• 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:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

The Apostle Paul - The great apostasy

sincerly

Well-Known Member
Btw, Jesus made a prophecy about Paul in John 5:43. Be sure to also read the preceding verses!!

Hi Jonathan, the verse reads: "I am come in my Father's name, and ye receive me not: if another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive. "
Hmmm! That applies more to you than Paul.
Paul's epistles begin with acknowledging GOD and Jesus and as he stated, 1Cor.2:1, "For I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified."
 

Jonathan Hoffman

Active Member
Hi Jonathan, the verse reads: "I am come in my Father's name, and ye receive me not: if another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive. "
Hmmm! That applies more to you than Paul.
Paul's epistles begin with acknowledging GOD and Jesus and as he stated, 1Cor.2:1, "For I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified."

Sorry, but you ware wrong, for the prophecy is not fulfilled in me, an obscure person, but in Paul, whose "letters" form the greater part of the NT, which in itself, shows the world received Paul.
 

oldbadger

Skanky Old Mongrel!
Sorry, but you ware wrong, for the prophecy is not fulfilled in me, an obscure person, but in Paul.............

Hi........
I think that you have got this wrong. You yourself suggested that the previous verses be read. This is a continuation from the tenet in verse 31/32, simply pointing out that an individual's word about self does not have the credibility of an unbiased witness's. And so, 'I have come in my Father's name , and you do not accept me; but if somebody else comes in his own name, (to testify for me) you will accept him.???

And so, you yourself (might) have as much credibility as Paul?

But, from the historic view, most of the historians I have read dismiss almost all that John wrote in favour of the synoptics, save for his version of Jesus's trial.

Tell me, who do you think John (of the Gospel of John) was? I have heard that he was an Ephesian convert of Paul's.
 

rusra02

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
I have a hypothesis. Jesus said that after him would come the great apostasy.
I believe that Paul may have been it. Paul was a persecutor of Christians who apparently had a miraculous change of heart on the Road to Damascus.

If there was one way to do a lot of damage, this would be it. Pretend to be converted, preach your own message as being from the Lord and see where that goes.

It is Paul's version of Christianity most Christians practice today. He wrote 14 books of the NT and set most of the rules of modern day Christianity and even introduced teachings in direct opposition or without direction from Jesus. 1 Corinthians 7:12

Jesus associated with tax collectors and sinners. It was Paul who said that wrongdoers should be removed from amongst the congregations.
It was Paul who said women should be silent. The list goes on.

So, I believe it was perhaps Paul who did more damage to the teachings of Christ then anyone else.
Once Paul converted to become a Christian, his life was in constant danger from Jewish opposers. (2 Corinthians 11:24-26) As to associating with sinners, Paul taught and acted as Jesus did, preaching and teaching all persons he came into contact with. Paul's counsel to remove wicked individuals from the congregation harmonizes fully with Jesus command at Matthew 18:15-17. Those removed from the congregation are professed Chrstians who unrepentantly practice serious sins, as mentioned at I Corinthians 5:9-13. BTW, I believe this is one identifying mark of true Christians today, who insist on moral cleanness among baptized Christians.
 

sincerly

Well-Known Member
Sorry, but you ware wrong, for the prophecy is not fulfilled in me, an obscure person, but in Paul, whose "letters" form the greater part of the NT, which in itself, shows the world received Paul.

Hi Jonathan, Paul gave the authority in the initial verse of his epistles as to who he is and the message he is giving.

By whose authority are condemning Paul?
 

Jonathan Hoffman

Active Member
Hi........
I think that you have got this wrong. You yourself suggested that the previous verses be read. This is a continuation from the tenet in verse 31/32, simply pointing out that an individual's word about self does not have the credibility of an unbiased witness's. And so, 'I have come in my Father's name , and you do not accept me; but if somebody else comes in his own name, (to testify for me) you will accept him.???

And so, you yourself (might) have as much credibility as Paul?

But, from the historic view, most of the historians I have read dismiss almost all that John wrote in favour of the synoptics, save for his version of Jesus's trial.

Tell me, who do you think John (of the Gospel of John) was? I have heard that he was an Ephesian convert of Paul's.

