Did Paul know everything there is to know?

[tailgator]

Paul did understand and taught the Rapture, 2nd Coming, Judgement seat of Christ, as well as many other revelations, that are regarding the "end times".
However, you dont have to be an Einstein to realize that if God gave John "The Revelation" then that is the Full Revelation.

Reader, the 11 Apostles, understood the Trib-Grt Trib, before Paul was called into the "time of the Gentiles" Ministry.
So, even before Jesus ascended back into GLORY (to later Call Paul into the Ministry)....., the 11 original apostles, understood some "end times" as Jesus in Matthew 24, revealed it to them, and He had already revealed some "end time" revelation to the Apostles, before he was Crucified.

Paul's "mission" "ministry" was to REVEAL = "the Gospel of the Grace of God".... as "The preaching of the Cross, is the Power of God, unto Salvation, to all who BELIEVE"..
See that "GOSPEL"?
That is "Paul's Gospel"... and that was given to Him by Jesus.. And Paul gave to the 11 original Apostles, in Acts 15.

Paul's mission -ministry to the CHURCH, the "Body of Christ" was to provide you with "church Doctrine."

Paul main ministry was to start new local churches.. and so, he started , many, and you find some of them in Paul's letters to them..

Corinthians
Ephesians
Galatians
Thessalonians

Paul said that we are to learn his Doctrine and study his Lifestyle and Ministry as the example, the pattern, for Christian Discipleship.

This is why he told you.."Be a follower of Me, as i follow Christ"

Not a worshiper... but a follower......as Paul is the greatest Christian who ever lived, and so, we are to learn his Teachings, His Lifestyle, His ministry, and emulate it....= DO That.

I agree with much of what you say but I wouldn't say Paul is the greatest Christian who ever lived.

I do believe that would be up to God to decide.

 

[Behold]

I agree with much of what you say but I wouldn't say Paul is the greatest Christian who ever lived.

Well, is there another Christian, who was initially a "Pharisee of Pharisee's", who was "Blameless in the LAW" OF Moses, who is from the Tribe of Benjamin, who was helping religious Jews to murder Christians...???
Paul was helping STEPHEN, be stoned to death.

and then....

Saul became Paul.... whom Jesus personally visited and gave to Paul the "Gospel" and "church doctrine.. And Paul then wrote most of the NT Epistles, and all of the "church doctrine", and he planted many churches, (Listed in the Epistles) but not just those.. and was stoned to death, went to God's 3rd Heaven, saw Heavenly Revelations... . and in the end was Martyr'd for Christ.

So, if you can find one that is greater then that one.... be sure to post their Bio.

 

[tailgator]

Well, is there another Christian, who was initially a "Pharisee of Pharisee's", who was "Blameless in the LAW" OF Moses, who is from the Tribe of Benjamin, who was helping religious Jews to murder Christians...???
Paul was helping STEPHEN, be stoned to death.

and then....

Saul became Paul.... whom Jesus personally visited and gave to Paul the "Gospel" and "church doctrine.. And Paul then wrote most of the NT Epistles, and all of the "church doctrine", and he planted many churches, (Listed in the Epistles) but not just those.. and was stoned to death, went to God's 3rd Heaven, saw Heavenly Revelations... . and in the end was Martyr'd for Christ.

So, if you can find one that is greater then that one.... be sure to post their Bio.

I wouldn't judge everyone based on what you believe makes a great Christian.
I believe that would be up to God to decide.Not me.

Don't you believe that would be up to God seeing God is the one who knows the hearts of man?



Mark 10

37 They said unto him, Grant unto us that we may sit, one on thy right hand, and the other on thy left hand, in thy glory.

38 But Jesus said unto them, Ye know not what ye ask: can ye drink of the cup that I drink of? and be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with?

39 And they said unto him, We can. And Jesus said unto them, Ye shall indeed drink of the cup that I drink of; and with the baptism that I am baptized withal shall ye be baptized:

40 But to sit on my right hand and on my left hand is not mine to give; but it shall be given to them for whom it is prepared.

41 And when the ten heard it, they began to be much displeased with James and John.

42 But Jesus called them to him, and saith unto them, Ye know that they which are accounted to rule over the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and their great ones exercise authority upon them.

