Jump to content

The Protestant Community

Are you Protestant? Or, are you sincerely inquiring about the Protestant faith? Welcome to Christforums the Christian Protestant community. You'll need to register in order to post your comments on your favorite topics and subjects. Register in less than a minute, it is simple, fast, and free! We hope you enjoy your fellowship here! God bless, Christforums' Staff
Register now

Fenced Community

Christforums is a Protestant Christian forum, open to Bible- believing Christians such as Presbyterians, Lutherans, Reformed, Baptists, Church of Christ members, Pentecostals, Anglicans. Methodists, Charismatics, or any other conservative, Nicene- derived Christian Church. We do not solicit cultists of any kind, including Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Eastern Lightning, Falun Gong, Unification Church, Aum Shinrikyo, Christian Scientists or any other non- Nicene, non- Biblical heresy.
Register now

Christforums

.... an orthodox Protestant forum whose members espouse the Apostolic doctrines in the Biblical theologies set forth by Augustine, Martin Luther, Ulrich Zwingli, John Calvin and John Knox etc. We do not "argue" with nor do we solicit the membership of people who espouse secular or cultic ideologies. We believe that our conversations are to be faith building and posts that advance heretical or apostate thinking will be immediately deleted and the poster permanently banned from the forum. This is a Christian community for people to explore the traditional theologies of Classical Protestantism. Those who would challenge the peace and harmony that we enjoy here as fellow believers are directed to another forum.

Enjoy your fellowship

In order to understand the importance of Christian fellowship, we must first understand what Christian fellowship is and what it isn’t. The Greek words translated “fellowship” in the New Testament mean essentially a partnership to the mutual benefit of those involved. Christian fellowship, then, is the mutually beneficial relationship between Christians, who can’t have the identical relationship with those outside the faith. Those who believe the gospel are united in the Spirit through Christ to the Father, and that unity is the basis of fellowship. This relationship is described by Jesus in His high-priestly prayer for His followers in John 17:23. The importance of true Christian fellowship is that it reinforces Christ centeredness in our mind and helps us to focus on Christ and His desires and goals for us. As iron sharpens iron, in true Christian fellowship Christians sharpen one another's faith and stir one another to exercise that faith in love and good works, all to God’s glory.
Steve

Paul was a false Apostle!

Recommended Posts

When I was 18 I attending a Baptist College and was required to take an Old Testament/Hebrew Bible Class and a New Testament/New Testimony Class.  The writings, the best I could determine, were in agreement in the Hebrew Bible but when I got to the New Testimony Class I found that lots of the different books/letters taught the exact opposite of what other books taught.  I found that the teachings of Paul were, for the most part, contradictory in that Paul would say one thing and then a few verses or chapters later Paul would say the exact opposite of what he had said earlier.  Paul would often talk out of both sides of his mouth, so to speak.  In a court of law a witness loses all credibility when he/she changes his/her testimony.  

 

I also noticed that Paul claimed to be an Apostle when there were already twelve Apostles.  I find no place in the Bible that says there will be thirteen Apostles.  So, I have determined that Paul was simply a self proclaimed Apostle and a false Apostle.  I have not found even one of the true Twelve Apostles that called Paul an Apostle.  It is my guess that Paul may very well have been a false Apostle and a person that made up tall tales.  A person that tells untruths is normally called a liar.  

 

Also, it is taught in the New Testimony that Paul was a willing part of the party that murdered Stephen.  The Hebrew Bible plainly teaches that anyone that sheds innocent blood is to be executed for such a heinous crime.

 

Genesis 9:6 ESV 

“Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed, for God made man in his own image.

 

Could it be that Paul was a murderer, tare and false Apostle?  Could it be that Paul's books/letters cannot be trusted?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Could it be that the earth is square?

You are making an old claim, do you have any evidence to back it up?  And maybe you can explain what a 'new testimony' class is.....never heard of such before.  BTW, how old are you now?.....

