The Apostle Paul was the anti-christ according to the first Christians

[angellous_evangellous]

Funny thing is that Paul's ministry began about 18 months after the crucifixion, about 33 c.e. Matthew wasn't written until about 50 years later, so Paul predates anything that "Jesus taught."

Not only does Paul pre-date the Gospels by several decades, the Gospels make no significant effort to undermine his teachings. We can contrast this with James - he names a pet teaching of Paul 'justification by faith' and argues against it with 'justification by work.' Or perhaps he clarifies it. But in any case to position the Gospels against Paul takes some hard arguing IMHO.

 

[Apple Sugar]

No problem

With regard to the teachings of Paul overall are you familiar with Dr. Daniel Wallace?

Paul and Justification by Faith: The Real Jewish Evidence

Posted by Daniel B. Wallace on 1 January 2013 in New Testament Studies, Theology

(sic)"... It is this language which lies behind Paul’s points in Rom 3.23–24 and 4.4–5. In v. 7 we see δικαιόω used with ἀσεβής: ‘you shall not justify the ungodly for a bribe’ (οὐ δικαιώσεις τὸν ἀσεβῆ ἕνεκεν δώρω&#957. This can only mean ‘you shall not declare innocent the ungodly for a bribe.’ Three things are significant here: (1) δικαιόω means, in this legal context, ‘declare righteous/innocent’; it does not mean ‘make righteous.’ (2) The person who might be declared innocent is in fact guilty (ἀσεβ&#8134, precisely the situation we have in Rom 3:23–24. (3) The word for bribe is δῶρον, a cognate of δωρεάν found in Rom 3:24. It would of course not do for Paul to say that God declares sinners righteous ‘for a bribe,’ so an appropriate substitute is needed—one that is a cognate of δῶρον, but does not use ἕνεκεν or imply anything except that God acts freely when he justifies sinners. δωρεάν is the accusative singular of δωρεά; as such, it is adverbial (always so in the NT) and means ‘freely.’ It is not insignificant that we again see in the LXX of Isa 5.23 the collocation of δικαιόω with ἀσεβής and δῶρον. And again, we see that δικαιόω must almost surely mean ‘declare innocent’ since the pronouncement is made on the ungodly who do not deserve it."

 

[Nada]

With regard to the teachings of Paul overall are you familiar with Dr. Daniel Wallace?

Paul and Justification by Faith: The Real Jewish Evidence

Posted by Daniel B. Wallace on 1 January 2013 in New Testament Studies, Theology

No,Im not familiar with it.I rely on Gods Word as proof though.What the other disciples that followed Jesus Christ stated about Paul is sufficient enough for me.Peter and the rest were well aware that Paul was blessed by God.

 

[Apple Sugar]

No,Im not familiar with it.I rely on Gods Word as proof though.What the other disciples that followed Jesus Christ stated about Paul is sufficient enough for me.Peter and the rest were well aware that Paul was blessed by God.

Show me the scripture where all the Disciples that walked with Jesus approved Paul.
Peter and Paul contended against one another in Antioch by Paul's own account in Galatians 2.

 

[sojourner]

Show me the scripture where all the Disciples that walked with Jesus approved Paul.
Peter and Paul contended against one another in Antioch by Paul's own account in Galatians 2.

Acts 15. Which was written by the same author who wrote Luke.

 

[Nada]

Show me the scripture where all the Disciples that walked with Jesus approved Paul.
Peter and Paul contended against one another in Antioch by Paul's own account in Galatians 2.

I never stated all.I said the other disciples.There was the case of Barnabas disagreeing with Paul after they were sent to Antioch by the governing body headed by James the brother of Jesus.Barnabas wanted to bring along John Mark but Paul said no because John Mark had deserted them in "Pamphylia and had not continued with them in the work." READ IT

Acts 15:36-41. 36 Some time later Paul said to Barnabas, “Let us go back and visit the believers in all the towns where we preached the word of the Lord and see how they are doing.” 37 Barnabas wanted to take John, also called Mark, with them, 38 but Paul did not think it wise to take him, because he had deserted them in Pamphylia and had not continued with them in the work. 39T hey had such a sharp disagreement that they parted company. Barnabas took Mark and sailed for Cyprus, 40 but Paul chose Silas and left, commended by the believers to the grace of the Lord. 41 He went through Syria and Cilicia, strengthening the churches.

