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

[Apple Sugar]

Then how did he win the day at the Council of Jerusalem?

He wrote that he did.

He was an apostle by right, because he was sent. That's what "apostle" means -- "one who is sent."

He claimed he was sent. In all scripture he's the one that professes himself an apostle more than anyone else.
The Bible records who Jesus' apostles were and it wasn't Paul. (Matthew 10:1-2)

Paul is the earliest writing we have. His earliest extant letter was written about 40 c.e. -- less than ten years following Jesus. The earliest gospel was written post-70 c.e. None of the gospel writers could have known or talked to Jesus.

You're actually printing that last sentence? While defending a self-professed apostle who never knew Jesus?

the historic creeds don't constrain. They're a starting point.

You should go read the Nicene creed. The Apostles creed.

Jesus was probably a Pharisee...

Prove it. Don't say probably.

I really wish you understood Matthew. The Greek words used in the original text for chap. 28 were laos and ethne -- literally, "go and make 'us' (laos) out of 'them' (ethne). In other words, by the time Matthew was written, Paul had already accomplished that.

I really wish you understood what this thread is talking about.

 

[sojourner]

laos means people.
ethne: nations

μαθητεύσατε: imperative aorist : teach the nations.

Maybe I got what passage you are referring to. That passage in which Jesus says that we must distinguish between laos (the new Christian people, which is universal) and the Jewish nation (ethnos).
And we have destroyed the ancient assumption that says that Jews are the chosen people.

I believe it's 28:19. You've got it wrong, though. We must not distinguish between "laos" and "ethne," for in the church, there is only "laos."

 

[Apple Sugar]

Understanding The Meaning of the Term “Disciple”


IA. The Term “Disciple” and the Concept of “Discipleship”

1B. Basic Meaning of μαθητής

The Greek term μαθητής (mathētēs) refers generally to any “student,” “pupil,” “apprentice,” or “adherent,” as opposed to a “teacher.” In the ancient world, however, it is most often associated, with people who were devoted followers of a great religious leader or teacher of philosophy.
2B. In the Old Testament1


(Continues @ Link)

"laos" isn't there.

Please show me where.
I have:
πορευθέντες οὖν μαθητεύσατε
poreuthentes oun mathēteusate
having gone; therefore; disciple
Matthew 28:19 Greek Text Analysis

What verse are you referencing?

 

[Apple Sugar]

James.

Frank.

You'll not produce a single scripture that says works alone save a soul .

 

[savagewind]

See here:

Laos - New Testament Greek Lexicon - New American Standard

"Definition
a people, people group, tribe, nation, all those who are of the same stock and language"

The jist is: "Go and make 'them' into 'us.'

You see, the whole thrust of Matthew is that we can no longer delineate between people. Yes, there are sheep and goats, but but we don't separate them. Yes, there are weeds and wheat, but we let them grow up together.
There is no "us/them" where the church is concerned.

Right! But disciple means one who is taught. We are all being taught. That is why I say disciples cannot be made by other disciples because you can't teach what you do not know. The word "make" does not belong at Matthew 28:19. I think you know that and it is why you must twist it for it to fit.

Though I believe Jesus says all are welcome so I agree with you.

 

[metis]

Actually disciples can make other disciples, which is why the early church and some present churches relied so heavily on apostolic succession.

 

[sojourner]

He wrote that he did.

No, Luke wrote about it; Luke wrote Acts (Acts 15 is what you're looking for, I believe).

He claimed he was sent. In all scripture he's the one that professes himself an apostle more than anyone else.
The Bible records who Jesus' apostles were and it wasn't Paul. (Matthew 10:1-2)

Then why didn't Luke mention the 70 who were also sent in chap. 10? Besides which, "apostle" means "one who is sent." Obviously, the other apostles recognized Paul, or he would not have been invited to the Council of Jerusalem to plead his case. He would simply have been denounced and ostracized.

You're actually printing that last sentence? While defending a self-professed apostle who never knew Jesus?

Absolutely! None of the gospel writers knew Jesus. The writings are too late, and there's nothing to suggest that they did know him. The best scholarship indicates that they were not among Jesus' disciples.

You should go read the Nicene creed. The Apostles creed.

Read them; studied them; know them by heart. The Apostles' Creed lays out the basic framework of the faith. The Nicene represents an attempt at consensus. They are a starting point, and not intended to be the complete compendium of the faith. I'm sorry that you seem to have some knee-jerk aversion to them, but I can't help your personal biases. They are what they are and your opinion doesn't change that.

Prove it. Don't say probably.

Prove the Jesus actually lived and was resurrected.

I really wish you understood what this thread is talking about.

Ad hominem? Really? Srrsly? That's the best you got? I can't help it if you don't have a good grasp of Matthew, or if you don't have a tenable argument with regard to Paul. The use of such an obvious fallacy illustrates your frustration with your ability to successfully argue your point.

 

[savagewind]

Actually disciples can make other disciples, which is why the early church and some present churches relied so heavily on apostolic succession.

No. Disciple does not mean to teach. It means to be taught. You cannot teach another person how to be taught. Wanting to be taught is a personal matter.

