Paul - An Apostle?

[101G]

Acts is 2nd century church propaganda, don't believe a word of it.

why, just because you said so?

101G.

 

[lukethethird]

why, just because you said so?

101G.

No writings in the Bible are considered by even one atheistic minded Biblical scholar to be later that the first century. Do you know why?
Why then should anyone believe a word you said?

Of course some writings are considered to be second century. The fact is no one knows for certain when, where, or by whom these texts were written. There are no known attestations to Acts before 170CE. Acts is pure fantasy where even angels of the Lord play roles. It's an obvious fiction written to gloss over the differences in the early church.

 

[101G]

attestation

Of course some writings are considered to be second century. The fact is no one knows for certain when, where, or by whom these texts were written. There is no known attestation to Acts before 170CE. Acts is pure fantasy where even angels of the Lord play roles. It's an obvious fiction written to gloss over the differences in the early church.

everyone wants proof, well the proof is in the pudding, (is in the eating). many say the bible contradict itself. if so, 101G asking all to put their contradictions on the table and let's see if it is so. as said the proof is in the pudding, and here is the pudding,,,,, God's Holy Word. so, let's EAT

101G

 

[adambradley]

So Peter was not an apostle, because he said he was.
Jesus was not the Messiah because he said he was.
Sennacherib was not king of Babylon Assyria because he said he was.
Isaac Newton was not a scientist, because he said he was.
I'm not a carpenter, because I say I am.

I marvel at the magnificent wisdom with which the unbelievers on RF reason.
I know a man who said he was an artist.
Turns out he was. I never saw him paint though, but all the work he presented, had his name on them, and people actually reccomended him... by name.

You were joking, right?

An apostle is one who is sent!

 

[lukethethird]

Two questions.

Which scripture specifically says that Paul was an apostle? And who wrote that scripture?

Paul is the only apostle that wrote anything down, Paul's are the only apostle writings that we have to this day. Some theories have it that the writings attributed to Paul were not written by an apostle, but that's another story.

 

[Muffled]

Of course some writings are considered to be second century. The fact is no one knows for certain when, where, or by whom these texts were written. There are no known attestations to Acts before 170CE. Acts is pure fantasy where even angels of the Lord play roles. It's an obvious fiction written to gloss over the differences in the early church.

I believe people say things are obvious to cover up the fact that the person lacks evidence. I believe God does not give credit to fiction but He is fine with the book of Acts.

 

[Muffled]

An apostle is one who is sent!

However there are those who wish to distinguish the twelve that were called by Jesus while He was on earth from others who were called at different times for different roles.

 

[Muffled]

Paul is the only apostle that wrote anything down, Paul's are the only apostle writings that we have to this day. Some theories have it that the writings attributed to Paul were not written by an apostle, but that's another story.

I believe Matthew wrote his account.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I believe Matthew wrote his account.

Why would you believe that? You should ask yourself, why did Matthew copy from Mark word for word if he was writing his own account , somehow as if he were classically educated in a language that would have been largely foreign to him? There are writings of Matthew writing an account in Aramaic, But none of him writing in Koine Greek. And a linguist could explain how they know that the Gospel of Matthew was written in Koine Greek. I think that I will go with people that understand the languages and the histories that we are talking about over an amateur on a website.

 

[Twilight Hue]

everyone wants proof, well the proof is in the pudding, (is in the eating). many say the bible contradict itself. if so, 101G asking all to put their contradictions on the table and let's see if it is so. as said the proof is in the pudding, and here is the pudding,,,,, God's Holy Word. so, let's EAT

101G

The early Catholic church wrote it.

 

[101G]

The early Catholic church wrote it.

I'm not Catholic ........ and?

101G.

 

[Twilight Hue]

I'm not Catholic ........ and?

101G.

The catholic church wrote the new testament.

 

[101G]

The catholic church wrote the new testament.

well then, if they did? they did a good Job. for it eliminates all false doctrine starting with the trinity and on down. and clearly reveals the Godhead as a Diversity of One Person as God.

101G.

 

[Twilight Hue]

well then, if they did? they did a good Job. for it eliminates all false doctrine starting with the trinity and on down. and clearly reveals the Godhead as a Diversity of One Person as God.

101G.

Only within the scope of said religion.

I'm only pointing out that the Catholic church essentially gave birth to Christianity along with the bits and pieces of archeology to which the gaps had been filled in creating the New Testament with anonymous authors for every single book by the early church and its orginal clergy.

 

[101G]

I'm only pointing out that the Catholic church essentially gave birth to Christianity along with the bits and pieces of archeology to which the gaps had been filled in creating the New Testament with anonymous authors for every single book by the early church and its orginal clergy.

101G disagree. Christianity, as to, or the calling of oneself as Christians started at the church at Antioch. as for bits and pieces added to Christianity, just about all denomination of Christianity is guilty.

101G.

 

[Walter and Debbie]

Was Paul really a true Christian, and apostle, as the scriptures say?
What do you believe, and does your belief agree with the scriptures?

Yes nPeace, In our views in answer to both questions, yes, as Christians ourselves we have learned to continue in the Faith with what our Messiah Jesus has said, away from that old life to the new life.

Love, Walter And Debbie

 

[Muffled]

Why would you believe that? You should ask yourself, why did Matthew copy from Mark word for word if he was writing his own account , somehow as if he were classically educated in a language that would have been largely foreign to him? There are writings of Matthew writing an account in Aramaic, But none of him writing in Koine Greek. And a linguist could explain how they know that the Gospel of Matthew was written in Koine Greek. I think that I will go with people that understand the languages and the histories that we are talking about over an amateur on a website.

So I believe you make all kinds of assumptions and consider them facts. Is it a fact that Matthew didn't know Greek? Isn't it possible that Greek text could be a translation of an original? Granted we don't have much before 300AD but how can one say it didn't exist simply because nothing remains?

 

[Muffled]

The early Catholic church wrote it.

I believe there is no evidence to support that view.

 

[Orbit]

I believe there is no evidence to support that view.

What became the Catholic Church was the only game in town at that point in history. Protestants didn't exist yet.

 

[metis]

well then, if they did? they did a good Job. for it eliminates all false doctrine starting with the trinity and on down. and clearly reveals the Godhead as a Diversity of One Person as God.

101G.

How do you know they're false?