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When I was 18 I attending a Baptist College 

 

Sorry for the above mistake, I should have written:  "When I was 18 I attended a Baptist College"

 

Civil:  The Gentile Constantine, the Emperor of Rome, at the Council of Nicaea in 325AD had hired 318 Bishops and others with high sounding titles to select books/letters that would make up what Constantine called the New Testimony.  Those Bishops selected  from over 2200 books/letters and finally decided on 27 or so books/letters that would make up Constantine's New Testimony.  Those 318 Bishops worked for a year and a half editing those books/letters that were to be included in the New Testimony in an attempt to make those books/letters agree for the most part with each other.  What Constantine called the New Testimony is now called the New Testament by most people.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You really need to read through the book of Acts in order to understand why Paul is considered an Apostle.  Also, you should study what it means to be an Apostle.  Then you would not be making so many erroneous and false claims.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Steve said:

When I was 18 I attending a Baptist College 

 

Sorry for the above mistake, I should have written:  "When I was 18 I attended a Baptist College"

 

Civil:  The Gentile Constantine, the Emperor of Rome, at the Council of Nicaea in 325AD had hired 318 Bishops and others with high sounding titles to select books/letters that would make up what Constantine called the New Testimony.  Those Bishops selected  from over 2200 books/letters and finally decided on 27 or so books/letters that would make up Constantine's New Testimony.  Those 318 Bishops worked for a year and a half editing those books/letters that were to be included in the New Testimony in an attempt to make those books/letters agree for the most part with each other.  What Constantine called the New Testimony is now called the New Testament by most people.   

From your claims there is zero evidence you attended any college of any kind.  In fact I doubt you have even read a book on the topic.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/9/2018 at 2:33 PM, Steve said:

The writings, the best I could determine, were in agreement in the Hebrew Bible but when I got to the New Testimony Class I found that lots of the different books/letters taught the exact opposite of what other books taught. 

Not one example cited.  Now that is interesting.

 

On 8/9/2018 at 2:33 PM, Steve said:

I found that the teachings of Paul were, for the most part, contradictory in that Paul would say one thing and then a few verses or chapters later Paul would say the exact opposite of what he had said earlier. 

Not one example cited.

 

On 8/9/2018 at 2:33 PM, Steve said:

Paul would often talk out of both sides of his mouth, so to speak. 

Nothing more than your opinion.

 

On 8/9/2018 at 2:33 PM, Steve said:

I also noticed that Paul claimed to be an Apostle when there were already twelve Apostles.  I find no place in the Bible that says there will be thirteen Apostles

There is also no place in the Bible were it claims there cannot be more than 12.

 

On 8/9/2018 at 2:33 PM, Steve said:

So, I have determined that Paul was simply a self proclaimed Apostle and a false Apostle. 

Opinion with zero evidence.

 

On 8/9/2018 at 2:33 PM, Steve said:

It is my guess that Paul may very well have been a false Apostle and a person that made up tall tales.

A guess with zero evidence.

 

On 8/9/2018 at 2:33 PM, Steve said:

A person that tells untruths is normally called a liar.  

I could not agree more.  So since the shoe fits, you ought to wear it.

 

On 8/9/2018 at 2:33 PM, Steve said:

Also, it is taught in the New Testimony that Paul was a willing part of the party that murdered Stephen. 

Actually the text states "Saul approved of his execution" (Acts 8:1).

 

On 8/9/2018 at 2:33 PM, Steve said:

Could it be that Paul was a murderer, tare and false Apostle?  Could it be that Paul's books/letters cannot be trusted?

It is more likely you don't know what you are talking about and that you are being deceitful.  You have come here pretending to be something you are not and never were.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Steve said:

The Gentile Constantine

The fact that Constantine was a gentile proves nothing.

 

44 minutes ago, Origen said:

had hired 318 Bishops

There is zero evidence that Constantine hired the bishops.