 

[sojourner]

Understanding The Meaning of the Term “Disciple”


IA. The Term “Disciple” and the Concept of “Discipleship”

1B. Basic Meaning of μαθητής

The Greek term μαθητής (mathētēs) refers generally to any “student,” “pupil,” “apprentice,” or “adherent,” as opposed to a “teacher.” In the ancient world, however, it is most often associated, with people who were devoted followers of a great religious leader or teacher of philosophy.
2B. In the Old Testament1


(Continues @ Link)

"laos" isn't there.

"Laos" is implied, as it is used extensively elsewhere to refer to the people of God. Since Matthew's agenda is to establish the church as the "true Israel," he substitutes the word "disciple," both to distinguish the church from the Jews, and to imply that the laos are "those who follow" (disciples), rather than some family or blood-kin group. His audience are diaspora Jews living in Gentile territory, so he hopes to establish with them that the true Israel is not tied to ethnicity, but to the position/act of "following."

 

[metis]

No. Disciple does not mean to teach. It means to be taught. You cannot teach another person how to be taught. Wanting to be taught is a personal matter.

From Dictionary.com: "a person who is a pupil or an adherent of the doctrines of another; follower".

One can learn from others and pass it on, and this is exactly what happened.

 

[Desert Snake]

Actually disciples can make other disciples, which is why the early church and some present churches relied so heavily on apostolic succession.

Bingo.

 

[sojourner]

Frank.

You'll not produce a single scripture that says works alone save a soul .

You didn't say "works alone" earlier. You said:

There is not a single scripture that says a person can work their way to Heaven and salvation.

Here's Jesus in Luke 10 to challenge your statement: "Do this, and you will live (be saved)."

 

[outhouse]

No. Disciple does not mean to teach. It means to be taught. You cannot teach another person how to be taught. Wanting to be taught is a personal matter.

Look, he is right, please move on.

 

[sojourner]

Right! But disciple means one who is taught. We are all being taught. That is why I say disciples cannot be made by other disciples because you can't teach what you do not know. The word "make" does not belong at Matthew 28:19. I think you know that and it is why you must twist it for it to fit.

Though I believe Jesus says all are welcome so I agree with you.

"disciple" here refers to "one who follows," not "one who learns" particularly. There's a subtlety in play here. Jesus taught largely by example, and he constantly said, "Do what I do." So, for the purposes of Matthew, a disciple is a follower -- one who does what Jesus did.

 

[Estro Felino]

Frank.

You'll not produce a single scripture that says works alone save a soul .

actually he's right. He means that James clearly says that it is impossible a faith without works.
so faith without works doesn't save us.
and James clearly makes us understood that both are necessary for salvation, regardless of what Paul says.

 

[Apple Sugar]

Ad hominem? Really? Srrsly? That's the best you got? I can't help it if you don't have a good grasp of Matthew, or if you don't have a tenable argument with regard to Paul. The use of such an obvious fallacy illustrates your frustration with your ability to successfully argue your point.

That's not an ad hominem. Maybe you should research what Ad hominem is. My remarks pertained to your seemingly not realizing what this thread is about. The heart of this discussion is that Paul was not wholly accepted as a true Apostle.
Which he wasn't. Jesus picked his Apostles while on earth. And warned against believing those who would say they met Jesus after he ascended to the father, which Paul did, as he then claimed that meeting qualified him to be an Apostle too.

Don't derail the thread. If you can't keep to the topic by making false accusations against me when I point out you aren't keeping to the topic. Stay with the topic or leave. It's that easy.

 

[Apple Sugar]

You didn't say "works alone" earlier.

However, we do know that in Luke 10, Jesus, in the parable of the Samaritan, tells the lawyer, "Do this, and you will live (be saved)."

You are the one arguing works saves. They don't. There is no scripture that says they do.

 

[savagewind]

From Dictionary.com: "a person who is a pupil or an adherent of the doctrines of another; follower".

One can learn from others and pass it on, and this is exactly what happened.

:sleep: Yes it is. A person can teach and the person he teaches is taught. Good for you! I graduate you to middle school.

A person CAN NOT be taught to WANT to learn.

 

[Apple Sugar]

actually he's right. He means that James clearly says that it is impossible a faith without works.
so faith without works doesn't save us.
and James clearly makes us understood that both are necessary for salvation, regardless of what Paul says.

Actually in the context of his continued argument on the matter of works salvation, he's wrong.
Scripture says faith without works is dead. That's a given. However, no matter how he may try to argue it or interpolate to his satisfaction, that scripture has never said that works saves. Instead it says that faith is what is required before works enter into demonstrating one's faith leads one to work for the kingdom in the name of Jesus Christ.

 

[savagewind]

That's not an ad hominem. Maybe you should research what Ad hominem is. My remarks pertained to your seemingly not realizing what this thread is about. The heart of this discussion is that Paul was not wholly accepted as a true Apostle.
Which he wasn't. Jesus picked his Apostles while on earth. And warned against believing those who would say they met Jesus after he ascended to the father, which Paul did, as he then claimed that meeting qualified him to be an Apostle too.

Don't derail the thread. If you can't keep to the topic by making false accusations against me when I point out you aren't keeping to the topic. Stay with the topic or leave. It's that easy.

You are calling Paul a liar for saying Jesus spoke to him. Yes?