| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
guardian Snow
Guest
|
 Posted: Mon Aug 18, 2008 12:22 am Post subject: Re: Proof Paul was not saved, Acts 20:26 |
 |
|
On Aug 18, 9:29 am, "John Gardner" <gardner1...@shaw.ca> wrote:
| Quote: | I came late to this discussion and probably my point has already been made
better by others than I could state it. But here goes...
If we (you!) are going to drum Paul out of the canon, what of the
interactions between Paul and Peter (and others)? I'm thinking esp of 2
Peter 3 (ASV):
Was Peter bamboozled by Paul? Did he (Peter) not have a great platform --
and duty! - in his letters and utterances in Acts to sound an apostate alarm
on Paul if that was his conviction? But he didn't - Peter addressed Paul as
"beloved brother" and merely noted the harm done to the "ignorant and
unstedfast " by their own misuse of Paul's words.
This is starting to sound a bit like post-911 revisionist "history" where
EVERYBODY was in on the conspiracy. Out with it -- who ELSE is off the
honour roll now??
John
|
Better late then never John and might I add, excellent questions and a
fair understanding to ask. In order to understand the relationship
between Peter and Paul, we must first understand the history. Peter
was the Rock of the new church:
Mat 16:18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon
this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not
prevail against it.
So Peter was ordained to lead the earthly ministry of the Messiah.
This is confirmed by Luke in Acts 15:
Act 15:7 And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and
said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago
God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear
the word of the gospel, and believe.
The gentiles were to "hear the word" of the Good News by his mouth and
believe. Paul didn't like this when he was sent away with chosen men
of the church and disobeyed them.
Act 15:25 It seemed good unto us, being assembled with one accord, to
send chosen men unto you WITH our beloved Barnabas and Paul,
Paul ended up ditching them all out with bitter contention.
Act 15:37 And Barnabas determined to take with them John, whose
surname was Mark.
Act 15:38 But Paul thought not good to take him with them, who
departed from them from Pamphylia, and went not with them to the
work.
Act 15:39 And the contention was so sharp between them, that they
departed asunder one from the other: and so Barnabas took Mark, and
sailed unto Cyprus;
Paul didn't want to bring John but Barnabas had learned the truth from
Peter.
Gal 2:13 And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch
that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation.
Paul hated circumcision and the keeping of the Torah and rebelled
against the desires of the church and went on:
Gal 1:22 And was unknown by face unto the churches of Judaea which
were in Christ:
He lied about the results of that trial. It was said:
Act 15:19 Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which
from among the Gentiles are turned to God:
Act 15:20 But that we write unto them, that they abstain from
pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled,
and from blood.
Act 15:21 For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach
him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day.
The lie that Paul told was:
Gal 2:9 And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars,
perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and
Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the
heathen, and they unto the circumcision.
Gal 2:10 Only they would that we should remember the poor; the same
which I also was forward to do.
Nothing of the sort was said in the church.
To address what your speaking of, you must first remember this:
Mat 13:24 Another parable put he forth unto them, saying, The kingdom
of heaven is likened unto a man which sowed good seed in his field:
Mat 13:25 But while men slept, his enemy came and sowed tares among
the wheat, and went his way.
Mat 13:26 But when the blade was sprung up, and brought forth fruit,
then appeared the tares also.
Mat 13:27 So the servants of the householder came and said unto him,
Sir, didst not thou sow good seed in thy field? from whence then hath
it tares?
Mat 13:28 He said unto them, An enemy hath done this. The servants
said unto him, Wilt thou then that we go and gather them up?
Mat 13:29 But he said, Nay; lest while ye gather up the tares, ye
root up also the wheat with them.
Mat 13:30 Let both grow together until the harvest: and in the time
of harvest I will say to the reapers, Gather ye together first the
tares, and bind them in bundles to burn them: but gather the wheat
into my barn.
Peter would have heard this parable and understood it all to well.
The good seed and the tares would be allowed to "GROW TOGETHER". Now
closely consider what it was that Peter wrote in his letter:
2Pe 3:14 So then, beloved ones, looking forward to this, do your
utmost to be found by Him in peace, spotless and blameless,
2Pe 3:15 and reckon the patience of our Master as deliverance, as also
our beloved brother Sha’ul wrote to you, according to the wisdom given
to him,
First we must recognize that he is called "BROTHER" Paul and not
Apostle. Notice Peter says, "according to the wisdom given him"... in
other words, it's not the same wisdom that the Messiah gave Peter.
2Pe 3:16 as also in all his letters, speaking in them concerning these
matters, in which some are hard to understand,1 which those who are
untaught and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do also
the other Scriptures.
What many think is an endorsement here, if you read carefully, you
understand is a cleverly worded rebuke of "all his letters", keeping
in mind that Rome was the power in control of the land he says that
those who are "untaught" twist to their own destruction. What would
they have been untaught in? The pre-messianic scriptures because keep
in mind that Paul wasn't canonized into the Roman Catholic Bible at
that time.
