The apostle Paul, the writer of fourteen books of the twenty-seven in the New Testament, is called various things and dismissed because his teachings do not align with various social standards. Many claim Jesus yet reject the apostle Paul. Many have degraded Paul’s writings as though his writings have no place in the Bible. They set Paul aside for not being a disciple during Jesus’s ministry despite being converted from hostility as a witness of Jesus’s resurrection.
Conflict with Paul
The apostle started and helped start churches throughout the Mediterranean from Syria to Italy if not Spain. His words reflect the earliest record Christian beliefs and Paul’s conversion dates to 2–3 years after Jesus’s crucifixion. Paul’s words about grace and love are cast aside because he taught people to humble themselves and live lives of sexual purity. However, he is supposedly sexist for revealing God’s made men first and God set men to be spiritual leaders (1 Tim 2:11–14). Some think Paul was bigoted for exposing the depravity of a society that rejects God and is given over to sexual passions even unnatural lusts (Rom 1:24–27). Some do not prefer the church government presented in Paul’s words because each congregation is autonomously led by elders rather than a single ruling pastor, committees, votes, or a hierarchy of bishops with a Pope (1 Tim 3:1–15, Titus 1:5–9).
Paul and All the Others
What are the effects and consequences of not accepting Paul’s writings? Does not accepting Paul’s writings mean not accepting the rest of the writings in the Christian Scriptures? If you do not accept Paul, then you cannot accept 2 Peter because the writer accepted the writings of Paul as Scripture (2 Pet 3:16). No one can reject Paul and accept 1 John as that book recognizes the writing of the apostles including Peter (1 John 1:1–4). Furthermore, Peter also accepted John (2 Pet 1:16–21). Now, those who reject Paul must reject 1 Peter to be consistent. After all, the apostle Peter instructed Christians to subordinate to the governing authorities, servants subordinate to masters, and wives subordinate to husbands (1 Pet 2:13–3:6).
By rejecting Paul’s writings, one would have to dismiss the Gospel of Luke since Luke was with Paul and agreed with Paul (Acts 16:10). Paul quoted Luke’s Gospel as Scripture (1 Tim 5:18; cf. Luke 10:7; 2 Tim 2:8). Setting aside Luke also means setting aside Luke’s book of Acts and the previously written gospel narratives that Luke mentioned in Luke 1:1–3. The gospel narratives that Luke extensively shares material with the Gospel of Matthew and shares chronology with the Gospel of Mark. This leaves only two New Testament authors, James and Jude. However, Jude closely resembles 2 Peter 2 even speaking of fulfillment of Peter’s revelation, so the one rejecting Paul and Peter could not reasonably accept Jude. James was also an apostle with Peter, associated with the Twelve, and accepted Paul (Acts 15; Gal 1:18–2:10), so someone dismissing Paul would dismiss James’s epistle.
The Cross on Christ
If someone rejects Christ’s words given through the apostle Paul, do they reject Christ? Paul taught about the apostles of Christ, “These things we also speak, not in words which man’s wisdom teaches but which the Holy Spirit teaches” (1 Cor 2:13). This is just as Jesus declared that He would give His words to His apostles (John 17:8). Those who listened to Jesus would listen to His apostles (John 15:20). Jesus also revealed that He would send His Spirit to guide His apostles in all truth (John 14:26; 16:12–13). Because of this, Paul wrote, “If anyone thinks himself to be a prophet or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things which I write to you are the commandments of the Lord” (1 Cor 14:37). Paul was converted by Christ, claimed revelation from Christ, preached a gospel revealed separately yet was accepted and approved by the other apostles (Gal 1:11–19, 23; 2:2, 9).
The consequences of rejecting Paul’s writings are devastating so that such a person enters into a cloudy deism at least. Rejecting the writings of Paul means rejecting the New Testament. By rejecting the New Testament, the consistent person would reject all the words of Jesus found throughout the Gospels, Acts, Epistles, and Revelation. However, as previously noted, Jesus revealed that all of the Truth in Christ’s words were given to His apostles as revealed through His Spirit. By dismissing Paul, there goes the apostolic Scriptures and the early Christian faith (Eph 2:20; 3:5).
You or God?
The rejection of Paul is a character judgment of the sincerity and honesty of Paul and all of the New Testament writers. Can believers dismiss the apostle Paul and by so doing dismiss Christ? Jesus declared, “My doctrine is not Mine, but His who sent Me. If anyone wills to do His will, he shall know concerning the doctrine, whether it is from God or whether I speak on My own authority” (John 7:16–17). When dismissing Paul’s words for conflict of one’s preferred social ethics and personal righteousness? Are people to listen to their own hearts first or to God’s Word in the Scriptures? Jesus proclaimed, “For what is highly esteemed among men is an abomination in the sight of God” (Luke 16:15). Jesus taught things that offended people so that crowds stopped following Him (John 6:66). Isaiah presents God’s words, “‘For My thoughts are not your thoughts, Nor are your ways My ways,’ says the LORD. ‘For as the heavens are higher than the earth, So are My ways higher than your ways, And My thoughts than your thoughts'” (Isaiah 55:8–9). Rejecting Paul’s words includes questioning Paul’s inspiration noted by his definition of love, his proclamation of the fruits of the Spirit, and much more. Such rejection devastates holy virtue in the faithful. Can highly esteemed opinions stand against Paul’s most profound statements? Should anyone consider personal thoughts higher than God’s thoughts?
By rejecting Jesus’s words given through His apostles and prophets, then faith is all or nothing for the Scriptures. Should people give up prejudices toward the Bible that are based on their personal morality? Should people reinterpret certain scriptural writers to disregard teachings that offend them and others? The whole point of the Bible is to reveal God because humanity is sinful and will contradict God.
True Christian discipleship starts with Christ. True faith consists of essential virtues of humility and meekness for which the world mocks and scoffs at the thought of such for their declaration of “pride.” However, the apostles taught everyone to subordinate to God in faith, thus to subordinate to their government, their masters, and each other (1 Pet 2:13–3:6). Humble submission to God is the virtue of true faith that trusts in the God of Jesus Christ. By this, Christians trust God to work things out through His grace. Without sincere humility, there is no real faith, and this is what this discussion is all about. Humble yourself before the words of Christ as delivered through His apostles and prophets, and let no one consider one’s thoughts greater than God and His Son, Jesus Christ.