 

1 hour ago, Steve said:

Constantine called the New Testimony.

Complete and utter nonsense.

 

1 hour ago, Steve said:

Those Bishops selected  from over 2200 books/letters and finally decided on 27 or so books/letters that would make up Constantine's New Testimony. 

The Council of Nicaea played no part in establishing the canon.  You are not merely misinformed but hopelessly and completely misinformed.

 

1 hour ago, Steve said:

Those 318 Bishops worked for a year and a half editing those books/letters that were to be included in the New Testimony in an attempt to make those books/letters agree for the most part with each other. 

Again there is zero evidence to support such a claim.

 

No historical sources or qualified scholarly  historians or theologians support your claims.  Everything you have said in these posts are pointless gibberish.  The only real question is why are you waisting our time with such drivel?

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seems this was a trolling thread.  I doubt we will see him again.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Knotical said:

Seems this was a trolling thread.  I doubt we will see him again.

Another 12 year old bites the dust...….

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Knotical said:

Seems this was a trolling thread.  I doubt we will see him again.

That is all it was.  Steve is full of it and I don't mean good intentions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
7 hours ago, Steve said:

The writings, the best I could determine, were in agreement in the Hebrew Bible but when I got to the New Testimony Class I found that lots of the different books/letters taught the exact opposite of what other books taught.  I found that the teachings of Paul were, for the most part, contradictory in that Paul

New Testimony Class ? That's a new one on me. New Testament , yes, I've covered most if not all of that .

Edited by Matthew Duvall

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Steve said:

When I was 18 I attending a Baptist College and was required to take an Old Testament/Hebrew Bible Class and a New Testament/New Testimony Class.  The writings, the best I could determine, were in agreement in the Hebrew Bible but when I got to the New Testimony Class I found that lots of the different books/letters taught the exact opposite of what other books taught.  I found that the teachings of Paul were, for the most part, contradictory in that Paul would say one thing and then a few verses or chapters later Paul would say the exact opposite of what he had said earlier.  Paul would often talk out of both sides of his mouth, so to speak.  In a court of law a witness loses all credibility when he/she changes his/her testimony.  

 

I also noticed that Paul claimed to be an Apostle when there were already twelve Apostles.  I find no place in the Bible that says there will be thirteen Apostles.  So, I have determined that Paul was simply a self proclaimed Apostle and a false Apostle.  I have not found even one of the true Twelve Apostles that called Paul an Apostle.  It is my guess that Paul may very well have been a false Apostle and a person that made up tall tales.  A person that tells untruths is normally called a liar.  

 

Also, it is taught in the New Testimony that Paul was a willing part of the party that murdered Stephen.  The Hebrew Bible plainly teaches that anyone that sheds innocent blood is to be executed for such a heinous crime.

 

Genesis 9:6 ESV 

“Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed, for God made man in his own image.

 

Could it be that Paul was a murderer, tare and false Apostle?  Could it be that Paul's books/letters cannot be trusted?

 

 

Steve is better gone. Thank you, @Origen for expediting his quick exit.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, ConfessionalLutheran said:

Steve is better gone. Thank you, @Origen for expediting his quick exit.

I really don't get it.  These people come here promoting this nonsense without citing any sources or evidence whatsoever.  Do they think Christians are just going to accept what they claim without proof of some kind?  They are sadly and erroneously mistaken to think we are so gullible when in fact they are really the gullible ones for believing we would.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎8‎/‎9‎/‎2018 at 2:33 PM, Steve said:

When I was 18 I attending a Baptist College and was required to take an Old Testament/Hebrew Bible Class and a New Testament/New Testimony Class.  The writings, the best I could determine, were in agreement in the Hebrew Bible but when I got to the New Testimony Class I found that lots of the different books/letters taught the exact opposite of what other books taught.  I found that the teachings of Paul were, for the most part, contradictory in that Paul would say one thing and then a few verses or chapters later Paul would say the exact opposite of what he had said earlier.  Paul would often talk out of both sides of his mouth, so to speak.  In a court of law a witness loses all credibility when he/she changes his/her testimony.  