2Pe 3:17 You, then, beloved ones, being forewarned, watch, lest you
also fall from your own steadfastness, being led away with the
delusion of the lawless,
Forewarned, watch, lest you also fall, being led away with the
delusion of the lawless are not a endorsement.
2Pe 3:18 but grow in the favour and knowledge of our Master and
Saviour יהושע Messiah. To Him be the esteem both now and to a day that
abides. Amĕn.
BUT we are to grow in favour and knowledge of OUR Master and Saviour.
Peter was not fooled at any point by Paul but he also understood that
he was not to be stopped and because of the lies of Paul, men have
made the scriptures the most popular book in the history of mankind...
because men love the darkness.
Joh 3:19 “And this is the judgment, that the light has come into the
world, and men loved the darkness rather than the light, for their
works were wicked.
Joh 3:20 “For everyone who is practising evil matters hates the light
and does not come to the light, lest his works should be exposed.
Let your works be good works so that they might praise our Father in
heaven. Faith alone does not save you.
Mat 5:16 “Let your light so shine before men, so that they see your
good works and praise your Father who is in the heavens.
Jas 2:20 But do you wish to know, O foolish man, that the belief
without the works is dead?
Jas 2:21 Was not Aḇraham our father declared right by works when he
offered YitshĚŁaq his son on the altar?
Jas 2:22 Do you see that the belief was working with his works, and by
the works the belief was perfected?
Jas 2:23 And the Scripture was filled which says, “Aḇraham believed
Elohim, and it was reckoned to him for righteousness.” And he was
called, “Elohim’s friend.”
Jas 2:24 You see, then, that a man is declared right by works, and not
by belief alone.
Gen 26:5 because Aḇraham obeyed My voice and guarded My Charge: My
commands, My laws, and My Torot1.” Footnote: 1Torot - plural of Torah,
teaching
Shalom,
*´¨)
¸.•´ ¸.•*´¨) ¸.•*¨)
(¸.•´ (¸.• (Snow(.¸.•*´¨)
(Mar 16:2) (Mar 16:9) (Luk 18:12) (Luk 24:1)
(Joh 20:1) (Joh 20:19) (Act 20:7) (1Co 16:2) (Heb 4:9)
Each of these verses that have the word Sabbath removed.
Beliefs have the power to create and the power to destroy. Human
beings have the awesome ability to take any experience of their lives
and create a meaning that disempowers them or one that can literally
save their lives.
Tony Robbins
Portions of this post have been reprinted from (Scriptures +1998)
version which you can download for free at
http://www.isr-messianic.org/
Please come post your comments at
http://groups.google.com/group/messianicYehoshua
A moderated forum.
http://www.ucg.org/index.htm
A Worldwide Sabbath practicing Church. |
|
| |
|
 Back to top |
John Gardner
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 18, 2008 4:29 am Post subject: Re: Proof Paul was not saved, Acts 20:26 |
|
|
I came late to this discussion and probably my point has already been made
better by others than I could state it. But here goes...
If we (you!) are going to drum Paul out of the canon, what of the
interactions between Paul and Peter (and others)? I'm thinking esp of 2
Peter 3 (ASV):
14 Wherefore, beloved, seeing that ye look for these things, give diligence
that ye may be found in peace, without spot and blameless in his sight.
15 And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our
beloved brother Paul also, according to the wisdom given to him, wrote unto
you;
16 as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; wherein
are some things hard to be understood, which the ignorant and unstedfast
wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.
Was Peter bamboozled by Paul? Did he (Peter) not have a great platform --
and duty! - in his letters and utterances in Acts to sound an apostate alarm
on Paul if that was his conviction? But he didn't - Peter addressed Paul as
"beloved brother" and merely noted the harm done to the "ignorant and
unstedfast " by their own misuse of Paul's words.
This is starting to sound a bit like post-911 revisionist "history" where
EVERYBODY was in on the conspiracy. Out with it -- who ELSE is off the
honour roll now??
John
"Linda Lee" <lindagirl444@juno.com> wrote in message
news:e53967fd-1f48-4d2d-ad80-12982883a85a@w7g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
| Quote: | On Aug 15, 10:16 am, Jonathan Schattke <wiz...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Aug 14, 5:52 pm, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
On Fri, 8 Aug 2008 04:24:57 -0700 (PDT), guardian Snow
snowpheo...@eck.net.au
wrote:
You can have your evil Pharisee.
All scripture is inspired by God and is valid for teaching.
The contention is that Pauls writings should not be considered
Scripture. It is certain that it was not scripture to the other
Apostles; they taught from what is not the Old Testament and a number
of works not now Canon.
and you quote:
2Ti 3:16 Every Scripture is inspired by God and is useful for
teaching, for convincing, for correction of error, and for instruction
in right doing;
2Ti 3:17 so that the man of God may himself be complete and may be
perfectly equipped for every good work.
to try to prove the writer's own works are useful?
How does that work - a man writing a letter saying scripture is
useful, and you use that line in the letter to try to validate the
usefulness of the letter writer's writing... that's fishy business if
ever I've seen such.