The Breath of God 
Scott. My witnesses were Jesus, Isaiah, and Moses. First, I presented Jesus in Matthew 5:17-19. You called my proof “speculation.” Saying it is so does not make it so. You don’t use that word correctly because I had the clearest authorities explain the word “Paulos” (Greek) is a transliterated form of “Paulus,” which is a shortened form of “Pauxilus” which in Latin means “Least man.’ Now go to Matthew 5:17-19, and Jesus says the Law-loosener will be called “the Least Man.” So Jesus, the one you call Divine Lord (and so do I), is my first witness against Paul.
Then Isaiah and Moses are my next witnesses who say that those who draw you from the 10 Commandments are false prophets. Isaiah 8:20 and Deut. 13:1-5.
You don’t seriously defend that Paul did not abrogate the Law. Rather, as to the one command on Sabbath which I found Luther, Calvin and numerous authorities agree Paul abrogated Sabbath, you claim Christ simply fulfilled the Sabbath, citing the reasoning of the Epistle to the Hebrews (which Paul did not write, but Barnabas, as was the view of the early church and now by all scholars who examined the point in detail). But I demonstrated Hebrews does not say the Sabbath was fulfilled in Christ, but rather that we will enter into God’s eternal Sabbath if we do not fail by disobedience and lack of faith. You found something in Hebrews not expressed. And even if you were correct, it only addresses Sabbath. And even so, you err because Paul’s words in Colossians and Romans clearly abolished Sabbath, and did not merely say that Sabbath is ‘completed’ in Christ. But more importantly, Paul indeed declare the entire Law abolished in many places, including as to Jews in Romans 7:1-7. And thus Paul is a false prophet by the definition of what Jesus, Isaiah (Isa 8:2) and Moses (Deut. 13:1-5) says is the mark of a false prophet.
Hence, I have three witnesses whose testimony you should accept: Jesus, Isaiah and Moses.
And I also claim 2d Peter as a witness Paul was merely a “brother” (not an apostle) and “spoke with the wisdom God gave him” (and not by inspiration). And 2d Peter relegates Paul to the category of ‘scripture’ which is not out modern meaning, but was the 3d scroll of the Bible — the portion Jews regarded as uninspired in the main unless the person quoted God, e.g., Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Job, etc. PS Paul never quotes Jesus, and only 5x says the “Lord” gave him a message — verses that if accepted are inconsequential. So while I freely admit 2d Peter could not have been written by Apostle Peter, whoever wrote it reflects a negative view of Paul as merely a wise brother, not an inspired apostle.
You have no witness therefore except an incorrect tradition which is: “You can’t take books out of the New Testament. The collection was overseen by the Apostles in the 1st c.” But you canot prove this with any witness, scholarly or otherwise!. Paul’s epistles were not joined to canon — which regardless was simply a reading list as of the 300s– until well after the apostles died. One proof of my point is Justin who wrote voluminously in the early 100s but who never once quotes Paul. He evidently did not have a canon with Paul in it. When Paul was cited by Clement of Rome who lived in the late 90s-100s, it was clearly as an associate he knew at Rome, and not as an inspired writer. So you have relied upon a TRADITION and not a witness, but that tradition itself is a MODERN ONE — something you were told in Church, but which has no evidence to support it.
So the issue you raised ends up with three witnesses for the view Paul is a false prophet, and none in favor of Paul. And if 2d Peter is inspired, he is a 4th witness for my view, and not yours.
Blessings, D.
Paul was converted by Christ (Gal. 1:15-17), claimed revelation from Christ (Gal. 1:11-12), preached the gospel (Gal. 1:23), received fellowship from the Apostles in his preaching (Gal. 1:18-19, 2:2, 9), and even so that the Apostle Peter was corrected by the Apostle Paul (Gal. 2:11).
Tondo and Brims,
Neither of you have presented a premise for your beliefs nor one witness. Certainly, you can do better than opposing a strawman. In all of this, you have yet to say which scriptures that you accept and by what standard. This is critical and shows the folly in what you are teaching.
I hope the best for you, and that you will seriously reconsider in honesty. That you would have the courage and humility to lay down your pride and say that you were mistaken. Don’t be prejudice to consider that I have not honestly weighed what you have taught and even before you have proposed such teachings. The problem is that you teachings do not standup. It is a stack of cards to pull Paul’s epistles and other books from the New Testament. The whole collapses and you have no authority to accept any scriptures or teachings of Christ on your own.
Scott. We are finally getting somewhere. You never dispute that a false prophet is anyone who seduces you from following the Law God gave Moses. I asked if you agree Paul abolished Sabbath in Col. 2:16-17 and Romans 14:5-6. You don’t directly respond. Instead you raise issues about a statement in Hebrews that does not say what you think it says. You ask:
“Are you not offended by the fulfillment of the Sabbath?” I am not offended by the eternal enjoyment of God’s Sabbath rest when we get to heaven. But that is all that Hebrews is talking about. What is never addressed or commented upon in Hebrews is the Sabbath command to cease from your work on what we call Saturday.
First of all, Paul did not write Hebrews, so before we talk about Hebrews, let’s remember what Paul does say. He says no one can judge you any longer for not respecting the Sabbath — he means day seven of the week. Col. 2:16-7. Paul says a Christian doesn’t have to observe any day and can treat all days alike. Romans 14:5-6. Paul never speaks about the command to rest on Sabbath as being fulfilled by Christ, and or that Saturday rest has been replaced by a Sunday rest. Let’s be clear about that.
Turning to your citation of Hebrews 3-4, first we need to remember Paul did not write Hebrews. I say this to help your case because if you are citing Paul’s interpretations to prove Paul is inspired, that depends upon circular logic. You have to find justification outside Paul and in unquestionably valid inspired sources to prove Paul is not a Law loosener/contradictor of God’s word. Otherwise, you are assuming Paul’s validity to prove his validity — a fallascious means of reasoning.
So, as to Hebrews, the early church said Barnabas wrote this. (For doctrinal reasons, in the late 300s the Roman Church ascribed it to Paul instead.) Hebrews is written in excellent Greek which is foreign to all Paul’s letters. The consensus of scholars is that indeed Barnabas wrote it. See my article http://www.jesuswordsonly.com/Bible/authorship-of-hebrews.html
Turning to your reliance upon Hebrews, let’s also remember there is very little credence among anyone that Hebrews is inspired. I have no problems with it except it relies upon erroneous translations from the Septuagint for some of its points, which then invalidates those points. But for purposes of discussion, I will assume it is all inspired.
