Quote:I think Paul wouldn't be offended by any of this. I think that he would be delighted to prove his Apostleship if someone would like to investigate him. I am sure he would say, "come along with me and take notice of the things ye will see and hear; how the blind see, the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, to the poor the gospel is preached.
Who the hell do you think you are? You are damn right you have some outrage
I don't think we should be zealously offended, unless someone is trying to destroy the very foundations of our faith. Is that what Forrest is doing? Or is she asking a question, "Who anointed Paul"? I think it's a good question to ask.
We should all be asking ourselves as part of our judging ourselves is, "Why do I believe what I believe". It's good to take a spiritual inventory on our beliefs and the ones that influence us.
| 2008/1/19 17:53|
"Who anointed Paul"? I think it's a good question to ask.
The "Who Anointed Paul" question is a favorite among liberal theologians and skeptics and those otherwise intent on bashing down the infallibility of Holy Scripture. The answer to the question is a very obvious and simple and non-negotiable one - [i]God[/i] anointed Paul. But when a person (especially one professing to be a mature believer and a "reverend" teacher of babes) asks this, it is meant to be a snare and can only mean one thing: the person is not persuaded that Paul was anointed and appointed by God to pen infallible scripture. It is a subtle way of asking "Hath God said" without coming right out and plucking the fruit. What many do not realise, however, is that the person asking this question has already made up his or her mind and is challenging everyone else to prove it wrong.
It's good to take a spiritual inventory on our beliefs and the ones that influence us.
This is relating to a matter completely different. We are encouraged to examine ourselves as to our footing in the truth, but not to consider if heresy has any truth for us to stand in.
Paul Frederick West
| 2008/1/19 18:17||Profile|
The "Who Anointed Paul" question is a favorite among liberal theologians and skeptics and those otherwise intent on bashing down the infallibility of Holy Scripture. The answer to the question is very obvious and simple and non-negotiable - God anointed Paul. But when a person (especially one professing to be a mature believer and a "reverend" teacher of babes) asks this, it can only mean one thing: They are not persuaded that Paul was anointed and appointed by God to pen infallible scripture. It is a subtle way of asking "Hath God said" without coming right out and plucking the fruit. What many do not realise, however, is that the person asking this question has already made up his or her mind and is challenging everyone else to prove it wrong.
And it will do no good and will left without profit if just stay playing here on similar question and not going a bit deeper to the root of the problem.
And that is when man doesn't want to submit to some of the God's commandments, and instead he/she to be changed under the authority of the Scriptures, he/she is trying to change the Scriptures with similar questions with the purpose to be fit into their theology as an excuse to their lifestyle or 'ministry'.
There is no life and there is no 'ministry' unto the Holy One of Israel outside of His will and His principles.
K.Daniel used to say:
"Shame on you liberal theologians sending people to hell so you can keep a job."
| 2008/1/19 18:33||Profile|
Quote:I am using it differently as well. Judging ourselves can involve different things including the re evaluation of those whom we think highly of. For example, someone might begin to think differently of Benny Hinn whom they have supported for many years.
This is relating to a matter completely different.
I have to contend on this end with my Family whom they think that Paul was more of a trouble maker then an Apostle. I have challenged them to give me any scripture that they think is not of God that Paul wrote and I will give them a spiritual answer of understanding. I haven't had any one come forward yet.
| 2008/1/19 18:47|
I had copied the long long post you had on page 5 using much of what Phillip said, to make your point that Paul was a lone wolf.
I need remind you, this is only Phillip's opinion.
May I address some points here:
1. The Gospel for one is not PAUL's Gospel.
2. Paul was ordained by God as the 12 Apostle, chosen by God, and not the 12 to replace Judas, chosen by man.
3. Only the Gospel of Matthew deals with the Kingdom age teachings to Israel.
( Therefore, Jesus DID preach the Gospel to the Jews) in John.