That's all he has. |
|
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
duke
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 18, 2008 5:24 pm Post subject: Re: Proof Paul was not saved, Acts 20:26 |
|
|
On Fri, 15 Aug 2008 07:16:06 -0700 (PDT), Jonathan Schattke <wizwom@gmail.com>
wrote:
| Quote: | On Aug 14, 5:52 pm, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
On Fri, 8 Aug 2008 04:24:57 -0700 (PDT), guardian Snow <snowpheo...@eck.net.au
wrote:
You can have your evil Pharisee.
All scripture is inspired by God and is valid for teaching.
The contention is that Pauls writings should not be considered
Scripture. It is certain that it was not scripture to the other
Apostles; they taught from what is not the Old Testament and a number
of works not now Canon.
|
An "apostle" is one that knew Jesus personally. All were disciples, ie,
students.
| Quote: | and you quote:
2Ti 3:16 Every Scripture is inspired by God and is useful for
teaching, for convincing, for correction of error, and for instruction
in right doing;
2Ti 3:17 so that the man of God may himself be complete and may be
perfectly equipped for every good work.
to try to prove the writer's own works are useful?
How does that work - a man writing a letter saying scripture is
useful, and you use that line in the letter to try to validate the
usefulness of the letter writer's writing... that's fishy business if
ever I've seen such.
|
Paul's letters were declared by the Council at Nicea in 325AD to be inspired by
God.
duke, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
***** |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
guardian Snow
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 18, 2008 10:07 pm Post subject: Re: Proof Paul was not saved, Acts 20:26 |
|
|
On Aug 19, 3:28 am, "John Gardner" <gardner1...@shaw.ca> wrote:
| Quote: | And your proof of the authority of the Council of Nicea in 325 A.D. is ....?
If I recall the histories, the Council was a thoroughly political affair
convened by the very nominally "Christian" Constantine. Its aim was to
enforce unity between the pro-Arian and the pro-Athanasian factions of
bishops. Both factions squabbled miserably, descending to fistfights and
walk-outs. The majority of the bishops (a slim majority) proclaimed the
minority anathema. Then they aall went back to the Western and Eastern
Empires and Constantine gloated over his "spiritual" dominion over the sadly
apostate "Christian" chuurch.
You could just as appropriately look to the 1968 Democratic Convention in
Chicago to enlighten yourself on the meaning of democracy in America.
|
Excellent posting John. We can also add to that the fact that
paganism has been furthered on by King James.
(KJV 1611)
Act 12:4 And when hee had apprehended him, hee put him in prison, and
deliuered him to foure quaternions of souldiers to keepe him,
intending after Easter to bring him forth to the people.
They were in such a rush to remove anything to do with the Hebrew
faith and hide the name of the Messiah, it's a shame to them all that
they would changed Passover to Easter.
Shalom,
*´¨)
¸.•´ ¸.•*´¨) ¸.•*¨)
(¸.•´ (¸.• (Snow(.¸.•*´¨)
In essence, if we want to direct our lives, we must take control of
our consistent actions. It's not what we do once in a while that
shapes our lives, but what we do consistently.
Tony Robbins
(Mar 16:2) (Mar 16:9) (Luk 18:12) (Luk 24:1)
(Joh 20:1) (Joh 20:19) (Act 20:7) (1Co 16:2) (Heb 4:9)
Each of these verses that have the word Sabbath removed.
Portions of this post have been reprinted from (Scriptures +1998)
version which you can download for free at
http://www.isr-messianic.org/
Please come post your comments at
http://groups.google.com/group/messianicYehoshua
A moderated forum.
http://www.ucg.org/index.htm
A Worldwide Sabbath practicing Church. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
John Gardner
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 18, 2008 10:28 pm Post subject: Re: Proof Paul was not saved, Acts 20:26 |
|
|
And your proof of the authority of the Council of Nicea in 325 A.D. is ...?
If I recall the histories, the Council was a thoroughly political affair
convened by the very nominally "Christian" Constantine. Its aim was to
enforce unity between the pro-Arian and the pro-Athanasian factions of
bishops. Both factions squabbled miserably, descending to fistfights and
walk-outs. The majority of the bishops (a slim majority) proclaimed the
minority anathema. Then they aall went back to the Western and Eastern
Empires and Constantine gloated over his "spiritual" dominion over the sadly
apostate "Christian" chuurch.
You could just as appropriately look to the 1968 Democratic Convention in
Chicago to enlighten yourself on the meaning of democracy in America.
"duke" <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote in message
news:e9qia4dp9agu0r18r17utldr4odu7jeslk@4ax.com...
| Quote: | On Fri, 15 Aug 2008 07:16:06 -0700 (PDT), Jonathan Schattke
wizwom@gmail.com
wrote:
On Aug 14, 5:52 pm, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
On Fri, 8 Aug 2008 04:24:57 -0700 (PDT), guardian Snow
snowpheo...@eck.net.au
wrote:
You can have your evil Pharisee.
All scripture is inspired by God and is valid for teaching.