Regardless, nowhere does Barnabas say Christ’s sacrifice to atone for sin does away with the command of God to rest on the seventh day. The discussion in Hebrews is that God said He would not permit the disobedient to enter His rest.(Heb 4:6.) Barnabas then exhorts “Let us, therefore, make every effort to enter that rest, so that no one will fall by following their example of disobedience.” (Heb. 4:11.) If Barnabas means we need to enter the rest of the seventh day of the week or otherwise prove disobedient and fall, then Barnabas is exhorting the continued respect to observe the seventh day. If Barnabas means instead by a “Sabbath-rest for God’s people” (Heb. 4:9) an eternal rest in heaven, which appears implied because Barnabas appears to say “disobedience” and “lack of faith” are the cause of not entering at all into that rest of God (which Barnabas implies is still ongoing in heaven) — see Heb 4:6 “disobedience”, 4:2 “not combine it with faith,” then Barnabas is not loosening the Sabbath command at all. He is not even talking about it except as a type of what exists in heaven. But this was always the case as the 10 commandments commanded man to rest on the seventh day as God had rested on His own sabbath day. They were always corresponding types but that fact was used to confirm the validity of the Sabbath command to us. It was never used to dispense with the Sabbath command in anticipation of enjoying God’s sabbath rest in heaven when we die. If you insist otherwise and that Barnabas means the Sabbath rest God enjoyed long before Moses nullifies any need for Sabbath on earth, then this would have been true in Moses’ day as well, and hence Barnabas would be twisting the Law to loosen it, and this is whom our Lord condemns in Matt 5:17 while extolling those who advocate obeying the Law as the “greatest.” If so, Barnabas too would be a false prophet under Deut. 13:1-5 and Isaiah 8:20, rather than merely an uninspired writer.
Hence you have not solved your problem of defending Paul by citing Hebrews. Paul did not write it and even if he did, (a) you cannot cite Paul to prove Paul’s validity because that is tautological; and (b) Hebrews does not say anything about whether to cease observing Sabbath or justify why we should no longer do so. Rather, in the authentic writings of Paul — Romans and Colossians — all scholars agree Paul abolished Sabbath — Luther, Calvin, and the many scholars I cited you. And of course Paul used the word “abolished” (katarge) in reference to the entire Law of Moses many times, as I proved in JWO ch. 5. http://www.jesuswordsonly.com/JWO/chapter-five-jwo.html
The conclusion is inescapable: Paul is a false prophet, proven by his own words. (Also proven by those of Christ in Matt 5:17 — more on that in a moment.)
In closing, Scott, you seem very sincere. But whether you will be lumped with the “Least Man” identified by Jesus as the Law loosener in Matt 5:17 (and excluded from heaven as 5:20 implies), you need to be completely transparent before the Lord on this issue. So far I hope you can see that you are simply raising irrelevant non issues to deflect your own thoughts from applying these verses as your otherwise good training dictates. The questions are simple:
1.) Did Paul abrogate the Law? Everyone admits this. Specifically, did he abrogate Sabbath? Again, everyone admits this. You have so far been reluctant to do so.
2) Is one who abrogates the Law a false prophet? The Bible says so in Deut 13:1-5 and Isaiah 5:20. Every source admits this too. This you have not disputed so far.
3) If Paul abrogates the Law, does this make him also one called the Least Man as Jesus excoriated in Matt 5:17?
I find the last issue important because this is our Lord Jesus talking to us. You should find it as no coincidence that “least man” happens to be the true meaning of the name Paulos, a transliteration of the Latin name Paulus, which is shortened form of Pauxilus, meaning “least man.” http://www.jesuswordsonly.com/JWO/jesus-on-paul-the-least.html. Therefore our Lord Jesus warned us — prophesied in fact what we are seeing in the pages of Scripture. Let’s trust Jesus’ warnings, and be on guard to Paul.
Scott, I admire your earnest defense of Paul. I was one there too. But I realized that Jesus must always comes first. It won’t do you or me any good to say on judgment day we were listening to Paul when Jesus can say ‘but you were not listening to me.’ And Jesus teaches a very different message of salvation: 1. you can go to heaven maimed by serious repentance form sin or not at all. (Mark 9:42-47); 2. the tree without fruit is thrown in the fire (Matt 7:19); 3. those who serve the king’s family with food, water, clothes etc. enter eternal life, and those who don’t go to eternal punishment with Satan (Matt 25:30-46) and 4. You can be “alive again” by repenting from sin and turning around — taught in the lesson about the Prodigal son (15:17-24, viz. verse 24) or remain dead in your trespasses and sins. But Paul teaches If you just believe Jesus rose from the dead and He is Lord you shall be saved. (Romans 10:9.) Paul also teaches while Abraham was ungodly (not repentant), he was justified due to belief (in God’s promise of a son in old age) even though “working not.” (Romans 4:3-5.)
Paul’s message is a completely different message from our Lord Jesus, and in fact undermines it. So whether Paul is a false prophet or not is a highly material question on the most important issue of all: salvation. Recognizing that fact preserves our obedience and adherence to Jesus Christ, especially what Jesus taught. I wrote an entire second book entitled Jesus’ Words on Salvation to prove these points — it too is free online. Please take a look at that — http://www.jesuswordsonly.com/JWOS/freejwoschaptersonline.html
Blessings, D
I think the biggest problem is that Christians tend to regurgitate what they’ve been taught, so when they are put into a corner, they really have no ground to stand on if what they were taught does not cover the subject. This is another failsafe, because the reality is that once you begin to know the Father…His nature…everything else starts to fall in line. Christians have the Father all over the map…His nature becomes almost schizophrenic…but it is because they do not know Him, and that is due primarily to the perspective they have of the one, most important thing that the Father set into place…the Torah. I say it’s a failsafe because without coming to know Him through the means that He gave us, salvation is impossible. He knew what He was doing.
This is why we(at least I do..) keep having the same conversations over and over….because what Christians believe and teach flows commonly between them all. There is no justification, and so eventually they either start to actually look for the truth or they cease all argument without an ending point. It blows me away. I cannot imagine pushing aside an earnest search for truth in lieu of what I already think I know. How utterly prideful.
prejudice statement
See, you are arguing against someone or something else. I’m not a Baptist. I’m a Christian. I never said that anyone replaced the Sabbath day with the 1st day of the week. It is that the 1st day of the week is the day of assembling for Christians. The sabbath day is fulfilled in the rest, which is in Jesus Christ.
Where did Paul abolish any part of the law? “Owe no one anything except to love one another, for he who loves another has fulfilled the law. For the commandments, ‘You shall not commit adultery,’ ‘You shall not murder,’ ‘You shall not steal,’ ‘You shall not bear false witness,’ ‘You shall not covet,’ and if there is any other commandment, are all summed up in this saying, namely, ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ Love does no harm to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfillment of the law” (Rom. 13:8-10).
