Dear fb,
I must ask you if you are a Catholic, because you certainly think their canon is holy. If the founders of the Protestant church felt that the Catholic church was the whore of Babylon, where do you get your confidence in their rulings, and why don't you bow down to and kiss the Pope's ring?
Now you're just being insulting. I asked my question because I wanted to see how to respond. If you take the Bible literally, then I could just quote verses and their context, for an argument. If you dismissed the entire Bible, we probably wouldn't have a discussion. And if you took the Bible somewhere in the middle, I would respond with a more nuanced argument that looked partially at what the Bible said, but also other sources. My question was an honest one, and wasn't insulting.
And for the record, I'm not Catholic, nor did I imply that I think their canon is holy.
As for the disciples giving Paul any leeway, I think Acts portrays that they told him to take a message to avoid fornication, things strangled, blood, etc. Apparently, Paul lost that letter. As for the apostles not pulling Paul out by the roots, that would be due to the commandment of Yeshua, whereas they were leave the tares among the wheat, in order not to disturb the roots of the wheat. (Matthew 13:29-30)
First, Acts isn't historically accurate. It disagrees with what Paul says, and thus with such contradictions, scholars have generally argued that we can't trust Acts unless Paul also states something similar. What Paul and Acts agree with is that the Jerusalem sect, that made up of Peter, James the brother of Jesus, and other disciples, is that they were in control. Paul had to submit to them. To allow him to continue to preach, even though his message was completely different, would have been to allow a false prophet to deceive their followers, something Jesus most definitely didn't command.
As for the meeting of Paul with John, James, and Peter, Paul quickly jumped while they were in his presence, and circumcised Titus, but as soon as they left, he started bad mouthing them and said they had nothing to "contribute to me", and then went on a rant against Peter.
Nope. You're reading from Acts, which doesn't coincide with Galatians 1. Paul met with Peter, and the Greek makes it clear that the meeting was for teaching. As in, Peter taught Paul the message over a time. Paul then met with James, and was then gone. It was only 14 years alter that Paul went back to Jerusalem, with Titus. In chapter 2, we see Paul again submitting to the Jerusalem sect as he met with them in private, and made sure that the gospel he was preaching was correct. He asked them to confirm it, to make sure he wasn't misguided. It also then states that it is with the blessing of James, Peter, and John that Paul goes out to preach to Gentiles. But even then, there was a condition, that Paul had to make a collection to the poor. He once again submitted to that idea.
Sure, there may be some disagreements from time to time, but Paul is clear that he had found the blessing of the Jerusalem sect, and it was by their permission that he went to the Gentiles.
As for Acts, written by some unknown writer, probably Luke, who witnessed nothing according to Luke 1:1-3, his testimony can not be used to confirm any matter, Matthew 18:16 (Dt 19:15).
I don't use Acts. I use the letters of Paul. The only time I cite Acts is when it agrees with Paul.
As for Paul's testimony falling in line with that of Yeshua, I beg to differ. Yeshua taught the "word of the kingdom" (Matthew 13:19). Paul taught the false gospel of grace/cross, which would be the seed of the tare Matthew 13:24-25, which was sown right along side the wheat seed.
Jesus was an apocalyptic preacher who taught about how the Kingdom of G-d would soon be here. That meant that it would replace the Kingdom of Earth, which was Rome. Paul taught the same thing. That the end was near. That a new Kingdom would replace the present one.
Yes, Paul included a message about Jesus dying, but that was because Jesus died. Of course he was going to say something about it, but the vast majority of his preaching had nothing to do with that. The death of Jesus really meant nothing for Paul. It was the resurrection that meant something. For Paul, the resurrection was a symbol of the end, as it meant the general resurrection was beginning. Which meant that soon, the Kingdom of G-d would wipe out the current Kingdom, and the end of our current time had occurred.
Paul and Jesus were largely in line. The difference was the audience.