43 But so shall it not be among you: but whosoever will be great among you, shall be your minister:

44 And whosoever of you will be the chiefest, shall be servant of all.

 

[amadeus]

Scripture is silent on that. Is there anything specific that would cause us to think this?

Personally I'd have to answer, I don't know, but I don't think so.

Revelation 1:1-2 LITV
1) A Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave to Him to show to His slaves things which must occur quickly. He signified by sending through His angel to His slave, John,
2) who testified of the Word of God and the witness of Jesus Christ, even as many things as he saw.

Singified it, that is, to make it known, to show it, indicate it. Jesus did this be sending it through his angel to John. Paul is not mentioned, but there is an affirmative description of how this revelation was distributed, that being through John.

Much love!

And also, consider what Jesus says here:

Mt 24:36

But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only.

 

[JBO]

Im in a conversation with someone who is convinced that Paul new everything.
That he himself received the revelation of Jesus Christ which God gave to him to show his servants things which must shortly come to pass.



How many people on this board believe Paul received the revelation of Jesus Christ before John?

Was the teaching of the disciples directly by Jesus Christ not the revelation of Jesus Christ?

 

[tailgator]

Was the teaching of the disciples directly by Jesus Christ not the revelation of Jesus Christ?

It is.And John was given the task of writing a book on the revelation of Jesus Christ.

Peter was even interested in knowing what John would do but Jesus didn't share that with him.



John 21
17 He saith unto him the third time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved because he said unto him the third time, Lovest thou me? And he said unto him, Lord, thou knowest all things; thou knowest that I love thee. Jesus saith unto him, Feed my sheep.

18 Verily, verily, I say unto thee, When thou wast young, thou girdest thyself, and walkedst whither thou wouldest: but when thou shalt be old, thou shalt stretch forth thy hands, and another shall gird thee, and carry thee whither thou wouldest not.

19 This spake he, signifying by what death he should glorify God. And when he had spoken this, he saith unto him, Follow me.

20 Then Peter, turning about, seeth the disciple whom Jesus loved following; which also leaned on his breast at supper, and said, Lord, which is he that betrayeth thee?

21 Peter seeing him saith to Jesus, Lord, and what shall this man do?

22 Jesus saith unto him, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee? follow thou me.

23 Then went this saying abroad among the brethren, that that disciple should not die: yet Jesus said not unto him, He shall not die; but, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee?


Revelation 10:11
And he said unto me, Thou must prophesy again before many peoples, and nations, and tongues, and kings.

 

[Timtofly]

If Paul knew of both resurrections in revelation,the one before the millennium and the one after ,then why didn't he write about both resurections 1000 years apart?

Is there a second resurrection or is that just an assumption? Paul never gave the timeframes. If John knew that the Second Coming was 1995 years after the Cross, why did he not give us that information?

John was not "given anything".

John was a first hand witness to an actual literal history, that he put into symbolic format. John saw the entire Day of the Lord and beyond. John would have known the exact year the Second Coming could have happened, no?

Neither Paul nor John stated there was a resurrection at the end of the reign of Christ on the earth. Paul said creation was handed back into God, so God was all in all. John said creation fled and was no longer found. John never said there was a resurrection. Neither did Paul. The dead did not dissappear with creation. They stood in judgment and tossed into the LOF. Being made alive is the opposite of remaining dead and cast into the LOF.

Paul's topic was being made alive. Death and sheol were ejected from creation along with all the dead. Not a resurrection, but the removal of death, so creation was totally made alive.

 

[tailgator]

Is there a second resurrection or is that just an assumption? Paul never gave the timeframes. If John knew that the Second Coming was 1995 years after the Cross, why did he not give us that information?

John was not "given anything".

John was a first hand witness to an actual literal history, that he put into symbolic format. John saw the entire Day of the Lord and beyond. John would have known the exact year the Second Coming could have happened, no?

Neither Paul nor John stated there was a resurrection at the end of the reign of Christ on the earth. Paul said creation was handed back into God, so God was all in all. John said creation fled and was no longer found. John never said there was a resurrection. Neither did Paul. The dead did not dissappear with creation. They stood in judgment and tossed into the LOF. Being made alive is the opposite of remaining dead and cast into the LOF.