Jesus said that He would fulfill the Law (Matt. 5:17). Hebrews says that the Old Testament is obsolete (Heb. 8:13). It has been fulfilled in Christ, in that the sabbath day’s rest is in eternity (Heb. 4:9). Hebrews 4 speaks of a rest to come after the institution of the sabbath day. Hebrews 4:9 calls this “the sabbath” that remains for God’s people. You have yet to show a scripture where Paul abolished the Law rather Paul said that Christ abolished “the law of commandments in ordinances” (Eph. 2:15). How? By as you admit, Jesus fulfilled the Law. Abolishing is not the same as destroying the Law (Matt. 5:17).
Paul is the traditional author of Hebrews, and either way the book is apostolic. You can’t take books out of the New Testament. The collection was overseen by the Apostles in the 1st c.
You neglect words of Jesus for salvation. Jesus said, “One who believes and is baptized will be saved” and Paul echoed saying that one is raised with Christ from baptism (Rom. 6:3-7). Necessary to salvation is confession of faith (Rom. 10:9-10) and repentance and baptism (Rom. 6:3-7) by which doctrine one is saved (Rom. 1:16) in obedience to the faith (Rom. 1:5, 16:26). Romans 6 shows our obedience the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ by which we stand and we are saved according to 1 Corinthians 15:1-4. You are way off track. Wake up! Your battling your old theology which was fundamentally flawed, and the pendulum has swung into another error. See, you argue for Paul against works to reject him, and yet he never taught by which you slander him. If you would read your Greek New Testament, you would find Paul’s references to faith as the faith, the doctrines of obedience. Why else would Paul write congregation exhorting their obedience to specific doctrines like the Lord’s Supper, baptism, and the Assembly. Even if you still reject Paul and wish to make any case against him, you must address Paul as one teaching free-will and justification faith in obedience to the faith as he taught. You can’t play this Jesus vs. Calvinism card. Romans 4:3-5 is speaking of the law of Moses being the law of condemnation (Rom. 8:1) against the Law of Christ, which Christ established in fulfilling the Law of Moses.
You have no standard. You have week theology based on unfounded scholarship. Why are you blind and so hard of heart?
Scott. I need to give you one more link to my webpage on Genesis 15:6 which discusses the scholarly sources that support what I am explaining . http://www.jesuswordsonly.com/JWOS/chapter-26-7jwo-genesis-156.html
Regardless, just to repeat, the question of justification by faith is irrelevant and a red herring to avoid addressing the topic you yourself posed — whether Paul was a false prophet. So I am still waiting for you to agree or disagree whether Paul abrogated the Law. Aside from chapter 5 of my book Jesus Words Only, I have brief webpage on whether Paul abolished Sabbath — one of the 10 Commandments. See http://www.jesuswordsonly.com/JWO/paul-abolished-sabbath.html It is a quick point so perhaps lets start there.
Paul wrote in Col. 2:16-17:
16 Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days:
17Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.
Martin Luther in a sermon entitled How Christians Should Regard Moses given August 27, 1525 3 says of this passage: “Again one can prove it from the third commandment that Moses does not pertain to Gentiles and Christians. For Paul [Col. 2:16]…abolish[ed] thesabbath, to show us that the sabbath was given to the Jews alone, for whom it is a stern commandment.”
Do you agree or disagree with Martin Luther?
Calvin wrote on Colossians 2:16 likewise: “We see now that the Sabbath is done away with and the people are free from it.”
Do you agree or disagree with John Calvin?
Tertullian read Col. 2:16 similarly, and deducd that Paul abolished all the Law : “We do not now treat of the Law, further than (to remark) that the apostle here teaches clearly how it has been abolished, even by passing from shadow to substance – that is, from figurative types to reality, which is Christ.” (Tertullian, “Against Marcion” 5, 19, ANF III, 471, 472 )
Do you agree or disagree with Tertullian?
Paul will repeat this abolition of Sabbath in Romans 14:5-6. Paul writes: “One man considers one day more sacred than another; another man considers every day alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind.” Christian commentator Dan Corner explain this means regarding Sabbath: “Christians are permitted to make up their own minds about a special day.”
So if you agree on this issue that Paul abolished Sabbath, and you recognize the Sabbath-command is one of the 10 Commandments (which in Israel applied to Gentiles, FYI), then what does God say whether Paul is a true or false prophet under Deut. 13:1-5, Isaiah 8:20 and Ezekiel 22 (time of ravening wolves will ignore God’s Sabbath)?
And Paul reiterates the abolition of Sabbath in Romans 14:5-6. Paul writes: “One man considers one day more sacred than another; another man considers every day alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind.” Commenting on this, J.Danielou says: “St.Paul proclaimed the end of the Sabbath (Rom.14:6).” (Jean Danielou, Bible and Liturgy (Light & Life: 1956) at 228.)
Dan Corner an anti-Sabbatarian whom I respect agrees on what Romans 14:6 says but is devoted to Paul and concludes from it: “Christians are permitted to make up their own minds about a special day.” Dan Corner, Six Facts For Saturday Sabbatarians To Ponder at http://www.evangelicaloutreach.org/sabbath.htm (last accessed 2005).
And just to be clear, Romans 14:5-6 unravels any effort to impose a Christian sabbath in place of the one in the 10 Commandmants because Paul is just too clear and too liberating. It is entirely up to each one of us to decide if we want to revere one day more than another (if Paul is our guide). I don’t have to, according to Paul. As Peter Ditzel confesses from a Pauline-approving perspective: “Let’s face it. Paul makes no exception. He says it is perfectly acceptable to esteem every day alike, which is the same as esteeming no day in particular. He gives no hint whatsoever that either the seventh day or the first day are exceptions to what he is saying.” (Pete Ditzel, “What is the Christian Sabbath?” Part 4.)
So please answer whether you agree (a) Paul abolished all the Law or at least one of the 10 Commandments on the Sabbath; and (b) if not, why not? and (c) if so, why then isn’t Paul a false prophet as prescribed by God? Blessings.
Are you not offended by fulfillment of the Sabbath? Do you believe all of this to justify the sabbath-keeping of the Law of Moses? Isn’t this why you believe all of this is to prove the Sabbath? Is this your only offense that Paul saw the Sabbath fulfilled into an eternal rest (Heb. 3-4) and that the Lord’s Day is the first day of the week? If this is your only contradiction, then why do you stumble over Paul and not all the Apostles and Christ Himself?
