Paul - An Apostle?

[metis]

Did Paul, or did he not write the Book of Hebrews?

The reality is that no one knows for sure, including those in the Church when trying to decide on which books should be in the canon. Of the books that were eventually accepted in the NT, Hebrews and Revelation were the most hotly debated.

 

[YoursTrue]

Speaking of having trouble reading English...

Presumably...

Here's the definition to help you out....

Definition of PRESUMABLY

@nPeace See?? Understand now that maybe ? or definitely Paul was NOT an apostle?? even though he says he was, letters as said (not presumably as some would argue) to be written by him says he was and after all who was Paul? Well, time will settle these things. I believe so.

 

[Colt]

Paul was definitely an apostle, but he had personal opinions that aren't the Word of God. After he died his followers made his writings the Word of God. Paul became de facto = to Jesus. Paul tends to get quoted more often than Jesus because Paul's followers see him as a Jesus mouthpiece.

A great man for sure, teaching his opinions but just one of many born again followers.

 

[YoursTrue]

The reality is that no one knows for sure, including those in the Church when trying to decide on which books should be in the canon. Of the books that were eventually accepted in the NT, Hebrews and Revelation were the most hotly debated.

At another post here, did Jesus say he was going to himself or the Father.
But then as a Catholic, would you say the Roman Catholic Church has doubts as to whether Paul wrote what is ascribed to him?

 

[YoursTrue]

Paul was definitely an apostle, but he had personal opinions that aren't the Word of God. After he died his followers made his writing the Word of God.

Christians included his writings in the Bible. Would you then say the Roman Catholic Church are Paul's followers or maybe figured who knows, we'll just include them in the Bible anyway. Wondering... it's into to see what people say and believe and/or promote.

 

[YoursTrue]

The reality is that no one knows for sure, including those in the Church when trying to decide on which books should be in the canon. Of the books that were eventually accepted in the NT, Hebrews and Revelation were the most hotly debated.

Oh ok you are saying if I understand you correctly that the Roman Catholic church may not believe what it promotes?

 

[Colt]

Christians included his writings in the Bible. Would you then say the Roman Catholic Church are Paul's followers or maybe figured who knows, we'll just include them in the Bible anyway. Wondering... it's into to see what people say and believe and/or promote.

We have to consider that many heard of Jesus for the first time through Paul. Paul was very charismatic and developed a following of his own. He did have wonderful spiritual insights and compelling philosophical and theological views. After his death then he was revered as a legend. But Paul would be horrified to learn that his letters of correspondence became canonized as "the Word of God".

There was a religion of Jesus that he lived, taught and preached for 3+ years. Christianity became a religion about Jesus. The original Gospel of the Kingdom was largely forgotten and replaced with "Christ and him crucified" presumably for the sins of the world. Atonement was already a belief in the Pagan world and among the Mystery religions.

 

[YoursTrue]

We have to consider that many heard of Jesus for the first time through Paul. Paul was very charismatic and developed a following of his own. He did have wonderful spiritual insights and compelling philosophical and theological views. After his death then he was revered as a legend. But Paul would be horrified to learn that his letters of correspondence became canonized as "the Word of God".

There was a religion of Jesus that he lived, taught and preached for 3+ years. Christianity became a religion about Jesus. The original Gospel of the Kingdom was largely forgotten and replaced with "Christ and him crucified" presumably for the sins of the world. Atonement was already a belief in the Pagan world and among the Mystery religions.

It is clear (to me, I can't speak for everybody, obviously) that the Bible have been preserved BY God's HOLY SPIRIT and this compilation of scriptures is called "The Word of God." Therefore -- the letters and testimony of Paul is not only important, but obviously considered by God's holy spirit to be included and considered as that which is beneficial for mankind to read, learn and understand.

 

[YoursTrue]

We have to consider that many heard of Jesus for the first time through Paul. Paul was very charismatic and developed a following of his own. He did have wonderful spiritual insights and compelling philosophical and theological views. After his death then he was revered as a legend. But Paul would be horrified to learn that his letters of correspondence became canonized as "the Word of God".

There was a religion of Jesus that he lived, taught and preached for 3+ years. Christianity became a religion about Jesus. The original Gospel of the Kingdom was largely forgotten and replaced with "Christ and him crucified" presumably for the sins of the world. Atonement was already a belief in the Pagan world and among the Mystery religions.

Not sure if you feel or believe if the Roman Catholic Church puts forth the concept that Paul was a real person and the testimony attributed to him in the letters included in the canon are true.

 

[Colt]

It is clear (to me, I can't speak for everybody, obviously) that the Bible have been preserved BY God's HOLY SPIRIT and this compilation of scriptures is called "The Word of God." Therefore -- the letters and testimony of Paul is not only important, but obviously considered by God's holy spirit to be included and considered as that which is beneficial for mankind to read, learn and understand.

