DON'T REJECT PAUL

[Doug]

If you are rejecting Paul as being sent by Christ to be apostle to the Gentiles, was given revelations by Christ, was given our dispensation of the gospel and deliver doctrine for the church today, the body of Christ, then you are rejecting what Peter had to say about Paul as well.

[2Pe 3:16 KJV] 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.

If you are rejecting Paul you are also rejecting Peter who said what Paul wrote is scripture.
You are therefore rejecting scripture.
You are therefore rejecting Christ.

[1Th 2:13 KJV] 13 For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received [it] not [as] the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe.

The Thessalonians received the word of God which they heard from Paul.

[Gal 1:12 KJV] 12 For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught [it], but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.

Paul said that what he received was from the risen Christ.

[Jhn 13:20 KJV] 20 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that receiveth whomsoever I send receiveth me; and he that receiveth me receiveth him that sent me.

[Mat 10:40 KJV] 40 He that receiveth you receiveth me, and he that receiveth me receiveth him that sent me.

Jesus sent Paul and commanded that he be received. If Paul is not received, then neither is Christ.

[1Co 1:17 KJV] 17 For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.

Paul was sent by Christ.

 

[Windmill Charge]

Who is rejecting the apostle Paul?

 

[Doug]

Who is rejecting the apostle Paul?

Not everyone believes Paul is our apostle or was given a dispensation of the gospel

 

[Verily]

You would also have to reject the book of Acts too which mentions Paul as an apostle

Acts 14:14 Which when the apostles, Barnabas and Paul, heard of, they rent their clothes, and ran in among the people, crying out,

Which means you reject Luke, who both wrote the book of Acts 1:1
and the book of Luke 1:3

 

[Doug]

You would also have to reject the book of Acts too which mentions Paul as an apostle

Acts 14:14 Which when the apostles, Barnabas and Paul, heard of, they rent their clothes, and ran in among the people, crying out,

Which means you reject Luke, who both wrote the book of Acts 1:1
and the book of Luke 1:3

very true

 

[Windmill Charge]

Not everyone believes Paul is our apostle or was given a dispensation of the gospel

Have they never read Galatians 2:spel that I preach among the Gentiles. I wanted to be sure I was not running and had not been running my race in vain. 3 Yet not even Titus, who was with me, was compelled to be circumcised, even though he was a Greek. 4 This matter arose because some false believers had infiltrated our ranks to spy on the freedom we have in Christ Jesus and to make us slaves. 5 We did not give in to them for a moment, so that the truth of the gospel might be preserved for you.

Paul met with the church leaders to confirm they and he were preaching the same message!
Talk about biblical illiteracy.

 

[Doug]

Paul met with the church leaders to confirm they and he were preaching the same message!

First of all they dont recognize Jesus sent Paul
In Galatiams Paul met with them to convey his gospel to them. They did not preach the same gospel.

 

[Verily]

Have they never read Galatians 2:spel that I preach among the Gentiles. I wanted to be sure I was not running and had not been running my race in vain. 3 Yet not even Titus, who was with me, was compelled to be circumcised, even though he was a Greek. 4 This matter arose because some false believers had infiltrated our ranks to spy on the freedom we have in Christ Jesus and to make us slaves. 5 We did not give in to them for a moment, so that the truth of the gospel might be preserved for you.

Paul met with the church leaders to confirm they and he were preaching the same message!
Talk about biblical illiteracy.

I like that when certain men came to Antioch that were contending with Barnabas and Paul that the apostles contending with them were willing to set forth the gospel that they preached to the apostles that were before them in order to gain them, and they agreed with them too

In the end the say that certain which went out from us have troubled you with words

Acts 15:24 Forasmuch as we have heard, that certain which went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, Ye must be circumcised, and keep the law: to whom we gave no such commandment:

These are those words

Acts 13:1 And certain men which came down from Judaea taught the brethren, and said, Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved.

These are who Paul and Paul contended with

Acts 15:2 When therefore Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and disputation with them, ((( they determined )))) that Paul and Barnabas, and certain other (((( of them )))) should go up to Jerusalem unto the apostles and elders (((( about this question )))

So Paul and Barnabas submitted themselves to being cross checked by the apostles that were before them

And certain other ((of them)) went with Paul and Barnabas and the question came up again in Acts 15:5 and this is the question the apostles were to consider (Acts15:6)

After it was all said and done (Acts 15:22) Then pleased it the apostles and elders, with the whole church, to send chosen men (( of their own company)) to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas.