Which should we regard as the Lord’s Day (Rev. 1:10): the day of the fulfilled Law of Moses or the Day of the Resurrection of Christ, His meeting with His disciples, the establishment of His Church, and the day of the Assembly for the early Church?
“Which should we regard as the Lord’s Day (Rev. 1:10): the day of the fulfilled Law of Moses or the Day of the Resurrection of Christ, His meeting with His disciples, the establishment of His Church, and the day of the Assembly for the early Church?”
Jesus says in Mark 2:28 that He is Lord of the Sabbath, and thus, as Master of that day, it belongs to Him.
Ergo, it is referring to the Sabbath. You must separate yourself from the “Christian” mindset to see what is so simple and right in front of you.
The sabbath was symbolic of eternal rest in Hebrews 3-4.
Scott. You have misread me. I did not say the Law of sacrifice is no more. I said Jesus is that sacrifice, and since it is perfect, there is no need for any other sacrifice. But the atonement principle under the Law given Moses is still active today or otherwise Christ’s sacrifice would be annulled as of any benefit to you. The notion that one sacrifice replaced another does not abrogate the Law of sacrifice. It means a better and more perfect one is given. Paul does not say that. Paul repeatedly says the Law is abrogated, which if true means Christ has no atonement effect for anyone living after the point of that abrogation. The notion of a superior sacrifice in Christ is in the Epistle to the Hebrews whose author the early church said was Barnabas. http://www.jesuswordsonly.com/Bible/authorship-of-hebrews.html
You say Jesus “improved” the Law. I would love to discuss that, but I thought we were talking about whether Paul could be valid for abrogating the Law. And improving is not abrogating. So I think you are bringing up irrelevant points to distract from the issue at hand, which appeared to be an honest inquiry about Paul.
Now you never defend that Paul did not abrogate the Law. And you do not dispute that the sign of a false prophet, according to Deut 13:1-5 and Isaiah 8:20 and Ezekiel 22 is the one who abrogates the Law. I prove Paul abrogated the Law in chapter 5 of JWO. See http://www.jesuswordsonly.com/JWO/chapter-five-jwo.html
So do you agree Paul abrogated the Law? If not why not? If so, then you would have to agree Paul is a false prophet.
Now the question of being justified by faith in Christ is complicated. It has nothing to do with the topic of Paul as a false prophet. But you seek to digress into other issues to deflect from the issue at hand. Regardless, I will take the bait again. You cite the JPS version of Gen 15:6. I cited the KJV which is more accurate. And I discuss Christian scholars who agree that there is no subject “He” before counted in the Hebrew text (Paul quoted 2x the erroneous Septuagint version), and instead the correct subject is Abraham from “he believe….and counted….” See http://www.jesuswordsonly.com/JWO/appendix-c-jwo.html
So it seems odd that JPS agrees with you inserting “he” and capitalizing it before “counted.” But the traditional reading among Jews, and Christian scholars, is that 15:6 in Hebrew does not read that way. There is no capitalized “HE.” So perhaps you score a point, but is it correct? Read the scholarship on this. May I suggest JPS knows how Pauline Christians read this, and had a point that even faith is a work of righteousness so interpolated a capitalized HE before counted, because that way faith is a work. (Remember, Paul quoted the Septuagint version, which cannot be construed that way, because it reads “it was counted to him” — eliminating the subject “he” or “He” before counted.) On this issue, the solution is not to treat this as a debate whether we each score a point. Rather, search the truth about 15:6, and you will see my article studies it in depth, and the answer is the verse reads correctly in the KJV: “Abraham believed God and he (small h) counted it to him for righteousness.”
What is left of the Law of Moses that is not fulfilled in Christ? Moses’ Law is obsolete being fulfilled by Christ. Our sacrifices are no free-will offering of good deeds. Christ is the atoning sacrifice. Christ gave His commands improving the Law as seen in Matthew 5 and Matthew 19. Do you deny this?
Jesus’ sacrificial death did away with sacrifices and the need for the Temple, its articles, and the services thereof. What’s wrong with this? What wrong with being justified by this faith in Christ Jesus. Where did Paul err? Which words of Paul tell you that he claimed the law abolished rather than fulfilled?
Again, the Law of Moses was not for the nations who were righteous who lived under a patriarchal system. The Law of Moses is eternal for Israel and the patriarchal law unto the nations, but it causes are satisfied in Christ. For what did Jonah preach to Nineveh to obey?
Scott. The law of sacrifice has not ceased but the need for more sacrifices ceased. That means you are atoned for by the law of sacrifice in the Law given Moses if you comply with Jesus’ terms for salvation. “Repent or perish.” (Luke 15.) “Heaven maimed or hell whole.” (Matt 18). However, if the Law given Moses were truly abrogated as of 33 AD for anyone thereafter, then you have no atonement in Christ because His death only paid the requirement set forth in the Law given Moses. If that Law is of no effect, then why would atonement apply to you any more? People get confused and think the payment was one time, and satisfied the Law. But that Law must still exist if you are to invoke that payment. If the Law is defunct, you cannot invoke the payment any more. This is a major flaw in Paul’s reasoning about the Law and atonement.
The solution is to recognize that Paul erred because God says the Law is “eternal for all generations.” (13 x spoken of in the Law –google it).
Moving on, Paul quoted Genesis 15:6 (which you cite to prove justification is outside the Law) in the Greek Septuagint which erred in its translation of Gen. 15:6. In Hebrew, as even the King James correctly translates “He believed God and he counted it to him for righteousness.” Well, the second “he” is an interpolation by the KJV which some editions then confuse the reader by capitalizing as “HE.” But in Hebrew the subject of “counted” is Abraham, not God. “He believed God and counted it for righteousness.” Thus, this verse had nothing to do with justification by faith in the original — it simply had Abraham counting God’s promise in 15:5 as a righteous deed of God — blessing Abraham with a promise of children in his old age. The foremost authorities agree….read http://www.jesuswordsonly.com/JWOS/chapter-26-7jwo-genesis-156.html
Finally, you keep saying that “least” is a conjecture about Paul. Obviously you are delaying reading the article I cited above where it is proven. It is not conjecture at all. Please read the article. There is no doubt that “Paulos” in Greek is a transliteration of a Latin name of “Paulus,” which is unquestionably a shortened form of Pauxilus, and that unquestionably means “least.” The other verse where “least” is mentioned is not a good comparison because it does not have, like Matt 5:17-19, a depiction of a Law loosener who teaches others not to follow the Law whom our Lord specifically calls “the Least MAN” = in greek. Paul clearly and avowedly is a Law loosener who teaches others to no longer follow the Law of Moses. (You don’t disagree.) If that passage you are drawing a comparison said that the “least” was a “law loosener”, then we would have a true parallel, but we don’t. Hence, the question remains: who is “the Least Man” who Jesus says teaches us wrongly not to follow the Law which Jesus identified in Matt 5:17-19? Who other than Paul could this fit, given Paul’s name means “Least Man” in Latin? Our Lord gave a fantastic prophecy to guide His church. [Paul’s Hebrew name was Saul. To enjoy Roman citizenship, Paul had to have a Latin name, and this was obviously Paulus, as Paulos is the transliterated form in Greek of Paulus from Latin.]