The contention is that Pauls writings should not be considered
Scripture. It is certain that it was not scripture to the other
Apostles; they taught from what is not the Old Testament and a number
of works not now Canon.
An "apostle" is one that knew Jesus personally. All were disciples, ie,
students.
and you quote:
2Ti 3:16 Every Scripture is inspired by God and is useful for
teaching, for convincing, for correction of error, and for instruction
in right doing;
2Ti 3:17 so that the man of God may himself be complete and may be
perfectly equipped for every good work.
to try to prove the writer's own works are useful?
How does that work - a man writing a letter saying scripture is
useful, and you use that line in the letter to try to validate the
usefulness of the letter writer's writing... that's fishy business if
ever I've seen such.
Paul's letters were declared by the Council at Nicea in 325AD to be
inspired by
God.
duke, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
***** |
|
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Linda Lee
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 19, 2008 3:25 am Post subject: Re: Proof Paul was not saved, Acts 20:26 |
|
|
On Aug 17, 7:29 pm, "John Gardner" <gardner1...@shaw.ca> wrote:
| Quote: | I came late to this discussion and probably my point has already been made
better by others than I could state it. But here goes...
If we (you!) are going to drum Paul out of the canon, what of the
interactions between Paul and Peter (and others)? I'm thinking esp of 2
Peter 3 (ASV):
14 Wherefore, beloved, seeing that ye look for these things, give diligence
that ye may be found in peace, without spot and blameless in his sight.
15 And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our
beloved brother Paul also, according to the wisdom given to him, wrote unto
you;
16 as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; wherein
are some things hard to be understood, which the ignorant and unstedfast
wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.
Was Peter bamboozled by Paul? Did he (Peter) not have a great platform --
and duty! - in his letters and utterances in Acts to sound an apostate alarm
on Paul if that was his conviction? But he didn't - Peter addressed Paul as
"beloved brother" and merely noted the harm done to the "ignorant and
unstedfast " by their own misuse of Paul's words.
This is starting to sound a bit like post-911 revisionist "history" where
EVERYBODY was in on the conspiracy. Out with it -- who ELSE is off the
honour roll now??
John
"Linda Lee" <lindagirl...@juno.com> wrote in message
news:e53967fd-1f48-4d2d-ad80-12982883a85a@w7g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...> On Aug 15, 10:16 am, Jonathan Schattke <wiz...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Aug 14, 5:52 pm, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
On Fri, 8 Aug 2008 04:24:57 -0700 (PDT), guardian Snow
snowpheo...@eck.net.au
wrote:
You can have your evil Pharisee.
All scripture is inspired by God and is valid for teaching.
The contention is that Pauls writings should not be considered
Scripture. It is certain that it was not scripture to the other
Apostles; they taught from what is not the Old Testament and a number
of works not now Canon.
and you quote:
2Ti 3:16 Every Scripture is inspired by God and is useful for
teaching, for convincing, for correction of error, and for instruction
in right doing;
2Ti 3:17 so that the man of God may himself be complete and may be
perfectly equipped for every good work.
to try to prove the writer's own works are useful?
How does that work - a man writing a letter saying scripture is
useful, and you use that line in the letter to try to validate the
usefulness of the letter writer's writing... that's fishy business if
ever I've seen such.
That's all he has.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
|
If the following verse does not apply to Paul, 1 John 2:19 "They went
out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they
would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they
might be made manifest that they were not all of us", then why does
Paul say this following: 2 Tim. 1:15 "This thou knowest, that all
they which are in Asia be turned away from me"?
And if Messiah taught this in James 1:27 "Pure religion and undefiled
before God and the Father is this, To visit [relieve]the fatherless
and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the
world", then why does Paul reject some widows here and say if they
remarry they've cast off their faith:
1Ti 5:11 But the younger widows refuse: for when they have begun to
wax wanton against Christ, they will marry;
1Ti 5:12 Having damnation, because they have cast off their first
faith.
1Ti 5:13 And withal they learn to be idle, wandering about from house
to house; and not only idle, but tattlers also and busybodies,
speaking things which they ought not.
1Ti 5:14 I will therefore that the younger women marry, bear
children, guide the house, give none occasion to the adversary to
speak reproachfully.
1Ti 5:15 For some are already turned aside after Satan.
1Ti 5:16 If any man or woman that believeth have widows, let them
relieve them, and let not the church be charged; that it may relieve
them that are widows indeed.
And if Paul was widely accepted among the disciples as an apostle, why
does he say he is "not an apostle unto others" here in verse 2:
1Co 9:1 Am I not an apostle? am I not free? have I not seen Jesus
Christ our Lord? are not ye my work in the Lord?
1Co 9:2 If I be not an apostle unto others, yet doubtless I am to
you: for the seal of mine apostleship are ye in the Lord.
1Co 9:3 Mine answer to them that do examine me is this,
1Co 9:4 Have we not power to eat and to drink?
1Co 9:5 Have we not power to lead about a sister, a wife, as well as
other apostles, and as the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas?