The obvious difference is that I am not proclaiming to be an apostle whereas Paul was. Additionally, in the previous verses, Jesus said his own testimony about himself was not sufficient to prove his validity, so he also showed that Moses and John the Baptist spoke of Him. In contrast, Paul cannot point to any witness other than himself. The Jerusalem apostles were correct in questioning Paul's credentials. Moreover there are only 12 apostles of the Lamb.
 

sincerly

Well-Known Member
The obvious difference is that I am not proclaiming to be an apostle whereas Paul was. Additionally, in the previous verses, Jesus said his own testimony about himself was not sufficient to prove his validity, so he also showed that Moses and John the Baptist spoke of Him. In contrast, Paul cannot point to any witness other than himself. The Jerusalem apostles were correct in questioning Paul's credentials. Moreover there are only 12 apostles of the Lamb.

Hi Jonathan, While you have no problem with the twelve who followed Jesus for three and a half years being Apostles, You try to discredit Paul who received his calling just as the "chosen", " who were called out of Egypt."----
How many "witnesses" did GOD say established the matter?? Two are more.
Paul was more interested in teaching and preaching the Truth of the Gospel than claiming the Apostleship-----as unworthy of the title because of his early ignorance and persecutions.

It was Paul who went to Jerusalem to meet with the Leaders of the "Church/Believers". He wasn't called to be Questioned by them, but he wanted to know if those persons who dogged him were correct in their accusations---That council determined Paul to be correct in his teachings and preachings and those accusers to be false and NOT SENT BY THE "CHURCH".

Read Gal.2 .
Those who were given the Oracles of GOD had not understood their meanings and developed their own "traditions and erroneous commandments".
 

sincerly

Well-Known Member
So if Paul's companions heard nothing and didn't see the Light, how many witnesses is that?

Hi Shermana, Ananias and Paul both heard the LORD speak and the Condition of Paul's sight was known by both . Ananias did the restoration of the Sight. That is two!
 

Jonathan Hoffman

Active Member
Hi Jonathan, While you have no problem with the twelve who followed Jesus for three and a half years being Apostles, You try to discredit Paul who received his calling just as the "chosen", " who were called out of Egypt."----
How many "witnesses" did GOD say established the matter?? Two are more.
Paul was more interested in teaching and preaching the Truth of the Gospel than claiming the Apostleship-----as unworthy of the title because of his early ignorance and persecutions.

It was Paul who went to Jerusalem to meet with the Leaders of the "Church/Believers". He wasn't called to be Questioned by them, but he wanted to know if those persons who dogged him were correct in their accusations---That council determined Paul to be correct in his teachings and preachings and those accusers to be false and NOT SENT BY THE "CHURCH".

Read Gal.2 .
Those who were given the Oracles of GOD had not understood their meanings and developed their own "traditions and erroneous commandments".

The original apostles were given the Holy Spirit in John 20:22 and were given to understand all of the TRUTH. See John 16:13. Therefore Paul could not accuse Peter of being mistaken. Paul was an antichrist, IMO.
 

sincerly

Well-Known Member
The original apostles were given the Holy Spirit in John 20:22 and were given to understand all of the TRUTH. See John 16:13. Therefore Paul could not accuse Peter of being mistaken. Paul was an antichrist, IMO.

Hi Jonathan, Paul didn't deny Jesus Christ in any of his epistles. Paul clearly acknowledged that which Jesus taught and HIS actions attested to---Jesus came to this world to "seek and save the lost" of mankind.
Peter denied Jesus when alive, but during those "meetings" with the elders and the "professing to believe", he reverted back to that which he clearly had acknowledged----"GOD is not a respecter of persons," and "in Jesus", there had been a fulfilling of some of the sacrificial/ritualistic laws. Peter was to be corrected and Paul rightly did so.
In 2Pet.3:16, Peter attests to the validity of Paul's epistles.

Believe as you choose, but the Scriptures are correct.

The Holy Spirit has been a factor in the lives of human Beings since the "Creation of the world". Yes, Jesus did say that HE would send the HOLY SPIRIT to Comfort and instruct them since HE could NOT be with them in person.----even they would be "scattered". The Holy Spirit is not limited by time, place, or power---no boundaries.
 

Jonathan Hoffman

Active Member
Hi Sincerely,
Peter denied Jesus prior to the resurrected Jesus giving the Holy Spirit to the apostles. After that time the apostles were infallible, having been led into the truth by the Holy Spirit.

The book of "2 Peter" is the most contentious book in the NT, and most Christian scholars agree it was not written by Peter but by a later interpolator. Just Google "2 peter - canonicity".

