Paul - False Apostle & First 'christian' (Jesus, mission, experience)

[Mestemia]

Originally Posted by BUDDY

Rubbish. If Paul was a false teacher, then why did the other apostles and disciples not call him such publicly? In fact, from what we know about the early church, Paul had to correct James and Peter about there attitude concerning Gentiles in the church as for a time, they would not fellowship with those Gentile converts to christianity and even told them that they must be circumcised in order to receive salvation.

Also, the Apostle Luke wrote the book of Acts which tells the story of Pauls conversion. Also, Peter was the one who first converted Gentiles, not Paul. Paul corrected him later, but Peter was the first one to preach Jesus to Gentiles and baptise them.

And how do you know that they didn't?
Because it isn't in the Bible?
Interestingly enough, 95% of Jesus's life is not in the Bible either.

[BUDDY]

Originally Posted by Mestemia

And how do you know that they didn't?
Because it isn't in the Bible?
Interestingly enough, 95% of Jesus's life is not in the Bible either.

Common sense. Peter was the first to preach to the gentiles, not Paul. Paul became the number one missionary to the Gentile world, but he did not start the idea of preaching to the Jews first and then to the Gentiles.

Also, an idea as monumental as the idea that "teaching Christ to gentiles is wrong" would be somewhere, whether it be Biblical writings or otherwise. Also, it would have driven the early church in its fragility into chaos, and that did not happen. All signs point to this story being B.S., but if you want to believe it based on zero evidence, be my guest. Put it this way, there is far more evidence to suggest the traditional view is correct, than to support an alternate view such as this.

[Mestemia]

Originally Posted by BUDDY

Common sense. Peter was the first to preach to the gentiles, not Paul. Paul became the number one missionary to the Gentile world, but he did not start the idea of preaching to the Jews first and then to the Gentiles.

Also, an idea as monumental as the idea that "teaching christ to gentiles is wrong" would be somewhere, whether it be Biblical writings or otherwise. Also, it would driven the early church in it frgility into chaos, and that did not happen. All signs point to this story being B.S., but if you want to believe it based on zero evidence, be my guest. Put it this way, there far more evidence to suggest the traditional view is correct, than to support and alternate view such as this.

Common sense?
Whatever floats your boat.

It is rather interesting how more of Paul's opinions are in the Bible than what God told Paul, is it not?

But, this seems to take the thread off course.

[rocketman]

I've read the piece listed in the OP and I am dissapointed. Assigning emotions such as envy and rage and superiority complexes and so on are mere speculation. The attempt to subtly link some kind of mental difficulty with his teachings is absurd. For if it were true then Peter would also have been mentally challenged. There are two verses in the NT that pretty much sum up all of the books attributed to Paul, and they are Acts 15:10 and 11. And guess who said them? Peter, not Paul. Everything else is side dressing.

They knew the fundamental theology of Jesus was that he came to give his life as a ransom in order to save people. He said himself that he was ushering in the New Covenant. The implications were realised by Peter early on, and expounded by he and Paul and others. They believed that finally the messiah had come and a technical hurdle had been smashed, allowing them to move up to the law of love as Scuba Pete points out, and to know God spirit to spirit, and to be destined for eternal life.

Seasons Greetings.

[BUDDY]

Originally Posted by Mestemia

Common sense?
Whatever floats your boat.

It is rather interesting how more of Paul's opinions are in the Bible than what God told Paul, is it not?

But, this seems to take the thread off course.

It would be wise to studt the text to which you refer prior to making claims regarding them. Not doing so just perpetuates your own ignorance.

Paul's revelation came from God via the Holy Ghost according to the story of Paul's conversion in the book of Acts. Therefore it is reasonable for the Christian to believe that the knowledge imparted to Paul regarding who was eligible for salvation came from God.

[lew0049]

Originally Posted by Mestemia

And how do you know that they didn't?
Because it isn't in the Bible?
Interestingly enough, 95% of Jesus's life is not in the Bible either.

There are many possible reasons for this - first being that the authors believed 5% was significant enough to write. If you study ancient documents similiar to the style of the gospels, you will see that only things that were significant and that could be learned from were written - why else write? Also, the authors might not have possesed the detailed knowledge of Jesus life in the other 95%, if so would you rather they write things just that are inaccurate? Of course not. The list goes on..

[A. Ben-Shema]

Originally Posted by BUDDY

Rubbish. If Paul was a false teacher, then why did the other apostles and disciples not call him such publicly? In fact, from what we know about the early church, Paul had to correct James and Peter about there attitude concerning Gentiles in the church as for a time, they would not fellowship with those Gentile converts to christianity and even told them that they must be circumcised in order to receive salvation.

You obviously have not read the article referred to in the OP (or read it in full)! Before you make your comments it would be advisable to read what I am talking about!

Also, the Apostle Luke wrote the book of Acts which tells the story of Pauls conversion.

WHAT? There was no Apostle named Luke! Luke was a Gentile doctor whom Paul converted to 'his' form of Christianity! As I say, you should read the article, you might learn something.

PLU

[Mestemia]

Originally Posted by BUDDY

It would be wise to studt the text to which you refer prior to making claims regarding them. Not doing so just perpetuates your own ignorance.

There are none so blind as those who refuse to see.

Originally Posted by BUDDY

Paul's revelation came from God via the Holy Ghost according to the story of Paul's conversion in the book of Acts. Therefore it is reasonable for the Christian to believe that the knowledge imparted to Paul regarding who was eligible for salvation came from God.

Expect the parts which Paul flat out states is his own opinion and NOT from God.

Who needs to study?