1Co 9:6 Or I only and Barnabas, have not we power to forbear
working? |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
guardian Snow
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 19, 2008 3:54 am Post subject: Re: Proof Paul was not saved, Acts 20:26 |
|
|
On Aug 19, 1:24 pm, Linda Lee <lindagirl...@juno.com> wrote:
| Quote: | On Aug 17, 7:29 pm, "John Gardner" <gardner1...@shaw.ca> wrote:
I came late to this discussion and probably my point has already been made
better by others than I could state it. But here goes...
If we (you!) are going to drum Paul out of the canon, what of the
interactions between Paul and Peter (and others)? I'm thinking esp of 2
Peter 3 (ASV):
14 Wherefore, beloved, seeing that ye look for these things, give diligence
that ye may be found in peace, without spot and blameless in his sight.
15 And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our
beloved brother Paul also, according to the wisdom given to him, wrote unto
you;
16 as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; wherein
are some things hard to be understood, which the ignorant and unstedfast
wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction..
Was Peter bamboozled by Paul? Did he (Peter) not have a great platform --
and duty! - in his letters and utterances in Acts to sound an apostate alarm
on Paul if that was his conviction? But he didn't - Peter addressed Paul as
"beloved brother" and merely noted the harm done to the "ignorant and
unstedfast " by their own misuse of Paul's words.
This is starting to sound a bit like post-911 revisionist "history" where
EVERYBODY was in on the conspiracy. Out with it -- who ELSE is off the
honour roll now??
John
"Linda Lee" <lindagirl...@juno.com> wrote in message
news:e53967fd-1f48-4d2d-ad80-12982883a85a@w7g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...> On Aug 15, 10:16 am, Jonathan Schattke <wiz...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Aug 14, 5:52 pm, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
On Fri, 8 Aug 2008 04:24:57 -0700 (PDT), guardian Snow
snowpheo...@eck.net.au
wrote:
You can have your evil Pharisee.
All scripture is inspired by God and is valid for teaching.
The contention is that Pauls writings should not be considered
Scripture. It is certain that it was not scripture to the other
Apostles; they taught from what is not the Old Testament and a number
of works not now Canon.
and you quote:
2Ti 3:16 Every Scripture is inspired by God and is useful for
teaching, for convincing, for correction of error, and for instruction
in right doing;
2Ti 3:17 so that the man of God may himself be complete and may be
perfectly equipped for every good work.
to try to prove the writer's own works are useful?
How does that work - a man writing a letter saying scripture is
useful, and you use that line in the letter to try to validate the
usefulness of the letter writer's writing... that's fishy business if
ever I've seen such.
That's all he has.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
If the following verse does not apply to Paul, 1 John 2:19 "They went
out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they
would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they
might be made manifest that they were not all of us", then why does
Paul say this following: 2 Tim. 1:15 "This thou knowest, that all
they which are in Asia be turned away from me"?
And if Messiah taught this in James 1:27 "Pure religion and undefiled
before God and the Father is this, To visit [relieve]the fatherless
and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the
world", then why does Paul reject some widows here and say if they
remarry they've cast off their faith:
1Ti 5:11 But the younger widows refuse: for when they have begun to
wax wanton against Christ, they will marry;
1Ti 5:12 Having damnation, because they have cast off their first
faith.
1Ti 5:13 And withal they learn to be idle, wandering about from house
to house; and not only idle, but tattlers also and busybodies,
speaking things which they ought not.
1Ti 5:14 I will therefore that the younger women marry, bear
children, guide the house, give none occasion to the adversary to
speak reproachfully.
1Ti 5:15 For some are already turned aside after Satan.
1Ti 5:16 If any man or woman that believeth have widows, let them
relieve them, and let not the church be charged; that it may relieve
them that are widows indeed.
And if Paul was widely accepted among the disciples as an apostle, why
does he say he is "not an apostle unto others" here in verse 2:
1Co 9:1 Am I not an apostle? am I not free? have I not seen Jesus
Christ our Lord? are not ye my work in the Lord?
1Co 9:2 If I be not an apostle unto others, yet doubtless I am to
you: for the seal of mine apostleship are ye in the Lord.
1Co 9:3 Mine answer to them that do examine me is this,
1Co 9:4 Have we not power to eat and to drink?
1Co 9:5 Have we not power to lead about a sister, a wife, as well as
other apostles, and as the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas?
1Co 9:6 Or I only and Barnabas, have not we power to forbear
working?
|
Did you ever notice how hard Luke worked to refute what Paul said:
Luk 2:25 And see, there was a man in Yerushalayim whose name was
Shimʽon, and this man was righteous and dedicated, looking for the
comforting of Yisra’ĕl. And the Set-apart Spirit was upon him.
Rom 3:10 As it has been written, “There is none righteous, no, not
one!
That was not written and I challenge the context of this passage.
Psa 14:1 The fool has said in his heart, “There is no יהוה.” They have
done corruptly, They have done an abominable deed, There is no one who
does good.