Moreover, there were ONLY 12 apostles of the Lamb. Paul was not one of them.
 

sincerly

Well-Known Member
Hi Sincerely,
Peter denied Jesus prior to the resurrected Jesus giving the Holy Spirit to the apostles. After that time the apostles were infallible, having been led into the truth by the Holy Spirit.

The book of "2 Peter" is the most contentious book in the NT, and most Christian scholars agree it was not written by Peter but by a later interpolator. Just Google "2 peter - canonicity".

Moreover, there were ONLY 12 apostles of the Lamb. Paul was not one of them.

Hi Jonathan, Jesus led the Apostles and taught them for 3 1/2 years. I see no Scripture that says the Apostles were "infallible" after receiving the HOLY SPIRIT.( Or anyone who had received the HS---all still have the freedom to choose/deny)
I agree that would be highly unlikely, but Heb.6:3-6 does leave that option.

There are "scholars"/critics who say that the whole of the Bible is a fabricated myth. You are free to believe as you have claimed----I prefer to believe the HOLY SPIRIT knows and can protect that which HE inspired to the various writers and prophets.

Apostle= a messenger, one sent forth with orders, a delegate(Apostle). Jesus selected Saul/Paul on the road to Damascus to be just such.(Rom.1:1; 1Cor.1:1)
 

Jonathan Hoffman

Active Member
See John 1613. . . . and remember there are only 12 Apostles of the Lamb, and that leaves no room for Saul/Paul, the self-proclaimed (but false) apostle of Luke.
 

Shermana

Heretic
Hi Jonathan, Jesus led the Apostles and taught them for 3 1/2 years. I see no Scripture that says the Apostles were "infallible" after receiving the HOLY SPIRIT.( Or anyone who had received the HS---all still have the freedom to choose/deny)
I agree that would be highly unlikely, but Heb.6:3-6 does leave that option.

There are "scholars"/critics who say that the whole of the Bible is a fabricated myth. You are free to believe as you have claimed----I prefer to believe the HOLY SPIRIT knows and can protect that which HE inspired to the various writers and prophets.

Apostle= a messenger, one sent forth with orders, a delegate(Apostle). Jesus selected Saul/Paul on the road to Damascus to be just such.(Rom.1:1; 1Cor.1:1)

If the Spirit protects which books he wants in the Canon, why did he choose to give different books to different canons? Why not the Apocrypha? If 2 Peter is supposed to be canonical, why not Enoch which is canonical to the Ethiopian Church? What of all the church leaders who listed it as "Antiligemona"? How do you conclude that just because a book was included in the official Roman Canon that the "Spirit was protecting it"?

Why does Revelation say there are only 12 apostles? Did one of them die and Paul fill their place?
 

sincerly

Well-Known Member
See John 16:13. . . . and remember there are only 12 Apostles of the Lamb, and that leaves no room for Saul/Paul, the self-proclaimed (but false) apostle of Luke.

Hi Jonathan, that verse reads: "Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, [that] shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come."
And 17:12 gives this information,(Jesus's prayer before going into the garden/and arrest) "While I was with them in the world, I kept them in thy name: those that thou gavest me I have kept, and none of them is lost, but the son of perdition; that the scripture might be fulfilled."

You should remember that the Crucifixion and Resurrection was 3 1/2 years BEFORE Paul arrived on the scene at the stoning of Stephen. Jesus saw in Paul a person zealous off GOD and a witness for HIM(before kings and peoples) that wasn't afraid of the persecutions which would be heaped upon him from the Jews and the Gentiles.
 

sincerly

Well-Known Member
If the Spirit protects which books he wants in the Canon, why did he choose to give different books to different canons? Why not the Apocrypha? If 2 Peter is supposed to be canonical, why not Enoch which is canonical to the Ethiopian Church? What of all the church leaders who listed it as "Antiligemona"? How do you conclude that just because a book was included in the official Roman Canon that the "Spirit was protecting it"?

Why does Revelation say there are only 12 apostles? Did one of them die and Paul fill their place?

Hi Shermana, Why didn't GOD just leave Cain to his false ideas of worshiping GOD in his sacrifice? Didn't Adam and Eve by their choices conclude GOD'S messages were wrong in their opinions??
I don't go by what the Roman Church claims to be their official "Canon".

Judas did die, However, he was lost prophetically even before he was chosen to be a Disciple. Jesus choose Paul to go unto the Gentiles.

Rev.21:14 says that the walls of the City had twelve foundations and and they were given the names of the twelve Apostles----but no specific name was given.
 