The Mystery that Phillip wants you to believe was only given to Paul is in John 17...the "Mystery of Christ in you", that we all may be ONE is explicitly stated in John!
I am crucified with Christ is John Chapter 6..."to eat my flesh and drink my blood".
Just to make a few points here, so you won't believe there is exclusivity with Paul, not given to the other Apostles.
The Mystery given to Paul is clearly stated that HE was to bring this news and that the Gentiles would also be partakers of the Mystery of Christ in you.
All the other apostles completely compliment Paul and vise versa.
Many things that Jesus said in parables etc, are the teachings of the Mystery.
How can one exceed the righteousness of the pharisees unless it is the righteousness of Christ in them that is what does exceed.
All scripture or truth must have two or three witnesses, as do any chosen of God. Paul was NOT a lone wolf without the witnesses of the other Apostles testimony in the Gospel. That comment is cultish and heresy itself.
Paul laid the foundation of salvation going back to the beginning of Genesis beginning in Romans 1...and this was no secret only given to Paul.
Paul spent 14 years on the backside of a mountain as the Lord taught him from the Old Testament...showing Paul Himself ...Jesus Christ in the Old Testament.
Jesus divided Himself the difference between the Kingdom in Matthew, coming after the Church age, and showed this to Paul in 1st Corinthians.
*Christ the first fruits, then those who are His at his coming...then the Kingdom etc*.
Paul more fully lays out in layman's terms all Jesus taught in the Gospels.
Paul was the only Apostle called to the Gentiles and how the Gentiles are partakers of the Covenants of Promise.
Paul more fully explains teh New birth in Romans 6-8...
Those Covenants of Promise were no secret that only Paul knew and understood.....but 14 years learning from the Lord the other Apostles only had 3 1/2. Paul was also caught up to the third heaven,.... none of the others were.
If Paul held the mysteries of everything, then he would have written Revelation as well after his trip up to the third heaven.
However that was given to John, who also completely compliments all the prophets and Apostles and Jesus Christ Himself.
The Scriptures are complete from A-Z. And no where do any scriptures conflict with one another.
Any conflict of scripture is the conflict in man's mind trying to understand.
Present yourselves a living sacrifice, for the renewing of your mind, and I guarantee the Lord will answer any conflicts you may have.
I could go on, but I believe this is enough evidence to make my point. You seemed to be justifying your statements on Philip's comments.
To see anyone decimate Paul epistles is much of where the great apostasy is coming from to begin with.
To discredit Paul gives the Gays one more feather in their cap to say homosexuality is ok. Paul most clearly states in Romans 1 IT IS NOT. AND it is much of why the the Gay community HATES teh teachings of Paul, and the liberal and Emergent Church who want to desecrate the Pauline Epistles for their own distructive ends!
I've met many Paul bashers and all have an agenda for doing so!
Love in Christ
| 2008/1/19 18:51|
Quote:Oh but it was Katy. Consider these verse.
Katy-did said: The Gospel for one is not PAUL's Gospel.
Romans 2:16 In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel.
Romans 16:25 Now to him that is of power to establish you according to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began,
2 Timothy 2:8 Remember that Jesus Christ of the seed of David was raised from the dead according to my gospel:
| 2008/1/19 19:36|
| Re: Who Anointed Paul???|
I'm really surprised by the main paragraph in your last post.
Quote:Does this mean there is not a reasoned way to respond to it?
The "Who Anointed Paul" question is a favorite among liberal theologians
Quote:Again, if this is true, then are you saying you can't be bothered engaging at a deeper level with such questions - a straightforward declamation is your limit - or, you simply [i]assume[/i] that anyone asking them has no [i]intention[/i] of being persuaded by truth?
and skeptics and those otherwise intent on bashing down the infallibility of Holy Scripture.
Quote:But by your own testimony, this was not always how your mind believed. So, why the impatience with those still being tossed by doubt, and most likely, a completely different academic sophistocation from your former mindset?
The answer to the question is a very obvious and simple and non-negotiable one - God anointed Paul.