Paul has played us for a fool. He is the church of division..
circumcision against uncircumcised, Jew against Greek and Men against
Woman.
Luk 2:36 And there was Ḥannah, a prophetess, a daughter of Penu’ĕl,
of the tribe of Ashĕr. She was advanced in years, and had lived with a
husband seven years from her maidenhood,
Luk 2:37 and she was a widow of about eighty-four years, who did not
leave the Set-apart Place, but served Elohim with fastings and prayers
night and day.
Luk 2:38 And she, coming in at that moment, gave thanks to יהוה, and
spoke of Him to all who were waiting for redemption in Yerushalayim.
Yet woman preached in the day of the Messiah to all! Not just other
woman...
Paul was an expert at causing division and we see his handy work in
the dozens of denominations that claim to follow one Good News.
Gal 2:7 But on the contrary, when they saw that the Good News to the
uncircumcised had been entrusted to me, even as KÄ•pha to the
circumcised –
Shalom,
*´¨)
¸.•´ ¸.•*´¨) ¸.•*¨)
(¸.•´ (¸.• (Snow(.¸.•*´¨)
In essence, if we want to direct our lives, we must take control of
our consistent actions. It's not what we do once in a while that
shapes our lives, but what we do consistently.
Tony Robbins
(Mar 16:2) (Mar 16:9) (Luk 18:12) (Luk 24:1)
(Joh 20:1) (Joh 20:19) (Act 20:7) (1Co 16:2) (Heb 4:9)
Each of these verses that have the word Sabbath removed.
Portions of this post have been reprinted from (Scriptures +1998)
version which you can download for free at
http://www.isr-messianic.org/
Please come post your comments at
http://groups.google.com/group/messianicYehoshua
A moderated forum.
http://www.ucg.org/index.htm
A Worldwide Sabbath practicing Church. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
vernono
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 19, 2008 4:22 am Post subject: Re: Proof Paul was not saved, Acts 20:26 |
|
|
"John Gardner" <gardner1018@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:_iiqk.94032$nD.81520@pd7urf1no...
| Quote: | And your proof of the authority of the Council of Nicea in 325 A.D. is
...?
If I recall the histories, the Council was a thoroughly political affair
convened by the very nominally "Christian" Constantine. Its aim was to
enforce unity between the pro-Arian and the pro-Athanasian factions of
bishops. Both factions squabbled miserably, descending to fistfights and
walk-outs. The majority of the bishops (a slim majority) proclaimed the
minority anathema. Then they aall went back to the Western and Eastern
Empires and Constantine gloated over his "spiritual" dominion over the
sadly
apostate "Christian" chuurch.
You could just as appropriately look to the 1968 Democratic Convention in
Chicago to enlighten yourself on the meaning of democracy in America.
|
Right, what do Caatholics have to do with Christianity? Nothing except as a
heresy.
| Quote: |
"duke" <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote in message
news:e9qia4dp9agu0r18r17utldr4odu7jeslk@4ax.com...
On Fri, 15 Aug 2008 07:16:06 -0700 (PDT), Jonathan Schattke
wizwom@gmail.com
wrote:
On Aug 14, 5:52 pm, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
On Fri, 8 Aug 2008 04:24:57 -0700 (PDT), guardian Snow
snowpheo...@eck.net.au
wrote:
You can have your evil Pharisee.
All scripture is inspired by God and is valid for teaching.
The contention is that Pauls writings should not be considered
Scripture. It is certain that it was not scripture to the other
Apostles; they taught from what is not the Old Testament and a number
of works not now Canon.
An "apostle" is one that knew Jesus personally. All were disciples, ie,
students.
and you quote:
2Ti 3:16 Every Scripture is inspired by God and is useful for
teaching, for convincing, for correction of error, and for instruction
in right doing;
2Ti 3:17 so that the man of God may himself be complete and may be
perfectly equipped for every good work.
to try to prove the writer's own works are useful?
How does that work - a man writing a letter saying scripture is
useful, and you use that line in the letter to try to validate the
usefulness of the letter writer's writing... that's fishy business if
ever I've seen such.
Paul's letters were declared by the Council at Nicea in 325AD to be
inspired by
God.
duke, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
|
|
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
guardian Snow
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 19, 2008 2:05 pm Post subject: Re: Proof Paul was not saved, Acts 20:26 |
|
|
On Aug 19, 9:11 pm, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
| Quote: | You could just as appropriately look to the 1968 Democratic Convention in
Chicago to enlighten yourself on the meaning of democracy in America.
Right, what do Caatholics have to do with Christianity? Nothing except as a
heresy.
Assuming you're not joking, the answer is only the Church founded by Christ with
the Holy Mass, 7 sacraments, and the Papacy.
Perhaps, in your infinite wisdom, you can offer some substantiation for what
heresies exist in the Catholic Church.
|
What verse do you use to justify changing the Sabbath to Sunday?
Your usually very good at supporting your doctrine from scriptures...
Where are the 7 sacraments?
Hope your having a great day Duke, with respect.