Paul and Peter did not contend against one another.It says,"When Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned." Galatians 3:1

If you read the entire passage it speaks of Peter discriminating against the non Jews.The uncircumcised Gentiles.Peter gave in to pressure from the other Jews in Antioch.Some of those Jews opposed the uncircumcised Christians and that is why Paul goes onto speak about the circumcision of the heart and how they are no different than the circumcised Jews.Romans 2:29

In Acts 15 verses 12 & 13 it says this, 12For before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group. 13 The other Jews joined him in his hypocrisy, so that by their hypocrisy even Barnabas was led astray.


So Paul is speaking about Peter and his discrimination.Paul checked him real quick over this.Notice too how it mentions that even Barnabas was led astray.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

With regard to the teachings of Paul overall are you familiar with Dr. Daniel Wallace?

Paul and Justification by Faith: The Real Jewish Evidence

Posted by Daniel B. Wallace on 1 January 2013 in New Testament Studies, Theology

I'm familiar with Wallace. Not exactly a good source for you to prove your point.

 

[outhouse]

I'm familiar with Wallace. Not exactly a good source for you to prove your point.

Apologetic, more so then a credible historian.

Not someone I would label as a real scholar.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Apologetic, more so then a credible historian.

Not someone I would label as a real scholar.

Daniel Wallace? He's a real scholar, I promise you that. He does have his leanings to the right, but he's the head of the largest collection of NT documents in North America -- maybe even the most important. He's a first rate Greek scholar and a very good translator of German.

I'm not a fan of Dallas Theological Seminary - nor of what he does theologically - but that doesn't mean he's not a real scholar. I've met him and I know many of his students and they are first class.

EDIT: I've learned how to read over the apologetic stuff. I don't think that it guides everything that he does -- like E. E. Ellis, who is also a first rate scholar, but he was unable and uninterested in separating his scholarship from his apologetics. Wallace is capable of actually examining the material at hand - and a lot of it.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Apologetic, more so then a credible historian.

Not someone I would label as a real scholar.

Oh, what I meant was that Wallace would never, ever argue that Paul was not an apostle. This compliments your understanding of his apologetics.

But really it's an elementary, responsible reading of the evidence.

 

[outhouse]

Daniel Wallace? He's a real scholar, I promise you that. .

Understood fully.


Its what "I call" a scholar.

I don't even like claiming Ben Witherington da 3rd a scholar, but I do understand his vast knowledge is very credible in many areas.

Im sure I could pick quite a bit up from him, its just the nauseam that bothers me its like being car sick.


I cant stand imaginative apologetics on TV shows that appeal to biblical history. They had "the lost 40 days" on last night and I deleted the recording I just could not finish the stupidity.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Understood fully.


Its what "I call" a scholar.

I don't even like claiming Ben Witherington da 3rd a scholar, but I do understand his vast knowledge is very credible in many areas.

Im sure I could pick quite a bit up from him, its just the nauseam that bothers me its like being car sick.


I cant stand imaginative apologetics on TV shows that appeal to biblical history. They had "the lost 40 days" on last night and I deleted the recording I just could not finish the stupidity.

haha - I have far more respect for Wallace than Witherington, who just writes the same thing over and over and over again. I stopped reading Witherington years ago - he has a great website, though - he will actually answer questions, etc.

 

[outhouse]

haha - I have far more respect for Wallace than Witherington, who just writes the same thing over and over and over again. I stopped reading Witherington years ago - he has a great website, though - he will actually answer questions, etc.

Thanks, ill give his work a second look

 

[Zardoz]

While I know that Paul or someone like him would be required eventually to rectify Edom (Rome) the descendant of Esau; I loathe him as he was indeed the 'anti-christ'. But that term carries too much association with the non-Jewish Xian concept of Satan. Better to call him the 'anti-jew' as his warped teachings are the basis of Yeshua being unacceptable to even be considered by my fellow Jews. Deification demanded rejection.

 

[Estro Felino]

He said

14For we know that the Law is spiritual, but I am of flesh, sold into bondage to sin. 15For what I am doing, I do not understand; for I am not practicing what I would like to do, but I am doing the very thing I hate.

This is the evidence that he had a rotten soul. I don't want to sound judgmental, but a person who does what they consider sinful....is a person filled with hatred and\or negative feelings.
If you think that something is sinful, don't do it. nobody forces you
A person who needs purification, and who needs to start loving as Jesus did.