Paul's topic was being made alive. Death and sheol were ejected from creation along with all the dead. Not a resurrection, but the removal of death, so creation was totally made alive.

Christs reign on the earth does not end.

Ezekiel 37
24 And David my servant shall be king over them; and they all shall have one shepherd: they shall also walk in my judgments, and observe my statutes, and do them.

25 And they shall dwell in the land that I have given unto Jacob my servant, wherein your fathers have dwelt; and they shall dwell therein, even they, and their children, and their children's children for ever: and my servant David shall be their prince for ever.



And Israel.is resurected when his reign begins



Ezekiel 37
12 Therefore prophesy and say unto them, Thus saith the Lord God; Behold, O my people, I will open your graves, and cause you to come up out of your graves, and bring you into the land of Israel.

13 And ye shall know that I am the Lord, when I have opened your graves, O my people, and brought you up out of your graves,

14 And shall put my spirit in you, and ye shall live, and I shall place you in your own land: then shall ye know that I the Lord have spoken it, and performed it, saith the Lord.




Gog invades Israel in the next chapter.1000 years after Israel is resurected.

 

[Timtofly]

This is rich coming from you. You don't read the following word for word, so stop being hypocritical.

John 5:28 Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, 29 And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.

Taken literally word for word, Jesus said here that literally ALL who are in the graves (all of the dead) will be resurrected at generally the same time. But, you don't accept this. You have decided that a passage from the most highly symbolic book in scripture should be interpreted literally word for word. No spiritual discernment required somehow. But, then you don't do the same with passages like John 5:28-29 which are written very straightforwardly while not being contained in a very highly symbolic book that was purposely "signified" (Revelation 1:1). You just have a terrible approach to interpreting scripture that doesn't make any sense.

That would not include all that are already made alive and in heaven.

That just covers those who never accepted Jesus as the Lamb of God.

That does not cover those alive physically on the earth either.

We see at the end of the 1,000 year reign of Christ on the earth exactly that. All the dead stand before God as you interpret that verse in John. That is ALL the dead at that point, but certainly not all of humanity.

Now the interpretation has to fit your opinion as to why would all the redeemed be called the dead as well. Why do you hold that opinion, because just saying some have done good, does not imply that point. Jesus points out those that did good, will obtain the resurrection to life. Doing good is not the criteria of obtaining the second birth. Doing good is a criteria given by Jesus several times as people standing before God in a judgment setting. At that point it is too late to make up or change what had already been done while they were physically alive. It is just them standing before God, their creator. Does that not come into play in your interpretation?

Even John pointed out doing good as that criteria:

"And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works."

Please explain to me how works is the basis of salvation by grace through faith, not of ourselves, but the gift of God?

"For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast."

Ephesians 6:8-9

God still gets the last word, no? God can still offer a get out of the LOF free card based on works.

This is not even necessarily because of their works, but still God's grace because that is what is written. They cannot boast even facing God. All they can do is be thankful, God still chooses them to eternal life.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

why would tailgator even answer you ? you have been questioning him gestapo style since the beginning, you might learn a few things from what he says.

He has nothing to teach me. Do you know that he thinks the writings of Paul and Mark are not trustworthy to use as doctrine? I showed him something that Paul taught in 1 Corinthians 15:20-23 and he completely dismisses it and basically says that Paul did not have a full understanding of Bible prophecy and of the resurrection of the dead. Can you believe that? Do you think he is a person that can be trusted when he clearly thinks so lowly of the person who wrote about half of the New Testament?

Also, he was talking about who will be gathered when Jesus returns and he pointed out what it says in Matthew 24:31. Matthew only mentioned the gathering of the elect in heaven. I showed him Mark 13:27 where it shows that the elect will be gathered from earth as well and he completely dismissed that. As if Matthew can be trusted, but Mark can't. But, Mark simply added a detail that Matthew didn't. We should read all 3 accounts of the Olivet Discourse to get a full picture of what Jesus said in it. Wouldn't you agree? But, this guy thinks Mark's account can just be ignored.