Shalom,
*´¨)
¸.•´ ¸.•*´¨) ¸.•*¨)
(¸.•´ (¸.• (Snow(.¸.•*´¨)
In essence, if we want to direct our lives, we must take control of
our consistent actions. It's not what we do once in a while that
shapes our lives, but what we do consistently.
Tony Robbins
(Mar 16:2) (Mar 16:9) (Luk 18:12) (Luk 24:1)
(Joh 20:1) (Joh 20:19) (Act 20:7) (1Co 16:2) (Heb 4:9)
Each of these verses that have the word Sabbath removed.
Portions of this post have been reprinted from (Scriptures +1998)
version which you can download for free at
http://www.isr-messianic.org/
Please come post your comments at
http://groups.google.com/group/messianicYehoshua
A moderated forum.
http://www.ucg.org/index.htm
A Worldwide Sabbath practicing Church. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
duke
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 19, 2008 4:08 pm Post subject: Re: Proof Paul was not saved, Acts 20:26 |
|
|
On Mon, 18 Aug 2008 17:28:26 GMT, "John Gardner" <gardner1018@shaw.ca> wrote:
| Quote: | And your proof of the authority of the Council of Nicea in 325 A.D. is ...?
If I recall the histories, the Council was a thoroughly political affair
convened by the very nominally "Christian" Constantine. Its aim was to
enforce unity between the pro-Arian and the pro-Athanasian factions of
bishops. Both factions squabbled miserably, descending to fistfights and
walk-outs. The majority of the bishops (a slim majority) proclaimed the
minority anathema. Then they aall went back to the Western and Eastern
Empires and Constantine gloated over his "spiritual" dominion over the sadly
apostate "Christian" chuurch.
You could just as appropriately look to the 1968 Democratic Convention in
Chicago to enlighten yourself on the meaning of democracy in America.
|
All I saw there was anarchy of youthful cowards.
duke, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
***** |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
duke
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 19, 2008 4:11 pm Post subject: Re: Proof Paul was not saved, Acts 20:26 |
|
|
On Mon, 18 Aug 2008 16:22:30 -0700, "vernono" <vernono@there.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
"John Gardner" <gardner1018@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:_iiqk.94032$nD.81520@pd7urf1no...
And your proof of the authority of the Council of Nicea in 325 A.D. is
...?
If I recall the histories, the Council was a thoroughly political affair
convened by the very nominally "Christian" Constantine. Its aim was to
enforce unity between the pro-Arian and the pro-Athanasian factions of
bishops. Both factions squabbled miserably, descending to fistfights and
walk-outs. The majority of the bishops (a slim majority) proclaimed the
minority anathema. Then they aall went back to the Western and Eastern
Empires and Constantine gloated over his "spiritual" dominion over the
sadly
apostate "Christian" chuurch.
You could just as appropriately look to the 1968 Democratic Convention in
Chicago to enlighten yourself on the meaning of democracy in America.
Right, what do Caatholics have to do with Christianity? Nothing except as a
heresy.
|
Assuming you're not joking, the answer is only the Church founded by Christ with
the Holy Mass, 7 sacraments, and the Papacy.
Perhaps, in your infinite wisdom, you can offer some substantiation for what
heresies exist in the Catholic Church.
duke, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
***** |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
guardian Snow
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 19, 2008 5:42 pm Post subject: Re: Proof Paul was not saved, Acts 20:26 |
|
|
On Aug 20, 1:58 am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
| Quote: | On Tue, 19 Aug 2008 07:05:08 -0700 (PDT), guardian Snow <snowpheo...@eck.net.au
wrote:
On Aug 19, 9:11 pm, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
You could just as appropriately look to the 1968 Democratic Convention in
Chicago to enlighten yourself on the meaning of democracy in America.
Right, what do Caatholics have to do with Christianity? Nothing except as a
heresy.
Assuming you're not joking, the answer is only the Church founded by Christ with
the Holy Mass, 7 sacraments, and the Papacy.
Perhaps, in your infinite wisdom, you can offer some substantiation for what
heresies exist in the Catholic Church.
What verse do you use to justify changing the Sabbath to Sunday?
What day is the Sabbath supposed to be on? Just because the Jews started one
way and Christ rose on another day doesn't mean that the day of rest given to
God alone, the reason for the Sabbath, should be as the old covenant people
believe.
Your usually very good at supporting your doctrine from scriptures...
Where are the 7 sacraments?
MASS:
Do this in memory of me - Mat 26, Mark 14, Luke 22, 1Cor 11.
SACRAMENTS:
Baptism - John 3:5-6, Mat 28:19, Hebrew 2:14-15
Holy Eucharist - Mat 26, Mark 14, Luke 22, 1 Cor 11
Confession - John 20:22-23, Mat 9:2-8
Matrimony - Ephesians 5:31
Confirmation - Ephesians 1:13, Acts 8:14-17, 19:5-6,
Holy Orders - Acts 13:3 & 14:23, John 20:22, 1 & 2 Tim
Anointing of the Sick - Mark 6:12-13, John 5:14
A sacrament is an "outward sign" (action) taken by a person that God clearly
showed is pleasing to him and is by definition an increase in the grace of God
PAPACY:
Mat 16:13-20, Acts 15:7
Hope your having a great day Duke, with respect.