I think that church leaders are human and capable of bias and error. The Bible is a library of books written and compiled by holy men over the ages. There are imperfections and contradictions. The “theory” that Holy Spirit wrote the Bible is a claim made by religious authorities because they derive their authority from scripture.

Those who put Jesus to death used the scripture to reject Jesus. I take some of the Bible with a grain of salt. I see the Old Testament as wildly exaggerated and self important towards those who wrote it.

 

[Colt]

Not sure if you feel or believe if the Roman Catholic Church puts forth the concept that Paul was a real person and the testimony attributed to him in the letters included in the canon are true.

Yes, Paul was real and some of the letters credited to him appear to be authentic.

 

[nPeace]

Which part are you having trouble with?

Absolutely not an apostle.

Simple.

A true 'Xian'? Yes, but that does NOT necessarily mean a true disciple of Yeshua.

Let me re-phrase:

Yes, an Xian
NO, not an apostle
NO, not a disciple of Yeshua. Never even heard Yeshua.

'Agree with the scriptures'? What scriptures? I simply don't think anything authored
or even inspired by Paul IS 'scriptures'. I'm strictly Mathew-Only with Others per review,

Pretty simple. I don't accept Paul in any way, shape, or form. Period.

I'm having trouble with the fact that you haven't provided one scripture, nor source for these sayings of yours, and I am not sure where they originate, or how seriously they should be taken. Or if you want them to be taken seriously.

 

[nPeace]

Now now ─ you're falling straight back into evasion mode.

You've been shown quotes that demonstrate the cosmology of the authors of the bible.

In that cosmology the earth is flat and immovably fixed at the center of creation; the sun moon and stars go round it. The sky is a hard dome you can walk on. The stars are affixed to it such that if they come loose they'll fall to earth.

Invited to demonstrate that the bible says something different, you've never done so, merely asserted.

So the question that follows directly in this situation is the one you're trying to duck here.

Which is: why would you expect the cosmology of the bible to be anything other than the cosmology of the times and places it was written?

As I pointed out, it's basically the cosmology of ancient Babylon, the understanding of the world in that time and place.

Enough evasion. Just state the reason for your assertion to the contrary.

Don't make me laugh blu.
You know well enough that nPeace does not evade anything, nor anyone.
You know very well how lying Atheists are, and how they would say anything to appear honest.
So feel free to do what comes natural to you.

I am not in your courtroom. If you feel like judge blu, then it's okay to imagine. No problem.
I told you, you asked a loaded question... and you know it.
Or... in case you don't know...
Loaded question - A loaded question is a form of complex question that contains a controversial assumption (e.g., a presumption of guilt ). Such questions may be used as a rhetorical tool: the question attempts to limit direct replies to be those that serve the questioner's agenda.

The ball is in your court.
It's up to you. Keep serving fouls, or play fair. Your choice.

While you are having trouble with that one though, let me give you one to return. If you hit it, I will accept it as two, because this one serves as two.
Over 3 centuries ago, the Bible pointedly said the universe began to exist.
19th century scientists say the universe began some 13 billion years ago.

Go figure. Looks to me like the Bible was ahead of modern science. Not just once, but several times.

 

[nPeace]

I'll take Paul's word over yours.

Good. Then you would be taking my words, because I agree with Paul... in everything he said.

 

[YoursTrue]

We have to consider that many heard of Jesus for the first time through Paul. Paul was very charismatic and developed a following of his own. He did have wonderful spiritual insights and compelling philosophical and theological views. After his death then he was revered as a legend. But Paul would be horrified to learn that his letters of correspondence became canonized as "the Word of God".

There was a religion of Jesus that he lived, taught and preached for 3+ years. Christianity became a religion about Jesus. The original Gospel of the Kingdom was largely forgotten and replaced with "Christ and him crucified" presumably for the sins of the world. Atonement was already a belief in the Pagan world and among the Mystery religions.

Paul wrote letters of encouragement.

 

[YoursTrue]

I think that church leaders are human and capable of bias and error. The Bible is a library of books written and compiled by holy men over the ages. There are imperfections and contradictions. The “theory” that Holy Spirit wrote the Bible is a claim made by religious authorities because they derive their authority from scripture.

Those who put Jesus to death used the scripture to reject Jesus. I take some of the Bible with a grain of salt. I see the Old Testament as wildly exaggerated and self important towards those who wrote it.

The record about Jesus followed the writings by those before his appearance on earth, he came from heaven and went back to heaven after his resurrection. That is why he said he was alive before Abraham. Some of his listeners didn't like that. Remember that account? Sorry you don't believe it.

 

[nPeace]

“Again, the kingdom of heaven is like a merchant seeking beautiful pearls, who, when he had found one pearl of great price, went and sold all that he had and bought it” (Matthew 13:45-46).


The message of the kingdom of heaven is a genuine offer from God to rule in the hearts of those who believe in His name.