The question I put to you is the one I had to uncomfortably face six years ago: are we so wed to Paul that we will close our ears to Christ? I trust you Scott sincerely love our Lord Jesus and will pray about this. But if I am wrong, please read what I have written and respond to those points with proof. I am citing Jesus as my witness. No conjecture at all. His words. And you cannot cite Jesus to prove Paul is an apostle (see Acts 9, 22 and 26), or a prophet. So who has the better solution?
Doug
So part of the Law is gone? That doesn’t have to be only the Law of Moses. Certainly, the Law to Abraham, Melchizedek, and Jethro too. Or can be received in heaven without the sacrifice of Christ and God’s commands another way for world? Which is it? Only the Law of Moses or also the Patriarchs?
How can the Law be eternal to all when it was not given all but only the nation of Israel? By what law did the Ninevites repent? The Law only blessed those who followed the law, and the promises have no effect for those who do not obey. You said that we must keep the Law and now that part of the Law was fulfilled, so not to keep the temple, the sacrifices, and services thereof. How then is the Law eternal if part is no longer observed? Clearly, Paul did not err about this, because he said the same as you.
The LXX says the same as the Hebrew in Genesis 15:6. I’ve read them both. Do you know Hebrew better than the Jewish Publication society whose scholars took 30 years to translate the JPS where Genesis 15:6 is translated, “And he believed in HaShem; and He counted it to him for righteousness”? Do you know more than all the rabbis and Jewish leaders today who accept this translation? Why would you take Abraham for counting Yahwah to be right/justified?
I read the article days ago. It is conjecture. Jesus fulfilled the Law as you admit and thus the Law concerning offerings and the temple is no longer kept. This is what Paul taught.
You have yet to tell which of Christ’s words you accept or what Jesus said more to the His Apostles by the Spirit (John 16:12-13). Certainly, those Apostles would have taught all things that Jesus commanded (Matt. 28:20).
I believe that you are very confused and mistaken. You have yet to give any witness or premise for your beliefs. You have yet to show where Paul’s reasoning differed from Christ’s sacrifice fulfilling the need for the atonement of Moses’ offerings and temple.
“You have yet to tell which of Christ’s words you accept or what Jesus said more to the His Apostles by the Spirit (John 16:12-13). Certainly, those Apostles would have taught all things that Jesus commanded (Matt. 28:20).”
Jesus DID teach His apostles more than what is written…but you are forgetting one thing: No matter WHAT He taught them in private, it WOULD NOT CONTRAST what He already spoke. FURTHERMORE, He said Himself that He ONLY spoke what the Father gave Him – and the FATHER is NEVER-CHANGING, because He is PERFECT. Do you see where I’m going with this? The Father said the Law is ETERNAL. That means FOREVER. So no matter what Jesus taught the Apostles in private, it would have complied with that absolute truth – the Law is LIFE.
Lastly – the BIGGEST difference, though not remotely the only evidence of Paul error, is simply what we have stated again and again. Understand this: NO MATTER HOW SIMILAR YOU THINK PAUL’S TEACHING WAS TO THAT OF JESUS, PAUL TAUGHT THAT THE LAW WAS IRRELEVANT. He called it a curse, among other things. He mocked the very apostles that followed Jesus, and had open debates with them in the “letters” that you call Scripture.
There is no middle ground. Yahushua and the Father BOTH made it VERY clear what they thought about those who taught ‘lawlessness’.
But alas, this debate ha become stale, because God’s way is a failsafe. It cannot be faked. Scott and I…and many others could tell you this until we run out of breath…but until the Father removes the veil from your eyes, YOU WILL NOT SEE. And that my friend, will take a complete break down of your will…humbling yourself before the Father and asking to see TRUTH AT ALL COSTS….even at the cost of your current beliefs. There is no other way.
Until then you continue down the path through the gate that is Wide and leads to destruction.
Yet, you know that the Law of Moses was not complete and that Christ gave His commands improving the Law as seen in Matthew 5 and Matthew 19. This is an undeniable fact. Add to this that Jesus’ sacrificial death did away with sacrifices and the need for the Temple, its articles, and the services thereof. What’s wrong with this? What wrong with being justify by this faith in Christ Jesus. This is what the Apostle Paul taught and none of this contradicts the Apostles of Christ, who supported Paul and recorded the words of Christ.
What’s wrong with it is simply that it isn’t what Jesus taught. You take one or two single statements and make a religion from it, ignoring the bulk..99% of the message, refusing to understand that the two “seemingly” different statements are rectifiable. SPECIFICALLY when you believe that two different statements come from the same source.
Jesus continued what the Father started. The Torah is LIFE.
Multiple people on this article alone have pointed you to irrefutable proof that Paul contradicted Jesus at every turn. You just refuse to go and look at it.
Where?
Right. Now go break that down from the original text as well as the verses that follow instead of using a translation of a translation of a translation and maybe Yah will see fit to remove the veil from your eyes..
I was responding to ur post of peter here..missed the reply button..
Are you using an original text or are you using a translation of a translation? I can read the early NT manuscripts in their original language. Were Jesus words not kept as He promised (Matt. 24:35)?
I am studying the book, “Questioning Paul…is Christianity Right or Wrong?” at yadayahweh.com, where the author is using many resources to break down the individual words in detail from the original language…then comparing that to lexicons and other sources.
Jesus words, just as the words of the prophets, were complete and whole in the original language – each word has several meanings, all of which apply, giving a full and complete Word from the Father. Comparing them to modern translations, it is easy to see the massacre of the text, the names changed to ambiguous and pagan titles, and the blatant changes made that do not even remotely mirror the original text.
So yes, Jesus words were kept, as they were, in their language, as they were written.