If you think it's wrong for me to criticize someone for acting as if Paul and Mark cannot be trusted, then that says something about you as well. But, maybe you didn't catch that he did that. I'll assume you agree with me that he is wrong for thinking Paul and Mark's writings can't be trusted to use for doctrine.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

certainly Paul did NOT know more than Peter, I am certain.

If you read what they wrote, they clearly both had a very high level of wisdom, so that is the point of comparing their levels of knowledge? This is ridiculous. They both were inspired by the Holy Spirit who knows all things, so what is the point of this? Can we trust Peter's writings but not Paul's? What is going on here?

People like tailgator (and maybe you as well?) need to heed the words Peter wrote here:

2 Peter 3:15 And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; 16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction. 17 Ye therefore, beloved, seeing ye know these things before, beware lest ye also, being led away with the error of the wicked, fall from your own stedfastness.

 

[Jesusfollower]

If you read what they wrote, they clearly both had a very high level of wisdom, so that is the point of comparing their levels of knowledge? This is ridiculous. They both were inspired by the Holy Spirit who knows all things, so what is the point of this? Can we trust Peter's writings but not Paul's? What is going on here?

People like tailgator (and maybe you as well?) need to heed the words Peter wrote here:

2 Peter 3:15 And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; 16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction. 17 Ye therefore, beloved, seeing ye know these things before, beware lest ye also, being led away with the error of the wicked, fall from your own stedfastness.

read about the possible forgery of this book, it IS heavily contested! and this for a long time.

Do nor forget this;

About the wisdom given to paul, it could mean no wisdom, a little wisdom, some wisdom etc.. it does not say paul is wise!
Also the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven was given to Peter by Jesus himself but not to Paul.

​

"And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."Matthew 16:19​

Again it is Peter! not Paul that was sent to the gentiles by GOD himself not paul as it is written;

Acts 15:7 KJV​

"And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe."​

This verse records Peter's testimony during the Jerusalem Council, where he affirms that God chose him to preach the gospel to the Gentiles, in God's plan of salvation.

Do you need more proof Peter and Paul are not on equal footing? I think the evidence presented here is compelling.

 

[Behold]

Acts 15:7 KJV​

"And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe."​

That is Peter speaking of his local ministry.

If you read Acts 10.... .which is 10 Yrs after Jesus is back in Heaven.... God had to show Peter that Gentiles could be saved..
He didnt know this in Acts 2:38..

Whereas..

"Paul is a chosen vessel unto me, (Jesus said from Heaven) "

For whom?

Gentiles... and others, including Jews, but Specifically Gentiles.

How do you know?

Because only Paul, is the "Apostle TO the GENTILES, "in the TIME of the GENTILES""= (Right now we are in it)....... and not Peter, and not the other 10.

The Reason that the "cult of the Virgin" is Apostle Peter obsessed, is because this water cult teaches that Water is required for Salvation.
They call it "BAPTISMAL.... regeneration"....or Born again BY.. water...
And that is why, Catholicism, is all about WATER... .and of course MARY.

And Paul teaches that "Christ sent me not to Water Baptize" but to "Preach the Gospel".

So, that is Paul disconnecting WATER from The CROSS,...Disconnecting WATER from SALVATION.... and that is a total rejection of Catholicism....
Whereas Peter, in Acts 2:38, when He didnt yet know of Paul's Gospel, said.. "repent and be water baptized"...so, that is why the Catholic cult, is literally obsessed on the Apostle Peter, and not on Paul, as Paul's Gospel, rejects their Theological basis to even exist.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

read about the possible forgery of this book, it IS heavily contested! and this for a long time.

What are you talking about?

Do nor forget this;

About the wisdom given to paul, it could mean no wisdom, a little wisdom, some wisdom etc.. it does not say paul is wise!

Wow, what is happening here? You are deceived. Paul's letters are scripture and every bit as inspired by God as the rest of scripture. You should be ashamed of yourself for undermining scripture.

Also the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven was given to Peter by Jesus himself but not to Paul.

