Ebionite
Well-Known Member
You're avoiding the point that Revelation conflicts with Pauline doctrine. You can't combine two conflicting ideas and expect your argument to make sense.I just gave you the verses. It speaks of Israel.
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
You're avoiding the point that Revelation conflicts with Pauline doctrine. You can't combine two conflicting ideas and expect your argument to make sense.I just gave you the verses. It speaks of Israel.
You're avoiding the point that Revelation conflicts with Pauline doctrine. You can't combine two conflicting ideas and expect your argument to make sense.
Don't be ridiculous. Paul admitted the rejection by Asia, and there's circumstantial evidence relating to the false apostles and the Ephesians that implicates him. Revelation refers to 12 apostles of the lamb, and Matthias replaced Judas, not Paul.No, I explained the verses you gave in (Revelation) by Paul's writings.
Paul's letters are an important part of the puzzle, I'm not saying that they should by ignored just because his doctrine doesn't add up or because he had a problem with the Jews from Asia which eventually led to his demise in Rome.If you negate Paul's letters, you must negate the book of (Acts). Correct?
Don't be ridiculous. Paul admitted the rejection by Asia, and there's circumstantial evidence relating to the false apostles and the Ephesians that implicates him. Revelation refers to 12 apostles of the lamb, and Matthias replaced Judas, not Paul.
Paul's letters are an important part of the puzzle, I'm not saying that they should by ignored just because his doctrine doesn't add up or because he had a problem with the Jews from Asia which eventually led to his demise in Rome.
The people of the covenant of circumcision are the descendants of Jacob. Presuming that Ashkenazi Jews are so named because they're descendants , of Ashkenaz, then they're not part of the covenant.
No, I explained the verses you gave in (Revelation) by Paul's writings. You don't like it. That doesn't make Paul in conflict with (Revelation). That makes you in conflict with Paul.
So, again, what does your Bible look like. Apparently it doesn't have Paul's letters in it. What else have you taken out.
If you negate Paul's letters, you must negate the book of (Acts). Correct? Your bible is getting smaller and smaller in both size and authority.
Good-Ole-Rebel
To the congregation of Ephesus in Asia:There is nothing to indicate Paul was a false apostle. If so, present it.
To the congregation of Ephesus in Asia:
I know thy works, and thy labour, and thy patience, and how thou canst not bear them which are evil: and thou hast tried them which say they are apostles, and are not, and hast found them liars:
Rev 2:2
And it came to pass, that, while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul having passed through the upper coasts came to Ephesus: and finding certain disciples,
Acts 19:1
And he went into the synagogue, and spake boldly for the space of three months, disputing and persuading the things concerning the kingdom of God.
But when divers were hardened, and believed not, but spake evil of that way before the multitude, he departed from them, and separated the disciples, disputing daily in the school of one Tyrannus.
Acts 19:8-9
This thou knowest, that all they which are in Asia be turned away from me; of whom are Phygellus and Hermogenes.
2 Timothy 1:15
To the congregation of Ephesus in Asia:
I know thy works, and thy labour, and thy patience, and how thou canst not bear them which are evil: and thou hast tried them which say they are apostles, and are not, and hast found them liars:
Rev 2:2
And it came to pass, that, while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul having passed through the upper coasts came to Ephesus: and finding certain disciples,
Acts 19:1
And he went into the synagogue, and spake boldly for the space of three months, disputing and persuading the things concerning the kingdom of God.
But when divers were hardened, and believed not, but spake evil of that way before the multitude, he departed from them, and separated the disciples, disputing daily in the school of one Tyrannus.
Acts 19:8-9
This thou knowest, that all they which are in Asia be turned away from me; of whom are Phygellus and Hermogenes.
2 Timothy 1:15
The people of the covenant of circumcision are the descendants of Jacob. Presuming that Ashkenazi Jews are so named because they're descendants of Ashkenaz, then they're not part of the covenant.
I'm not sure which covenant you are talking about that has not been revoked. The Mosaic or Abrahamic?
Jews are saved today, just as Gentiles are saved today. Faith in Christ. The New Covenant is new in comparison to the old which was the Mosaic Covenant. Not in comparison to the Abrahamic.
Like I said, the evidence is circumstantial. Your refusal to address the facts shows your prejudice.(Rev. 2:2) does not indicate Paul is not an apostle.
Summoning those who did not reject him isn't the same as going there are being received well by the people in general.Paul was received well by the Ephisians. See (Acts 20:17-38)
From the evidence that you have refused to address and much more.So, where do you get the idea Paul was a false apostle?
Except that it matches the event described in Revelation 2:2 which speaks of false apostles.(Acts 19:1-9) adds nothing to your accusation.
So what?As to Phygellus and Hemogenes, they are not Paul.
There's also the issue of Paul's deception. Rev 2:2 says that the false apostles were liars.Again, where do you get the idea that Paul is a false apostle?
What I believe isn't relevant.You are afraid to show the Scripture you believe to be authoritative?
What are you fishing for?What does your bible consist of?
The Quran has nothing about Paul and his doctrine.Is it the koran? It may as well be.
I was talking about the covenant of circumcision. The covenant of Genesis 15 is different, there are different beneficiaries and a larger area of land which includes the land of Canaan (Palestine).You may read anything into it, but Scripture clearly states the covenant was with Abraham and his descendants.
I was talking about the covenant of circumcision. The covenant of Genesis 15 is different, there are different beneficiaries and a larger area of land which includes the land of Canaan (Palestine).
What's your source for that?There was NO Ur of the Chaldeans in the time of Abraham.
What's your source for that?
Abraham was from the city of Ur according to Genesis 11:31 above. The problem is that there are several places called Ur. It is mostly translated as "Ur of the Chaldeans."
The problem with "Chaldeans" is that it is a late word used in the Neo-Babylonian times. It is either anachronistic, or a poor translation.
Maybe Ur of the Chaldeans is a codename like Nimrod?
אור כשדים = awr kashediym "Ur of the Chaldeans"
שדים = shediym "devils"
They sacrificed unto devils [שדים] ...
Deuteronomy 32:17
נמרד = Nimrod
מרדכ = Marduk
Marduk | Babylonian god
Like I said, the evidence is circumstantial. Your refusal to address the facts shows your prejudice.
Summoning those who did not reject him isn't the same as going there are being received well by the people in general.
From the evidence that you have refused to address and much more.
Except that it matches the event described in Revelation 2:2 which speaks of false apostles.
So what?
There's also the issue of Paul's deception. Rev 2:2 says that the false apostles were liars.
For if the truth of God hath more abounded through my lie unto his glory; why yet am I also judged as a sinner?
Romans 3:7
But be it so, I did not burden you: nevertheless, being crafty, I caught you with guile.
2 Corinthians 12:16
What I believe isn't relevant.
What are you fishing for?
The Quran has nothing about Paul and his doctrine.
O you who have believed, fear Allah and be with those who are true.
Surah 9:119
Much too early for Abraham.