Quote:How can you be sure? Seriously?
But when a person (especially one professing to be a mature believer and a "reverend" teacher of babes) asks this, it is meant to be a snare and can only mean one thing:
Quote:Again, how can you be sure this is so absolutely true, that you have written it thus?
the person is not persuaded that Paul was anointed and appointed by God to pen infallible scripture.
Quote:Again, while it may have had that potential if it had been asked to ensnare a group of [i]babes[/i]-in-Christ, Forrest has chosen to come to what she apparently deemed a place of safety both for her, and for the answers to those with the questions; that is, to a group of believers [u]even more mature than herself[/u], [i]she hoped[/i], and made clear early on in this thread..... by her very asking.
It is a subtle way of asking "Hath God said" without coming right out and plucking the fruit.
Quote:Do you know this for a fact? Could you quote anything which justifies this assertion, please?
What many do not realise, however, is that the person asking this question has already made up his or her mind ...
Quote:It may be a challenge, but does that make it 'wrong' [i]per se[/i] as you seem to imply? And if it is not an actual sin to consider the question with our best brain in gear, then why not make the attempt?
and is challenging everyone else to prove it wrong.
Perhaps I am misjudging the tones in some of the posts so far, and of course I realise there may be those who have chosen private communication by way of entreaty on some points, but... and no-one need answer this ... I honestly cannot see why these questions have been given this brusque treatment.
Is there a thread already which deals with these considerations?
| 2008/1/19 19:53|
Quote:Yes, that's what I don't understand. I may have missed it, but don't think there have been any specifics quoted.
I have to contend on this end with my Family whom they think that Paul was more of a trouble maker then an Apostle. [u]I have challenged them to give me any scripture that they think is not of God that Paul wrote[/u] and I will give them a spiritual answer of understanding. I haven't had any one come forward yet.
Forrest, if you [i]could[/i] give some examples of chapter and verse please? it would help such a lot. I'm certain there won't be found to be any real [i]doctrinal[/i] conflict, even when it may seem that way to you.
Circumstances, cultures and customs have changed greatly since Paul's day. Some of his rulings and advice may not, [i]as such[/i], be so relevant to us (such as the issue of food offered to idols, circumcision, or even the still controversial question of head-covering). However, even if some of the cultural things may be different, the [i][b]spiritual principles[/b][/i] behind them still stand.
There may be room for a certain amount of flexibility on practical issues, church organisation etc, but [i][b]in moral, doctrinal and spiritual issues, there can be no change[/b][/i], neither is there any real conflict with what Jesus said...
That is the ground of innerancy
| 2008/1/19 20:08|
Linn, I'm really in no mood to go tit-for-tat with you here. Others might be willing to take you up on it, but I'm tired. I believe that what I wrote can stand all by itself, and, frankly, I'm a little surprised that [i]you're suprised[/i] at my post. I see you've dissected just about every line of what I wrote for the purpose of advocating what most here outright reject.
I'm not quite sure you understand the severity of this thread, and nothing I can say here will obviously change that. We've been through this before in other posts, and I've always found it best to just go our separate ways. Please respect my decision to disengage whatever you were hoping for in terms of a reply.
Paul Frederick West
| 2008/1/19 20:25||Profile|
| Re: Who Anointed Paul???|
I am not seeking what you call a 'tit-for-tat' but, I felt your comments were particularly undermining of the [i]person[/i], rather than reflecting an honest attempt to wrestle with the challenge of the [i]questions[/i].
Yes, I have read the whole thread, thank you. I deliberately stayed out of it earlier, because I thought the brethren would answer with a decent level of academic prowess, but I am genuinely amazed at the lack of forensic engagement with the topic.
There would be no shame in concluding Paul's doctrine [i]cannot[/i] be justified from other scriptures, but the attempts were too sketchy to reach a conclusion. It's been a baffling spectacle.
| 2008/1/19 21:36|