They were in agreement there. Paul was not taught by them but submitted what He received of the Lord to them which they aparently agreed with concerning the dispute him and Barnabas had with those who troubled them with words saying, " , Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved."

You can see a patern in both places where they (the apostles in Jerusalem) and Paul speak of them "which trouble you" too

Paul said,

Gal 1:6 I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel:

These are they which trouble you

Gal 1:7 Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.

Again, these "trouble you with words"

Acts 15:24 Forasmuch as we have heard, that certain which went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, Ye must be circumcised, and keep the law: to whom we gave no such commandment:

The same words "trouble or troubleth you" with words is followed up by circumcision

Gal 5:10 I have confidence in you through the Lord, that ye will be none otherwise minded: but he that troubleth you shall bear his judgment, whosoever he be.

Gal 5:11 And I, brethren, if I yet preach circumcision, why do I yet suffer persecution? then is the offence of the cross ceased.

And ends it wth the same again.

Gal 5:12 I would they were even cut off which trouble you.

And back here where it says,

Acts 13:1 And certain men which came down from Judaea taught the brethren

Paul even said,

Gal 1:22 And was unknown by face unto the churches of Judaea which were in Christ

And so its understandable when a dispute arose between what was being taught that "they" (Not Paul and Barnabas) but rather those that went out from the other apostles (which believed even) were teaching as far as them being circumcised to be saved. These did not know Paul by face and they were willing to submit to their request to be cross checked by the apostles before them.

Acts 15:2 When therefore Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and disputation with them, ((( they determined )))) that Paul and Barnabas, and certain other (((( of them )))) should go up to Jerusalem unto the apostles and elders (((( about this question )))

Acts 15:16 And the apostles and elders came together for to consider of this matter.

And also, Titus was not circumcised as you pointed out (nor was he compelled to be under such pressure) and yet on the otherhand Paul did have Timotheus (whose Father was a Greek) circumcised when he chose to take him forth with him in order to gain the Jews.

 

[pepper]

You would also have to reject the book of Acts too which mentions Paul as an apostle

Acts 14:14 Which when the apostles, Barnabas and Paul, heard of, they rent their clothes, and ran in among the people, crying out,

Which means you reject Luke, who both wrote the book of Acts 1:1
and the book of Luke 1:3

Acts was written by Luke. Paul's physician and traveling companion.

 

[Verily]

Acts was written by Luke. Paul's physician and traveling companion.

The book of Luke and Acts were written by Luke, so what?

Pepper you will have to delete the book of Luke, the Book of Acts and the both the epistles of Peter and then delete every epistle Paul wrote to make your rejection of Paul stick. So why not sit every thread out?

 

[Verily]

Acts was written by Luke. Paul's physician and traveling companion.

See post #4 where I acknowledge this

You would also have to reject the book of Acts too which mentions Paul as an apostle

Acts 14:14 Which when the apostles, Barnabas and Paul, heard of, they rent their clothes, and ran in among the people, crying out,

Which means you reject Luke, who both wrote the book of Acts 1:1
and the book of Luke 1:3

 

[Doug]

Acts was written by Luke. Paul's physician and traveling companion.

Verily said........You would also have to reject the book of Acts too which mentions Paul as an apostle

Luke presents Paul in Acts so therefore you would have to reject that book too

 

[pepper]

Verily said........You would also have to reject the book of Acts too which mentions Paul as an apostle

Luke presents Paul in Acts so therefore you would have to reject that book too

I don't think you follow .

 

[Verily]

I don't think you follow .

I never follow you, I dont get you. Except on secular threads you make more sense on those.

 

[pepper]

See post #4 where I acknowledge this

You would also have to reject the book of Acts too which mentions Paul as an apostle

Acts 14:14 Which when the apostles, Barnabas and Paul, heard of, they rent their clothes, and ran in among the people, crying out,

Which means you reject Luke, who both wrote the book of Acts 1:1
and the book of Luke 1:3

You presume much.

The Epistles of Saul are credited to him because he allegedly signed his name to those letters.

The other Gospel books are ascribed to the Apostles of Christ.

In reality Luke was anonymous in the beginning. As was Acts.

