 Share Posted February 8, 2010 Ok Mark. But you still have the same problem-John's word or Luke's? To believe that both could be true would mean that Jesus must of forgot something the first time-or it didn't work the first time. I, for one would seriously doubt Jesus ever made a mistake. Pentecostals would argue with this, in that they believe that someone can't have the Holy Spirit in them without showing some type of 'fruit' or gift it produces like speaking in tongues or touching people on the head and they fall on the floor and such. A sincere pastor I golfed with visited me once and attempted to get me to speak in tongues. What a joke! Later, when sitting in the back seats with some friends while listening to him preach, he called for people to come up to receive the Holy Ghost. Many came forward and the preacher would speak some gibberish and reach out to touch their head and they would fall backwards to the floor. Fortunately, they had someone to catch these people when this happened and if was a woman with a dress on, they would cover her with a blanket. As I watched this 'show', I wondered how these people can let this happen to them. Suddenly, and without warning, I was thrown on the floor and went into a laughing spat hallucinating a wonderful orgasmic feeling. I remember I was very warm and rolled about laughing out loud (LOL) until the preacher came up and declared for everyone to hear that he had been praying for me to receive the spirit and that this demonstrated that I did. It was much later when I learned that this was not the Holy Spirit, but the spirit of evil that was very seductive and could have been easy to believe. Many people today are trapped into this thinking. We must remember that God speaks in a still small voice. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Twilight Posted February 8, 2010 Author Share Posted February 8, 2010 Ok Mark. But you still have the same problem-John's word or Luke's? To believe that both could be true would mean that Jesus must of forgot something the first time-or it didn't work the first time. I, for one would seriously doubt Jesus ever made a mistake. Pentecostals would argue with this, in that they believe that someone can't have the Holy Spirit in them without showing some type of 'fruit' or gift it produces like speaking in tongues or touching people on the head and they fall on the floor and such. A sincere pastor I golfed with visited me once and attempted to get me to speak in tongues. What a joke! Later, when sitting in the back seats with some friends while listening to him preach, he called for people to come up to receive the Holy Ghost. Many came forward and the preacher would speak some gibberish and reach out to touch their head and they would fall backwards to the floor. Fortunately, they had someone to catch these people when this happened and if was a woman with a dress on, they would cover her with a blanket. As I watched this 'show', I wondered how these people can let this happen to them. Suddenly, and without warning, I was thrown on the floor and went into a laughing spat hallucinating a wonderful orgasmic feeling. I remember I was very warm and rolled about laughing out loud (LOL) until the preacher came up and declared for everyone to hear that he had been praying for me to receive the spirit and that this demonstrated that I did. It was much later when I learned that this was not the Holy Spirit, but the spirit of evil that was very seductive and could have been easy to believe. Many people today are trapped into this thinking. We must remember that God speaks in a still small voice. Not at all. One instance of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit for mans sanctification. Another for the specific work of spreading the Gospel. Mark Quote The best wisdom is always second hand... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Rich Posted February 8, 2010 Share Posted February 8, 2010 Which 'gospel' Mark? Paul's or Jesus'? Jesus said that the gospel of (about) the Kingdom of Heaven shall be preached to all the world, and then the end shall come. Paul's gospel was one about Jesus and to believe in Him for we can attain righteousness by faith. Paul said anyone teaching any other gospel than his should be damned--even if it were an angel sent from Heaven. Does this mean the angel sent by Jesus to John should be damned to hell? Never did Paul say that his gospel was the same as what was Jesus. The opposite was what Paul taught. So tell me Mark, when did Saul/Paul receive the Holy Spirit? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Twilight Posted February 8, 2010 Author Share Posted February 8, 2010 Which 'gospel' Mark? Paul's or Jesus'? Jesus said that the gospel of (about) the Kingdom of Heaven shall be preached to all the world, and then the end shall come. Paul's gospel was one about Jesus and to believe in Him for we can attain righteousness by faith. Paul said anyone teaching any other gospel than his should be damned--even if it were an angel sent from Heaven. Does this mean the angel sent by Jesus to John should be damned to hell? Never did Paul say that his gospel was the same as what was Jesus. The opposite was what Paul taught. So tell me Mark, when did Saul/Paul receive the Holy Spirit? Act 9:17 And Ananias went his way, and entered into the house; and putting his hands on him said, Brother Saul, the Lord, [even] Jesus, that appeared unto thee in the way as thou camest, hath sent me, that thou mightest receive thy sight, and be filled with the Holy Ghost. This is the only record I know, but it could well be referring to the outpouring rather than the indwelling, as Paul immediately started preaching the Gospel. I would not like to say it is either or however. Quote The best wisdom is always second hand... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pnattmbtc Posted February 8, 2010 Share Posted February 8, 2010 Quote: Please read the bible texts I have supplied Pnat. Then share your own conclusions. I am not trying to state anything beyond what they say. It says Jesus breathed on them and they received the Holy Spirit. We also know that Jesus breathed into mans nostrils to give man his spirit. Those are the only comparable texts. What conclusions you draw is up to you. But I am not about to commit to a detail I cannot prove from scripture and I am not sure why you would ask me to do such a thing. I was asking if I understood you correctly. I don't understand why you can't answer this yes or no. Either I did or I didn't. I'm understanding your idea/understanding is that the disciples did not receive the Holy Spirit by faith. I'm also understanding your idea/understanding is that they did receive it by inhaling Jesus' breath. Did you not intend to say this? If I'm reading more into what you meant to say, please just say that. If I understood you correctly, please say that. Quote Christ exalted the character of God, attributing to him the praise, and giving to him the credit, of the whole purpose of his own mission on earth,--to set men right through the revelation of God. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 9, 2010 Share Posted February 9, 2010 Originally Posted By: Musicman1228 There is always the possibility of my being deceived, which is why I do not automatically eliminate ANYTHING from consideration, vis a vis truth. It is only when a person refuses to look at everything that involves their belief system that the potential to be fooled goes to near 100%. It is for the very reason that I don't want to be fooled that I look at all these things. As to which of the Disciples/Apostles/Prophets might have been deceived: Paul, certainly; Peter and Matthew, probably; John, not likely (which is why he is my favorite, and seemed to be the favorite of Jesus); anyone else, including 'modern' prophets, absolutely. It is our job as individuals to filter out the lies from the truth in every situation, this is why we must trust only the words of Jesus Christ as the filter. But then you have a problem MM. Because according to your reckoning, John himself WAS deceived by Pentecost. Because he was there, happily joining in. You are saying pentecost was a deception. You are saying you do not think John was deceived. But then you are saying he was deceived. Mark Excellent point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Musicman1228 Posted February 9, 2010 Share Posted February 9, 2010 Look at what John wrote in his gospel and in his letters and compare that with what Paul wrote in his gospel/epistles and tell me which one of these men was deceived. John NEVER went away from the message that Jesus Christ taught. You cannot say the same about Paul because he NEVER taught what Jesus Christ taught, principally because Paul never knew Jesus Christ in the flesh. But this string is not about Paul so I will say no more here Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.