​

"And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."Matthew 16:19​

Again it is Peter! not Paul that was sent to the gentiles by GOD himself not paul as it is written;

Acts 15:7 KJV​

"And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe."​

This verse records Peter's testimony during the Jerusalem Council, where he affirms that God chose him to preach the gospel to the Gentiles, in God's plan of salvation.

Do you need more proof Peter and Paul are not on equal footing? I think the evidence presented here is compelling.

You are horribly deceived and are reading a different Bible than I am. My Bible includes all scripture that is inspired by God and it is all fully trustworthy.

Did you somehow miss this:

Romans 11:13 For I speak to you Gentiles, inasmuch as I am the apostle of the Gentiles, I magnify mine office: 14 If by any means I may provoke to emulation them which are my flesh, and might save some of them.

Paul was "the apostles of the Gentiles", so how can you say he wasn't sent to preach to the Gentiles? They both did, but that was Paul's primary mission, not Peter's. Who has blinded you with this nonsense? Were you taught this by someone else?

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Warning, everyone. Do not be deceived by these false teachers who have a low opinion of Paul and his writings and claim that Paul's writings can't be trusted to base one's doctrine on. These people are wolves in sheep's clothing. Do not be deceived.

Peter and John themselves would be embarrassed by the lack of proper respect that these people give to Paul. Peter clearly held Paul in very high regard:

2 Peter 3:15 And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; 16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction. 17 Ye therefore, beloved, seeing ye know these things before, beware lest ye also, being led away with the error of the wicked, fall from your own stedfastness.

Don't allow yourselves to be deceived by people like tailgator and Jesusfollower who undermine Paul's teachings at their own peril. Peter warned about this. He said any people who do so are "unlearned and unstable" and this will lead "unto their own destruction".

 

[Dan Clarkston]

How many people on this board believe Paul received the revelation of Jesus Christ before John?

John was saved before Paul so...

Paul is not God so he did not know everything.

Looks like this wraps up your discussion with this guy.

 

[Jesusfollower]

That is Peter speaking of his local ministry.

If you read Acts 10.... .which is 10 Yrs after Jesus is back in Heaven.... God had to show Peter that Gentiles could be saved..
He didnt know this in Acts 2:38..

Whereas..

"Paul is a chosen vessel unto me, (Jesus said from Heaven) "

For whom?

Gentiles... and others, including Jews, but Specifically Gentiles.

How do you know?

Because only Paul, is the "Apostle TO the GENTILES, "in the TIME of the GENTILES""= (Right now we are in it)....... and not Peter, and not the other 10.

The Reason that the "cult of the Virgin" is Apostle Peter obsessed, is because this water cult teaches that Water is required for Salvation.
They call it "BAPTISMAL.... regeneration"....or Born again BY.. water...
And that is why, Catholicism, is all about WATER... .and of course MARY.

And Paul teaches that "Christ sent me not to Water Baptize" but to "Preach the Gospel".

So, that is Paul disconnecting WATER from The CROSS,...Disconnecting WATER from SALVATION.... and that is a total rejection of Catholicism....
Whereas Peter, in Acts 2:38, when He didnt yet know of Paul's Gospel, said.. "repent and be water baptized"...so, that is why the Catholic cult, is literally obsessed on the Apostle Peter, and not on Paul, as Paul's Gospel, rejects their Theological basis to even exist.

what is written is clear and certain, Peter was the chosen vessel to preach to the gentiles period. It is unfortunate you have a low opinion of Peter. Your understanding of these events is abysmal. Peter was chosen for a reason.

 

[Behold]

what is written is clear and certain, Peter was the chosen vessel to preach to the gentiles period.

Paul is the apostle to the Gentiles.
Jesus define Him as this.. so, you dont have to believe what Jesus Said.
You have free will so, believe as you will. @Jesusfollower

 

[Dan Clarkston]

Paul is the apostle to the Gentiles.

Exactly.

It was Peter who was supposed to be ministering to the Jews.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

John was saved before Paul so...

Paul is not God so he did not know everything.

Looks like this wraps up your discussion with this guy.

Do you also believe that Paul's letters were not inspired by the Holy Spirit who knows all things? If so, I can add your name to the list of wolves in sheep's clothing who have invaded this forum.