That said, in the words of Jesus specifically, they appear to be more accurately translated, though often watered down. We do however have more than enough, when removing Paul from the equation, to see the necessity of the Torah and obedience…and more than enough to determine the source of salvation.
Names? Where the words that Jesus said He would give more to the Apostles (John 16:12-13)? Where are those?
Scott, if you refuse to study history and facts inasmuch as you cannot even acknowledge the changes to the placeholders for Yahweh and Yahushua, AS WELL as all of the disciples names in the translations – most, if not all of which were changed to words that have no bearing in the originals….Then you are not even doing the work of the pastors and predecessors that went before you proclaiming Paul as truth – for even THEY knew of these changes. You are debating like a child…jumping to the next question and topic without fully covering the one you’re one.
I assume that you refer to variants due to scribes across 5,500+ Greek manuscripts and 15000 other manuscripts. Yet, there are only 500 considerable variants and no doctrine is altered. You’re also not familiar with Alexandrinus and the Byzantine texts, which clarify these variants. The texts have been passed down in excellent order and greater order than any other ancient documents. Is this what you reject?
You are correct…no doctrine was altered….even as inaccurate as modern translations are, Yahushua clearly displays that the Law, the Psalms and the Prophets hold the key to salvation, and Paul still clearly obliterates that fact.
Still, no confession of whether Jesus is God and, or the Prophet?
And you have not said why YAHUSHUA being the “Prophet” or not is relevant to your argument. There is more than enough ground to cover without adding that which doesn’t matter, no?
As for whether Yahushua is “God”….That question is not as simple as ‘christians’ would like to believe. We are discussing ELOHIM, which is more of a “Godhead” than a God. I do believe that Yahushua is an Elohim…but He is clearly a separate entity than the Father. Furthermore I have come to believe through studies of the origins of the names Yahweh and Yahushua, through their definitions and linguistic roots, that they are more closely tied together than say, Yahweh and Michael the angel. Though Michael is a son of Yah, it would seem that Yahushua is more of…an actual “Son”.
I have hesitated to answer that question, because, quite plainly, I don’t see you as ready to digest alot of what is truth.
The idea that Yahushua is GOD is Paulinist…but then christianity is full of circular logic. It’s not completely their fault that they are so ignorant to truth – but circular logic has no excuse.
From Genesis to the gospels, the LAW was fully and completely defined as LIFE. Why is it so hard for you to put Paul aside? Do you not believe that you can determine the source of salvation from Genesis to the gospels without him?
So, you don’t believe that Gospel of John? You don’t believe Jesus is God in the flesh?
Because Christ in His Gospel accepted the Apostles who accepted Paul.
Again, this is a mistranslation/misunderstanding based on the concept of the Godhead and the fact that Yah, the Father, and Yahushua, the Son, are two different entities. So in a sense, yes, I believe He is “God” – being that “God” comprises both the Father and the Son as well as the Holy Spirit and potentially other Elohim that are not “ours”.
The Apostles did not accept Paul. It states this in Acts, Paul tears down the “super-apostles” at every turn, and near every Pauline letter was in some way a rebuttal to debates going on with them.
Scott. One more thing. You say no one can prove Paul a false prophet. Right? What is the definition of a false prophet? Anyone who seduces “you from following the Law” given Moses? Check out Deut. 13:1-5. And if anyone seduces you from following any of the 10 Commandments, also known as the Testimony, Isaiah 8:20 says it is because “there is no light” in such a person. God also condemned the ravening wolves who will teach you not to follow Sabbath, and the rest of God’s Law in Ezekiel 22. So it is obvious in Scripture that the false prophet is the same person Jesus condemns as the Least Man in Matt 5:17-19—which happens to be the meaning of Paul’s name — its Latin derivative “Pauxilus” as I proved earlier. Hence, yes, we have proved Paul a false apostle because (1) all Christian interpreters agree Paul “abolished Sabbath” in Col. 2:16-7 and Romans 14:16 (I collect all the leaders of the Reformation and scholars today who agree at http://www.jesuswordsonly.com/JWO/paul-abolished-sabbath.html) — FYI Sabbath is one of the 10 Commandments, and (2) Paul made numerous remarks about the abolition of the entire Torah which I collect in JWO chapter 5, which you can read online at http://www.jesuswordsonly.com/JWO/chapter-five-jwo.html …
Hence, these verses prove conclusively Paul is a false prophet — and unless you hold a very odd view on this topic, all of modern Protestant Christianity agrees Paul abrogated the Law.
My position on the Law itself is very literal like James was…e.g., circumcision in Leviticus 12 is only on “Israel,” not the Gentiles / Sojourners who otherwise have varying degrees of compliance required to the Law in Leviticus…. mostly just the 10 commandments are repeated as applicable to Gentiles. So my goal is to esteem those who are “the greatest in the kingdom” which our Lord defined as those who “teach” us to “keep the commandments” in the Law. (Matt 5:20.) But most Christians today are trained through a non-Jesus lense — the lense of Paul — to regard this as heretical legalism! So what our Lord taught is dumped.
Hence, indeed Paul is a false prophet and cannot be deemed truly canonical. Tertullian in 207 AD in Against Marcion actually suggested that Paul was a false prophet warned of by Jesus, especially since no quote from Jesus proves Paul an apostle (only a martus / witness, which you also still do not answer). Tertullian – -an orthodox leader of the early church– wrote: ” He [i.e., Paul] himself, says Marcion, claims to be an apostle, and that not from men nor through any man, but through Jesus Christ. Clearly any man can make claims for himself: but his claim is confirmed by another person’s attestation. One person writes the document, another signs it, a third attests the signature, and a fourth enters it in the records. No man is for himself both claimant and witness. Besides this, you have found it written that many will come and say, I am Christ. If there is one that makes a false claim to be Christ, much more can there be one who professes that he is an apostle of Christ…. [L]et the apostle, belong to your other god:…. (Tertullian, Against Marcion (Oxford University Press, 1972) at 509, 511, reprinted online athttp://www.tertullian.org/articles/evans_marc/ evans_marc_12book5_eng.htm.)
I think Tertullian thus very succinctly referenced our own Lord Jesus Christ condemning Paul as on the same plain as a false prophet by falsely claiming to be an apostle, and thus Paul belonged to another god.
I trust you will agree Paul is a false prophet. If not, why not?
Blessings and Shalom
Doug
Yet, only an eye-witness can testify of what he saw, and these are those were sent by Christ. Paul bore witness of the resurrection of Jesus. Was he wrong? Did he lie?