Dennis Kean

New Member
Jesus appeared to Paul(Saul) and appointed him. Paul taught truth--- after the apostles and christians were all murdered--truth died as well--- catholicism popped up( the great apostasy--teaching a false trinity god.
The ones Jesus associated with, were not considered brothers of the faith yet-- the ones who were to be removed were ones who were allready brothers( baptized). they turned back to sin and were unrepentent.

The reason why there is such a disunified mass of confusion within religions calling themselves christian is because some individual had a hypothesis and twisted truth.


The Savior did not appear to Paul on the road to Damascus. His own story is recounted 3 times and it is different in critical details. The Savior does not teach contradiction.

The confusion which Paul teaches is an abomination. He takes on sensitive points of doctrine and wrecks them without conscience. Here are a few examples:

The Savior said:
Mat_6:24 No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.

Paul said:
Rom_7:25 I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin.

Seriously??? Paul serves two masters. How can you serve the law of sin with the body and imply that it does not stem from the mind/heart.


The Savior said:
Mat_16:27 For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works.

Paul said:
2Ti_1:9 Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began,

The Savior is clearly and decidedly on the side of "Works go into Judgement" theme. Paul asserts that God selected the people whom He chose from the beginning of time to be saved regardless. Romans chapter 9 establishes that theme for Paul with his discussion on Election and Predestination. So, God is clearly prejudiced against some without equity to others.


It is impossible to read 3 verses from Paul without encountering a contradiction to the truth or the plain words of God. It is time for Paul to be understood for who he is.
 

Dennis Kean

New Member
Hi Youtellme! Welcome to the forums. All are entitled to their "Hypothesis"/opinions. Since these debates are concerning what is written in the Biblical Scriptures, What the Bible says is the standard, by which, to judge ones "hypothesis" or opinions.

(1) What is your source for:""Jesus said that after him would come the great apostasy.""

(2) Jesus taught the same principles as were written by Moses and the Prophets.John 5:45-47
Saul(Paul) was zealous for GOD, and studied under Gamaliel. It was the Jewish leaders who were teaching contrary to Moses as seen above and in Mark 7:7,9, "Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching [for] doctrines the commandments of men.....And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition. "
There was no pretense on the Road to Damascus. In Gal.1:11-12, "But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man. For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught [it], but by the revelation of Jesus Christ".
And to show his steadfastness(faith in that zeal for GOD), in Acts24:14, this was his confession(near the end of his life). "But this I confess unto thee, that after the way which they call heresy, so worship I the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the law and in the prophets:"

(3)Paul's version of the teachings of the message presented by Jesus and was first called "The Way" and then "Christian"----was the same as that of Jesus and few find that "straight path". Most who "profess to be Christians" do so with "lip service" rather than that of "the heart".
Yes, there did come a "falling away" as prophesied by Dan.7:25 and Paul in 2Thess.2:3-4. That "power is sitting today" "as God".

The principles seen in 1Cor.7:12+ are seen in writings of the OT.

(4) Yes, Jesus did associate with "Sinners". HE Taught them the truths OF GOD and lead them to repentance.----Therefore, to be welcomed into the congregation which they were "NOW OF THE HOUSEHOLD OF GOD" Eph.2:19

"Women silence" wrong understanding. Acts 18:26, "And he began to speak boldly in the synagogue: whom when Aquila and Priscilla had heard, they took him unto [them], and expounded unto him the way of God more perfectly. "

There were prophetess as well who Spoke to the people(OT and NT)

(5)Paul's teachings were based upon the OT and the "revelation of Jesus Christ."


Let me reply to one of many questionable points you brought up: You said: There was no pretense on the Road to Damascus. In Gal.1:11-12, "But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man. For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught [it], but by the revelation of Jesus Christ".

- Act 9:6 And he trembling and astonished said, Lord, what wilt thou have me to do? And the Lord said unto him, Arise, and go into the city, and it shall be told thee what thou must do.

Clearly, men did teach him what to do. But that man was not in league with the Apostles who taught him things. Ananias, it turns out later is the high priest. Perhaps not the same man, but the treachery of Paul and his teachings certainly makes us pause and question if this Ananias was not the man behind Paul's doings and teachings.

Paul's teachings could not have come from the Savior. Let's take a quick tour of Paul's views and compare them to the Savior.

The Savior said:
Mat_6:24 No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.

Paul said:
Rom_7:25 I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin.

Seriously? So the flesh has a mind of its own, then? Does not the Savior say that sin comes out of the heart?

