So you think Luke was a false scribe and prophet?
Christopher Joel Dandrow
| 2008/1/17 21:31||Profile|
| Re: Who anointed Paul???|
I am only removing Luke because he is not one of the 11 breathed upon Apostles.
For all any of us know, he was in the upper room, and was a witness to it all, but he doesn't say so.
All of his information may have gotten to him second or third hand, so for the extent of proving Paul valid through what Jesus said, and the 11 breathed upon Apostles, supported by the Septuagint, which was validated by Jesus,Luke is not a valid souce.
And please recall, I want Paul validated...by the 11 and Jesus. I am not playing scriptural or doctrinal games...I want to KNOW, and be sure of the witnesses.
If Paul cannot stand without, there is something seriously wrong.
| 2008/1/17 21:50||Profile|
"I am only removing Luke because he is not one of the 11 breathed upon Apostles."
But who gave you that right Forrest?
About knowing, John wrote that it is the anointing that teaches all things.
Luke gives testimony tht the things he learned he learned from the Apostles and eye witnesess.
Edit: I think Luke also indicates that he became an eyewitness in Acts 16:10, where it says "we".
Christopher Joel Dandrow
| 2008/1/17 21:54||Profile|
Santa Clara, CA
| Re: Rewriting the scriptures ...|
This is practically unbelievable ...
Who anointed Forrest is the real question here.
Saul claimed to be anointed by Jesus ...
Yet Paul made a lot of rules for Gentiles to live by. Was that his job? In converting the Gentiles, was he to also tell them how to live?
Or merely to give them Jesus' message on grace?
Did Paul overstep his bounds? For there are conflicts in what Paul said that conflict with what the other Apostles said, and even what Jesus said.
For those that love Paul and his message, please note that this is a question on doctrine, not an attack on Paul's message of Grace through Faith.
I simply want to discuss why God would have Paul contradict some things that Jesus said...is it merely contextual?
But many people question not the message of Paul, but his frequently odd behavior.
Let this not be personal, but a true discussion of points that bother many people about Paul. And they do bother people...enough to lead them away from Christianity, or to doubt God's message.
And I am asking because I am asked these questions, and I'd like to have some really good answers...if there are any!
Not an attack, not personal? "Paul claimed", "Paul is conflicted", just the way these questions are framed ... But you are yet proving otherwise, that your intention is not merely for those who are asking you but because you yourself have unresolved issues and want a contest, not answers. Furthermore how do expect this to be not 'personal' by using terminology such as "Paulites" ...
This is a load of rubbish. You have already attempted to make Paul suspect with your 'odd behavior' and taking a colloquialism to be a lie and a 'problem'. You would rewrite the scriptures to suit your own taste and come here to challenge, no contest, by making us the ones bearing the burden of proof? I do not know what you have been reading or where you are getting these notions, but assuredly as MC put it someplace there are some who have no real intentions of seeking answers only rounds and rounds of endless point counter point, trying to get someone to back down and using scripture to support it all. It is dishonest, disheartening and grievous and that is about as mildly as I can put it ...
Actually, there is an indignation that I cannot even fathom trying to burst through here while simultaneously trying to suppress some of the blasphemous things you are stating. You are attempting to dissect, discredit and separate the word of God, the apostles didn't have an issue with Paul whatsoever and to hear mere wordlings attempt to supplant even them ... It's ludicrous. Unfathomable. This is rank heresy. Who the hell do you think you are? You would like to disallow this and disallow that? You have doubt's about this authorship and that? Are you a liberal theologian? Why should we be taking anything you state as serious inquiry? You do not want anything proved true except your foolish notions. Off the deep end Forrest. I could but pray you seriously reconsider just what it is you think you are doing, the scriptures are written not for your amusement to pit your intellect against but for our learning last and God's glory first ... This certainly has the truest sense of "Has God said?" that I have yet to see here. You have made it personal alright and you need to be humbled from your high mindedness.
You are damn right you have some outrage ...
| 2008/1/17 23:27||Profile|
** post deleted by author
One of these days I'll learn to censor my thoughts and stifle my impulses.
Mike B - I share your frustration.
Paul Frederick West
| 2008/1/18 0:01||Profile|
Luke 1:1-3 Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us, Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word; It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus,
Acts 1:1-3 The former treatise have I made, O Theophilus, of all that Jesus began both to do and teach, Until the day in which he was taken up, after that he through the Holy Ghost had given commandments unto the apostles whom he had chosen: To whom also he shewed himself alive after his passion by many infallible proofs, being seen of them forty days, and speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God:
This was Luke and Paul;
Acts 27:1 And when it was determined that we should sail into Italy, they delivered Paul and certain other prisoners unto one named Julius, a centurion of Augustus' band.