Did not Abraham come before the law by which he was justified by believing God? How can I be justified by the Law when all the Law reveals are laws that confirm the righteous and condemn the sinner? I have sinned more than Moses. How we not be cursed (Deut. 27:26)? How could I keep the Law without the Temple or the tabernacle or has Jesus fulfilled the need for sacrifices and I don’t have to observe that part of the Law? Are you saying that the Law concerning the services of the Temple are to be laid aside without any word from Christ about this? How can you answer in light of Christ without telling me where His words and what scriptures I can trust? Jesus said that His words would never pass away (Matt. 24:35). Do you want me to consider standing on sand? How do I even know that either one of you refer to Hebrews or to any scripture?
Do you only reject Paul because he loosed the Law? According to you, what other errors did he teaching not in regards to the Law?
I would like to point out that what Yahushua meant was that His words…the essence…the POINT….would stand. Not the translations.
Scott, I agree with Branson. You are not studying anything I wrote, and then assuming I didn’t answer any of these issues. First, my #1 witness was Jesus about the “least man.” You don’t refute that. You try to nibble on a different issue about what did Jesus mean when He said that Moses through the hardness of your heart permitted divorce. But what you imply is not true. Jesus did not then tell us not to follow Moses’ authorization. In fact, Jesus permitted divorce too for adultery. So what was Jesus’ point? God did not want to make allowance for divorce, but due to man’s sin (adultery), Moses had to adjust and make allowance for an exception against divorce that God otherwise had no intention of allowing. Jesus did not say Moses was uninspired in doing so. Do you think so? Do you then think Moses was not inspired? Follow your point and that is what you were implying. But what Jesus truly meant does not dispute Moses’ inspiration. Just simply that God did not intend divorce in any circumstances “from the beginning.” As to second Peter, I discuss that at my website thoroughly. http://www.jesuswordsonly.com/Recommended-Reading/second-peter-reference-to-paul.html I wish 2d Peter were inspired writings, but alas most scholars agree Peter should know how to spell his own name Simon, and for a lot of other reasons, it is a 3d century forgery – the only such book clearly present in our NT. Regardless, the fact the author says Paul is “scripture” does not mean what you think it means. The “Scripture” section of the Bible in that era,…and for centuries earlier, was the 3d section where material not yet confirmed as inspired was kept — check it out at http://knol.google.com/k/writings-section-of-original-bible-of-the-jews#. So the premise you have is wrong. I explain this in more detail in the page I cited. Before I go on, I would like you Scott to honestly address whether Jesus was a witness against Paul in 5:17-19. Don’t go into your doctrine that “new” covenant replaces “old covenant” before you address this,because you assuming the validity of verses from Paul alone which teach that is how to understand the “new” covenant passages. I explain in detail that this is a false reading…see the last chapter of JWO. But before we go there, you have to explain “the least man” in 5:17-19. But you have distracted yourself from confronting what your Lord Jesus is saying…. Don’t listen to me. Listen to Jesus, and then tell me what you heard. Is there any rebuttal to the point? Blessings and Shalom. Doug
“Do you then think Moses was not inspired? Follow your point and that is what you were implying. But what Jesus truly meant does not dispute Moses’ inspiration. Just simply that God did not intend divorce in any circumstances “from the beginning.” ”
This is accurate, and complies with the truth of what Yahushua taught – the observance of the commandments of the Father….the Torah, the Psalms, and the Prophets. Christians get stopped in their tracks because they assume that we are to obey every little tittle and jot in the Law IF Jesus taught us to obey God’s commandments….but that isn’t accurate. We are to “observe” the Torah, Psalms and Prophets….which is altogether different. The Father wants us to know Him…to understand why the Laws are in place and why they are what they are. This is why Moses was allowed to make an alteration – because our Father is someone we can reason with even though His laws are in place and always will be. We are to study them…and when we sin, the blood sacrifice originally present in the Torah was fulfilled with Yahushua in the place of the animal. Bottom line – Paul is the worker of iniquity, the man of LAWLESSNESS, because that is what he taught. Yahushua taught the opposite.
The Torah is LIFE.
Who do think Jesus was? Do you believe that He is the Christ, the Prophet and, or the Word being God in the flesh?
Again, “the least” is speculation, a massive conjecture to stretch Paul into the Latin for least. That’s word-wrangling! Should we conclude that Jesus’ reference to “the least of these My brethren” (Matt. 25:40, 45) is reference specifically to Paul too? What foolishness! You’re going to have to show this is all much more than man-made baseless conjectures.
I never said that Moses was uninspired. You admit, “God did not want to make allowance for divorce, but due to man’s sin (adultery), Moses had to adjust and make allowance for an exception against divorce that God otherwise had no intention of allowing.” What I imply is what Jesus meant when He said, “Moses, because of the hardness of your hearts, permitted you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so.” That’s the Law of Moses being incomplete.
There is not one scholar who rejects 2 Peter with any proof. It is outright prejudice. You can’t pick up a book look at the name of the author and accuse it of being a forgery without sinning, slandering, and bearing false witness. You charge the writer of 2 Peter with bearing false witness of Peter’s name and his witness with John of the transfiguration. Those are not the marks of sincere forger, but of a liar. These must be your charges against the writer and yet you have no eye-witnesses and you thereby bear false witness. Add to this that Clement of Rome referred to “the scripture” referring to 2 Peter 3:4 (Clement 23:3), who wrote before the destruction of the temple in 70 AD (Clement 41:2). Add to this the other affirming witness of Peter’s personal references. How could this now be a 3rd c. forgery when Origen even made reference to 2 Peter? How could 2 Peter be accepted by many when the 2rd c. writings of the Gospel of Peter and the Apocalypse of Peter were rejected by all?
You have yet to show what scriptures that you accept. What words of Christ can anyone consider if you don’t otherwise tell them?
Whether or not 2 Peter is a forgery is irrelevant when u study the original texts regardin the ONE passage u use to defend Paul. When and if u do, u will clearly see that the author was by no means implying that Paul was inspired or an apostle…so no offense but regarding the validity of Paul, this point of conversation is moot..
“as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, has written to you, as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures.”
He is the Messiah, the Son of Yahweh..and the perpetual sacrifice for sin for those who believe what He taught..which contrasts what paul taught..
Do you believe that Jesus is God being once God in the flesh? Do not believe that He is the Prophet of Deuteronomy 18?
Are we to keep the Torah or not? Being that Christ is the perpetual sacrifice, should we set aside the Law concerning offerings and the temple? Did Jesus fulfill the Law in this that we obey 10 commandments and not others concerning worship? Are we to keep the Law or not?