John began preaching the coming of the kingdom as eminent, as a present tense reality. Jesus inaugurated the spiritual Kingdom which will finally come to full fruition over a long period of time. (The Jews speculated that the deliverer would do everything instantly). But even John was confused by the erroneous Messiah teachings. "But when John saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees coming to his place of baptism, he said to them, “You brood of vipers, who warned you to flee from the coming wrath?

Matthew 3:2

John the Baptist “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.”

Had the Jews interpreted the kingdom as spiritual, and the King as God seated in the heart of the believer, then they would have understood Jesus in an entirely different way.


Matthew 4:17
17 From that time Jesus began to preach and say, “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.”

Matthew 4:23 (NASB95)

Jesus was going throughout all Galilee, teaching in their synagogues and proclaiming the gospel of the kingdom, and healing every kind of disease and every kind of sickness among the people.

There are a number of examples of Jesus preaching the Kingdom as present tense and spiritual. The parables of Jesus were to be understood spiritually.

But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you shut the kingdom of heaven in people’s faces. For you neither enter yourselves nor allow those who would enter to go in. Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you travel across sea and land to make a single proselyte, and when he becomes a proselyte, you make him twice as much a child of hell as yourselves (Matt. 23:13–15).

Matthew 5:3

“Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.


Matthew 18:3–4 (NASB95)

3 and said, “Truly I say to you, unless you are converted and become like children, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven.

4 “Whoever then humbles himself as this child, he is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven.

I would recommend a review of all that Jesus taught about the kingdom using the ear of the spirit.

All you did here was quote scriptures... none of which agree with you.
The kingdom is a rulership.
It is not in your heart. Neither was it in those wicked Pharisees heart, whom Jesus was speaking to.
(Luke 17:20, 21) 20 On being asked by the Pharisees when the Kingdom of God was coming, he answered them: “The Kingdom of God is not coming with striking observableness; 21 nor will people say, ‘See here!’ or, ‘There!’ For look! the Kingdom of God is in your midst.”

Do you really believe Jesus said the kingdom of God is in the Pharisees' heart? He did not even say that, did he.

He went on to explain...
(Luke 17:24) . . .For just as lightning flashes from one part of heaven to another part of heaven, so the Son of man will be in his day. . .
His presence as ruler is God's kingdom will be known only by signs - which he gave in Matthew 24... just as lighting is seen flashing across the sky.

These things can be learnt, from Jesus followers on earth.

 

[YoursTrue]

Yes, Paul was real and some of the letters credited to him appear to be authentic.

Glad you think that so far. Upon consideration I have come to believe that everything Paul said is a truthful account. He was religious before he 'met' Jesus and knew then after he would die for Jesus. A man to love and respect.

 

[blü 2]

Don't make me laugh blu.
You know well enough that nPeace does not evade anything, nor anyone.

Of course you do. Evasion, ducking, avoiding clear responses, are your constant tactic.

Asked to guess, I'd say it's because you have a deep fear of having to defend clear statements, so you don't make clear statements ─ instead you give generic dismissals, never with relevant particulars (eg never with bible quotes contradicting the bible quotes on that link, and so on).

And here you are, apparently too frightened to state why you think the bible should reflect modern cosmology and not the cosmology of the time and place it was written.

That's a simple question from me, and the entirety of your reply is evasion.

Goodness, you're not saying you don't know you're doing that, are you? The sleepwalker's defense?

 

[nPeace]

I think that church leaders are human and capable of bias and error. The Bible is a library of books written and compiled by holy men over the ages. There are imperfections and contradictions. The “theory” that Holy Spirit wrote the Bible is a claim made by religious authorities because they derive their authority from scripture.

Those who put Jesus to death used the scripture to reject Jesus. I take some of the Bible with a grain of salt. I see the Old Testament as wildly exaggerated and self important towards those who wrote it.

Do you believe the Dead Sea Scrolls are before the church leaders?
The Septuagint (Greek Old Testament) was completed by the 2nd century BCE, and are in acccofd with the Dead Sea Scrolls.

How the Bible Came to Us
Through the centuries, scribes meticulously copied these books. During the Middle Ages, a group of Jewish scribes known as the Masoretes carried on that tradition. The oldest complete Masoretic manuscript is the Leningrad Codex, which dates from 1008/1009 C.E. However, in the middle of the 20th century, some 220 Biblical manuscripts or fragments were discovered among the Dead Sea Scrolls. Those Biblical manuscripts were more than a thousand years older than the Leningrad Codex. A comparison of the Dead Sea Scrolls with the Leningrad Codex confirms a vital point: While the Dead Sea Scrolls contain some variations in wording, none of those variations affect the message itself.

The Dead Sea Scrolls (DSS) are not significantly different from the Bible, and the books selected to be part of the canon, are significantly harmonious.
So if the Bible has ungodly origins, what about the DSS. What are their origins?