What I think about Saint Paul? It deals with the typical Jew who converted to Christianity. He had been taught that love is unnecessary...so he had a lot of negative feelings deriving from his previous religion.
But I am absolutely sure that in his old age, he succeeded in purifying himself and attaining perfection.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Thanks, ill give his work a second look

There's probably no need for that. You know he's a conservative Christian scholar -- so you treat him accordingly -- I'm just saying that he deserves respect for what he's actually doing... If that makes sense.

 

[Apple Sugar]

He said

This is the evidence that he had a rotten soul. I don't want to sound judgmental, but a person who does what they consider sinful....is a person filled with hatred and\or negative feelings.
If you think that something is sinful, don't do it. nobody forces you
A person who needs purification, and who needs to start loving as Jesus did.

What I think about Saint Paul? It deals with the typical Jew who converted to Christianity. He was taught that love is unnecessary...so he had a lots of negative feelings deriving from his previous religion.
But I am absolutely sure that in his old age, he succeeded in purifying himself and attaining perfection.

This passage in his Roman's epistle is what leads some to think he was possessed by the satan that was the light he met on the road. After all, in one of his letters he said that even satan can appear as an angel of light.

Romans 7:14-25


14 We know that the law is spiritual; but I am unspiritual, sold as a slave to sin. 15 I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do. 16 And if I do what I do not want to do, I agree that the law is good. 17 As it is, it is no longer I myself who do it, but it is sin living in me. 18 For I know that good itself does not dwell in me, that is, in my sinful nature.[a] For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out. 19 For I do not do the good I want to do, but the evil I do not want to do—this I keep on doing. 20 Now if I do what I do not want to do, it is no longer I who do it, but it is sin living in me that does it.
21 So I find this law at work: Although I want to do good, evil is right there with me. 22 For in my inner being I delight in God’s law; 23 but I see another law at work in me, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin at work within me. 24 What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body that is subject to death? 25 Thanks be to God, who delivers me through Jesus Christ our Lord!
So then, I myself in my mind am a slave to God’s law, but in my sinful nature[b] a slave to the law of sin.

 

[Desert Snake]

This passage in his Roman's epistle is what leads some to think he was possessed by the satan that was the light he met on the road. After all, in one of his letters he said that even satan can appear as an angel of light.

Romans 7:14-25


14 We know that the law is spiritual; but I am unspiritual, sold as a slave to sin. 15 I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do. 16 And if I do what I do not want to do, I agree that the law is good. 17 As it is, it is no longer I myself who do it, but it is sin living in me. 18 For I know that good itself does not dwell in me, that is, in my sinful nature.[a] For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out. 19 For I do not do the good I want to do, but the evil I do not want to do—this I keep on doing. 20 Now if I do what I do not want to do, it is no longer I who do it, but it is sin living in me that does it.
21 So I find this law at work: Although I want to do good, evil is right there with me. 22 For in my inner being I delight in God’s law; 23 but I see another law at work in me, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin at work within me. 24 What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body that is subject to death? 25 Thanks be to God, who delivers me through Jesus Christ our Lord!
So then, I myself in my mind am a slave to God’s law, but in my sinful nature[b] a slave to the law of sin.

So now he's possessed by satan? Really? Why would he write those epistles if he was possessed by satan, or further, if, as you said, was trying to humanize Jesus, why would he imply otherwise? Paul could have done a much better job at humanizing than that. Many or most who are opposed to Paul view him negatively precisely because they think he was doing the opposite, namely Deifying a human.

 

[metis]

If Paul was such an "anti-Christ", why would Peter and the others have anything to do with him when he visited them at least three times, according to Acts?

 

[Estro Felino]

So now he's possessed by satan? Really? Why would write those epistles if he was possessed by satan, or further, if, as you said, was trying to humanize Jesus, why would he imply otherwise? Paul could have done a much better job at humanizing than that. Many or most who are opposed to Paul view him negatively precisely because they think he was doing the opposite, namely Deifying a human.

I would never say that he was possessed by Satan. He was an apostle, a holy person.
But of course...he was a bit disappointed and resigned, given that he had realized that he was not strong enough to use his own freewill.
That's why he invented the story of Jesus as a savior. Because he thought he would never possess that strength of will, and that capability of saving himself, without God's help.
As a Pelagian, I believe that Jesus is our friend who wants our salvation, but he cannot save us. Because if he did, he would deprive us of our freewill. So the choice is ours: we must choose between evil and good, and we are the ones who save ourselves