Mat_15:19 For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies:

Paul's alleged Schism between the mind and the body is specifically cast out by the Savior in His plain comment "...for out of the heart proceed evil thoughts...". The Savior clearly shows that man is responsible for what he does. There are no two entities in the heart of man. Only one heart.


The Savior also said:
Mat_16:27 For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works.

Paul said:
2Ti_1:9 Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began,

The Savior taught that the decision of Salvation will be formed and announced later in His judgment which will be based on the works of each man. Paul asserts that God has picked out those who will be saved preemptively. Seriously?

Rom 9:11 (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth;)

This theory is contrary to what the Savior said. It eliminates the Judgement as well as the righteousness of God. Picking some for salvation and making others do evil is not what the Savior was saying about Himself and His Father. But Paul clearly says that God has the right and power to make a man do evil.

Speaking about Pharaoh, Paul contends in Romans chapter 9 that God hardened Pharaoh's heart and generalizes on that point that God can do this great evil because God is in power.

Rom 9:18 Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.
Rom 9:19 Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will?

Clearly no man can resist the will of God. God can do this, but the God preached by the Savior does not resemble anything so vile and evil as Paul asserts here. And here is how Paul defends God that this is God's right based on His Power and Authority!

Rom 9:20 Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?

Now it is clear that Paul is in fact talking about a god, in the likeness of a Chinese emperor who wills to subvert all to his power and might, be it moral or not.

So, for anyone who has read these passages before, and did not empty his stomach at the horror inscribed in the writing of this man --devoid of moral sense-- this is your moment to shine and recognize who Paul was.

I could write volumes on the insanities written by this man who saw that Christianity was growing in spite of everything he and his buddies tried to disperse this movement. Death, prison, being robbed of possessions could not stand in their way. So, the pharisees decided that they could possibly invade this sect and derails them. Enter Paul and Ananias and all the Pharisees. And to identify himself, when the crowd was ready to kill him, Paul returns to performing sacrificial rituals of purification and jumps out before the angry mob to reveal, like a coward would, "...my father was a pharisee and I am a pharisee!" How in the world does that fit for a man who supposedly embraced the teachings of the Savior? Should not he have been courageous like Stephen and said, "Father forgive them!" and confessed that He is a Christian?

Act_23:6 But when Paul perceived that the one part were Sadducees, and the other Pharisees, he cried out in the council, Men and brethren, I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee: of the hope and resurrection of the dead I am called in question.

So, why are we paying attention to a man who is a Pharisee? The Savior did not teach this man. The Savior had nothing to do with this man.

My apology for the huge post... This topic is much on my mind lately...

DK
 

kjw47

Well-Known Member
The Savior did not appear to Paul on the road to Damascus. His own story is recounted 3 times and it is different in critical details. The Savior does not teach contradiction.

The confusion which Paul teaches is an abomination. He takes on sensitive points of doctrine and wrecks them without conscience. Here are a few examples:

The Savior said:
Mat_6:24 No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.

Paul said:
Rom_7:25 I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin.

Seriously??? Paul serves two masters. How can you serve the law of sin with the body and imply that it does not stem from the mind/heart.


The Savior said:
Mat_16:27 For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works.

Paul said:
2Ti_1:9 Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began,

The Savior is clearly and decidedly on the side of "Works go into Judgement" theme. Paul asserts that God selected the people whom He chose from the beginning of time to be saved regardless. Romans chapter 9 establishes that theme for Paul with his discussion on Election and Predestination. So, God is clearly prejudiced against some without equity to others.


It is impossible to read 3 verses from Paul without encountering a contradiction to the truth or the plain words of God. It is time for Paul to be understood for who he is.


There are many disguised things in the bible. Only by being taught by the real teachers who have Jesus leading them, one finds truth---Gods own angels didn't even know the disguised truths(Dan 12:4--1Peter 1:12
Paul was correct.

In everyone a battle occurs between the flesh and the spirit. Jesus' point was correct--If one chooses to give in to the flesh--they only fool themselves thinking they serve the spirit. A mortal can throw the lie around--you are saved or born again--he does not know. Its a farce to get the tithe.

God knew his will would not fail--that is what God showed, he knew of the 144,000-little flock--and the great multitude--not by name or looks or anything--he knew it was his will and his will, will not fail.


Paul was a member of the 144,000--the anointed--the bride of Christ--certain teachings in the NT were only to them. It is they who will not be judged by works because they will not be on earth when Jesus comes to judge works.
 
Top