This we is Luke and Paul;
Col 4:14 Luke, the beloved physician, and Demas, greet you.
2Ti 4:11 Only Luke is with me. Take Mark, and bring him with thee: for he is profitable to me for the ministry.
Luke was with Paul from the beginning and went almost everywhere Paul went. Luke was Paul's doctor and did most of His writing for him. Pauls eyes were bad and he makes a big deal of writing in his own hand.
Colossians 4:18 The salutation by the hand of me Paul. Remember my bonds. Grace be with you. Amen.
Tertius wrote Romans for Paul. Luke wrote Acts for history and Paul.
If we disregard Luke and Paul, that wipes out the Acts, Gospel of Luke, and most of Paul's writings written by other that for Pauls hand, but His seal was always on all of His epistles and all knew it was Paul. There were false epistles being written and Paul's salutation was well known.
A personal prejudice I can understand toward Paul, but a biblical truth prejudice I cannot see in any of the scriptures and written by the hand of God through the Holy Spirit, which all scripture is given by. This is truly an attack on the Word of God and its blotting out the greatest Apostle there is to the born again believer in Christ. The in Christ position of Paul is truly under attack from all sides.
In Christ: Phillip
| 2008/1/18 1:14||Profile|
| Re: Who Anointed Paul???|
Reply to Forrest
Forrest take some time and think about who is writing and when he is writing and what he is writing and who established those churches and Who is standing in their midst.
Saying, I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last and what thou seest, write in a book, and send it unto the seven churches which are in Asia; unto Ephesus, and unto Smyrna, and unto Pergamos, and unto Thyatira, and unto Sardis, and unto Philadelphia, and unto Laodicea.
And I turned to see the voice that spake with me. And being turned, I saw seven golden candlesticks and in the midst of the seven candlesticks one like unto the Son of man, clothed with a garment down to the foot, and girt about the paps with a golden girdle.
His head and his hairs were white like wool, as white as snow; and his eyes were as a flame of fire and his feet like unto fine brass, as if they burned in a furnace and his voice as the sound of many waters and he had in his right hand seven stars and out of his mouth went a sharp twoedged sword and his countenance was as the sun shineth in his strength.
Forrest you are painting outside the lines.
| 2008/1/18 3:52||Profile|
Amen and Amen,Phillip
| 2008/1/18 8:21|
your outrage is too,, tooo much. over the top and sounds like you are expressing it in this manner because you don't have a good response to Forrest's point.
What he has said here about Paul has always bothered me. as has the doctrine of Grace by Faith alone. if a person has faith but produces a life of wretchedness, Jesus' word speaks against it. (pay attention to the fruits!!)
What are the fruits of this doctrine? Corruption! the shameful idea that while we go on sinning today, we can still repent tomorrow and all will be right between us and God. this is the fruit of Paul's corrupted religion.
Paul may well have been earnest and thought he was doing the work of God, but throughout his writings i hear his ego coming through. he believes fully in the saving Grace of Jesus, but it is Him (Paul) who is going to be the pivitol person because, without him (paul), all the wonderful works and testimony of Jesus would just fall by the wayside of history.
| 2008/1/18 11:11|
| Re: Who Anointed Paul???|
Paul may well have been earnest and thought he was doing the work of God, but throughout his writings i hear his ego coming through.
The KJV did something to the New Testament which is hard to pin down, but philologos has mentioned it from time to time - something about making the people in charge sound more officially appointed by God, with words like 'office' - when the Greek does not justify the distance it creates between church leaders and the flock. The equality comes through best in verses such as
'...submitting to one another in the fear of God
in the context of Ephesians 5:20
'...giving thanks always for all things to God the Father in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ..'
We could discuss other examples of this, but I'd rather put you on to something which changed my view of Paul considerably - as a by-product of simply reading. It was Tyndale's New Testament, (edited by David Daniell, with modern English spelling) - 83% of which is retained by the KJV -
that I found Paul coming through in a much more loving and gentle spirit. I was blown away by the changes I could [i]really see[/i] God had made in him - from having been a mean Pharisee who hunted down early Christians.
Honestly, if you are serious about understanding the meaning of the New Testament, this work would amply reward your effort, and the flow of the translation is (to my dull mind) some times clearer than the KJV. Paul certainly sounds less pompous. I began to understand things that are [u]identical[/u] in the KJV, which had completely by-passed my cognisance, simply by reading Tyndale. I can't promise the same would happen to you, but Corinthians especially showed him up in a much better light, under Tyndale's pen.
I have to say though, that when I compared sentence for sentence with the KJV I was often surprised to find them identical, but the linkage had seemed to make some difference.
| 2008/1/18 11:46|