You too, snow.
|
You know your always in my prayers... I think I'll take some time to
look those verses up and read up on your sacraments. I noticed in the
"outward signs" circumcision wasn't a part of this.. why not?
Act 16:3 Him would Paul have to go forth with him; and took and
circumcised him because of the Jews which were in those quarters: for
they knew all that his father was a Greek.
If it was good enough for Paul to do, why don't Catholics?
Isa 52:1 Awake, awake! Put on your strength, O Tsiyon, put on your
garments of splendour, O Yerushalayim, the set-apart city! For no more
do the uncircumcised and the unclean come into you.
Isa 52:2 Shake yourself from the dust, arise, and sit down, O
Yerushalayim. Loose yourself from the bonds of your neck, O captive
daughter of Tsiyon!
Isa 52:3 For thus said יהוה, “You have been sold for naught, and you
are redeemed not with silver.”
Shalom,
*´¨)
¸.•´ ¸.•*´¨) ¸.•*¨)
(¸.•´ (¸.• (Snow(.¸.•*´¨)
Whatever happens, take responsibility.
Tony Robbins
(Mar 16:2) (Mar 16:9) (Luk 18:12) (Luk 24:1)
(Joh 20:1) (Joh 20:19) (Act 20:7) (1Co 16:2) (Heb 4:9)
Each of these verses that have the word Sabbath removed.
http://www.isr-messianic.org/
http://groups.google.com/group/messianicYehoshua
A moderated forum. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Jonathan Schattke
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 19, 2008 8:18 pm Post subject: Re: Proof Paul was not saved, Acts 20:26 |
|
|
On Aug 19, 6:11 am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
| Quote: | On Mon, 18 Aug 2008 16:22:30 -0700, "vernono" <vern...@there.com> wrote:
Right, what do Caatholics have to do with Christianity? Nothing except as a
heresy.
Assuming you're not joking, the answer is only the Church founded by Christ with
the Holy Mass, 7 sacraments, and the Papacy.
Perhaps, in your infinite wisdom, you can offer some substantiation for what
heresies exist in the Catholic Church.
|
The Holy Mass, the Seven sacrament, and the Papacy are all heresies,
for a start. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Jonathan Schattke
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 19, 2008 8:21 pm Post subject: Re: Proof Paul was not saved, Acts 20:26 |
|
|
On Aug 19, 10:58 am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
| Quote: | What day is the Sabbath supposed to be on? Just because the Jews started one
way and Christ rose on another day doesn't mean that the day of rest given to
God alone, the reason for the Sabbath, should be as the old covenant people
believe.
|
Christ rose on the evening at the end of the sabbath. He was already
risen and gone by the morning when the Women went to the tomb, the day
after... the sabbath! |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
duke
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 19, 2008 8:58 pm Post subject: Re: Proof Paul was not saved, Acts 20:26 |
|
|
On Tue, 19 Aug 2008 07:05:08 -0700 (PDT), guardian Snow <snowpheonix@eck.net.au>
wrote:
| Quote: | On Aug 19, 9:11 pm, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
You could just as appropriately look to the 1968 Democratic Convention in
Chicago to enlighten yourself on the meaning of democracy in America.
Right, what do Caatholics have to do with Christianity? Nothing except as a
heresy.
Assuming you're not joking, the answer is only the Church founded by Christ with
the Holy Mass, 7 sacraments, and the Papacy.
Perhaps, in your infinite wisdom, you can offer some substantiation for what
heresies exist in the Catholic Church.
What verse do you use to justify changing the Sabbath to Sunday?
|
What day is the Sabbath supposed to be on? Just because the Jews started one
way and Christ rose on another day doesn't mean that the day of rest given to
God alone, the reason for the Sabbath, should be as the old covenant people
believe.
| Quote: | Your usually very good at supporting your doctrine from scriptures...
Where are the 7 sacraments?
|
MASS:
Do this in memory of me - Mat 26, Mark 14, Luke 22, 1Cor 11.
SACRAMENTS:
Baptism - John 3:5-6, Mat 28:19, Hebrew 2:14-15
Holy Eucharist - Mat 26, Mark 14, Luke 22, 1 Cor 11
Confession - John 20:22-23, Mat 9:2-8
Matrimony - Ephesians 5:31
Confirmation - Ephesians 1:13, Acts 8:14-17, 19:5-6,
Holy Orders - Acts 13:3 & 14:23, John 20:22, 1 & 2 Tim
Anointing of the Sick - Mark 6:12-13, John 5:14
A sacrament is an "outward sign" (action) taken by a person that God clearly
showed is pleasing to him and is by definition an increase in the grace of God
PAPACY:
Mat 16:13-20, Acts 15:7
| Quote: | Hope your having a great day Duke, with respect.
|
You too, snow.
duke, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
***** |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
|