Then, 100 years later Irenaeus in the book, "Against Heresies" ,names the four Gospels as Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.
Prior they were anonymous. If a man named Luke wrote Acts and "Luke" he wrote more on the NT than Saul.

 

[Verily]

You presume much.

The Epistles of Saul are credited to him because he allegedly signed his name to those letters.

The other Gospel books are ascribed to the Apostles of Christ.

In reality Luke was anonymous in the beginning. As was Acts.

Then, 100 years later Irenaeus in the book, "Against Heresies" ,names the four Gospels as Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.
Prior they were anonymous. If a man named Luke wrote Acts and "Luke" he wrote more on the NT than Saul.

Pepper if you spent half your time defending Christ rather than ripping on Paul what things you could accomplish.

 

[Verily]

You presume much.

The Epistles of Saul are credited to him because he allegedly signed his name to those letters.

Peter did not speak about the espistles of Paul?

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;

2 Peter 3:16 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.

The other Gospel books are ascribed to the Apostles of Christ.

Which ones?

In reality Luke was anonymous in the beginning. As was Acts.

Theophilus name not Lukes is mentioned in Acts which speaks to the one who wrote the former treatise

Acts 1:1 The former treatise have I made, O Theophilus, of all that Jesus began both to do and teach,

Which lands back here where Theophilus is mentioned again in Luke

Luke 1:3 It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus,

Why not just call the author of Luke Peter or Nathanual or any other apostle? How on earth would that change anything in either of them?

Then, 100 years later Irenaeus in the book, "Against Heresies" ,names the four Gospels as Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.
Prior they were anonymous. If a man named Luke wrote Acts and "Luke" he wrote more on the NT than Saul.

Where is Lukes name as author now?

 

[Rockerduck]

There is not a single Christian I've met in 40 yrs of my preaching and teaching that rejected Paul as an Apostle. That's like saying don't reject red bibles. Smokescreen and whistles.

 

[Verily]

There is not a single Christian I've met in 40 yrs of my preaching and teaching that rejected Paul as an Apostle. That's like saying don't reject red bibles. Smokescreen and whistles.

Well, you meet all sorts on the internet who gainsay

 

[Soyeong]

If you are rejecting Paul as being sent by Christ to be apostle to the Gentiles, was given revelations by Christ, was given our dispensation of the gospel and deliver doctrine for the church today, the body of Christ, then you are rejecting what Peter had to say about Paul as well.

[2Pe 3:16 KJV] 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.

If you are rejecting Paul you are also rejecting Peter who said what Paul wrote is scripture.
You are therefore rejecting scripture.
You are therefore rejecting Christ.

[1Th 2:13 KJV] 13 For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received [it] not [as] the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe.

The Thessalonians received the word of God which they heard from Paul.

[Gal 1:12 KJV] 12 For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught [it], but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.

Paul said that what he received was from the risen Christ.

[Jhn 13:20 KJV] 20 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that receiveth whomsoever I send receiveth me; and he that receiveth me receiveth him that sent me.

[Mat 10:40 KJV] 40 He that receiveth you receiveth me, and he that receiveth me receiveth him that sent me.

Jesus sent Paul and commanded that he be received. If Paul is not received, then neither is Christ.

[1Co 1:17 KJV] 17 For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.

Paul was sent by Christ.

What you should be against is not so much rejecting Paul as being against interpreting Paul in a way that means that we should reject him. In Deuteronomy 13, the way that God instructed His children to determine that someone is a false prophet who is not speaking for Him is if they taught against obeying His law, so if someone considers Paul to be a servant of God and they interpret him in a way that turns him against obeying God’s law, then their only option is to conclude as I do that their interpretation must be false, but if they insist that their interpretation is correct, then their only option is to conclude that Paul was a false prophet. Either way we should still obey God’s law. The bottom line is that we must obey God rather than man, so we should be quicker to disregard everything that Paul said than to disregard anything that God has commanded, though the reality is that Paul was a servant of God who therefore never spoke against anyone obeying God’s law. Everyone listed in Hebrews 11 had saving faith even though they hadn’t read the NT, so if comes down to a choice between obeying God and disregarding the NT, then the NT is ultimately unnecessary for salvation. So the fact that you are opposed to rejecting Paul means that you should be equally opposed to interpreting him in a way that turns him against obeying God’s law.