 

I also noticed that Paul claimed to be an Apostle when there were already twelve Apostles.  I find no place in the Bible that says there will be thirteen Apostles.  So, I have determined that Paul was simply a self proclaimed Apostle and a false Apostle.  I have not found even one of the true Twelve Apostles that called Paul an Apostle.  It is my guess that Paul may very well have been a false Apostle and a person that made up tall tales.  A person that tells untruths is normally called a liar.  

 

Also, it is taught in the New Testimony that Paul was a willing part of the party that murdered Stephen.  The Hebrew Bible plainly teaches that anyone that sheds innocent blood is to be executed for such a heinous crime.

 

Genesis 9:6 ESV 

“Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed, for God made man in his own image.

 

Could it be that Paul was a murderer, tare and false Apostle?  Could it be that Paul's books/letters cannot be trusted?

 

 

If Paul was a false apostle then that would mean that half of the new testament would have to be trashed. Jesus warns about adding and removing from His Word.... Rev. 22:16-21

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is true that a group of Religious scholars decided which texts to include and which ones to excluded.This did happen in the time of Constantine.Most of the rejected writings are still around should one be interested. They could no more agree on anything than we can today.Believe in Christ and leave the minutae to the nitpickers and the;(I got a degree;I must know what I'm talking about !) Saducees and pontificators.All that was asked of us Gentiles was that we not eat food consecrated to idols and live & believe as Jesus taught.Don't make faith harder than nesessary at a time when Christians have more enemies than our planet has insects. And ;"Yes", Steve was confused,so correct him in love ! Why condemn the kid for believing what his elders must have programed him with ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, pastor marty said:

It is true that a group of Religious scholars decided which texts to include and which ones to excluded.This did happen in the time of Constantine.

It is not true.  It never happened.  Cite primary sources!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/9/2018 at 2:33 PM, Steve said:

When I was 18 I attending a Baptist College and was required to take an Old Testament/Hebrew Bible Class and a New Testament/New Testimony Class.  The writings, the best I could determine, were in agreement in the Hebrew Bible but when I got to the New Testimony Class I found that lots of the different books/letters taught the exact opposite of what other books taught.  I found that the teachings of Paul were, for the most part, contradictory in that Paul would say one thing and then a few verses or chapters later Paul would say the exact opposite of what he had said earlier.  Paul would often talk out of both sides of his mouth, so to speak.  In a court of law a witness loses all credibility when he/she changes his/her testimony.  

 

I also noticed that Paul claimed to be an Apostle when there were already twelve Apostles.  I find no place in the Bible that says there will be thirteen Apostles.  So, I have determined that Paul was simply a self proclaimed Apostle and a false Apostle.  I have not found even one of the true Twelve Apostles that called Paul an Apostle.  It is my guess that Paul may very well have been a false Apostle and a person that made up tall tales.  A person that tells untruths is normally called a liar.  

 

Also, it is taught in the New Testimony that Paul was a willing part of the party that murdered Stephen.  The Hebrew Bible plainly teaches that anyone that sheds innocent blood is to be executed for such a heinous crime.

 

Genesis 9:6 ESV 

“Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed, for God made man in his own image.

 

Could it be that Paul was a murderer, tare and false Apostle?  Could it be that Paul's books/letters cannot be trusted?

 

 

IMO the Scripture as it is is not only complete, but sealed by The Holy Spirit, and there is a  stern warning not to add or remove anything.  IMO to question Paul is somewhat understandable, but for a Baptist College to not guide you into the point of completely trusting Paul's writings as authentic and given to him by the Holy Spirit poio to Liberal unorthodox garbage teaching.  Be wise and careful,  and Trust  the Bible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's not get too far into the weeds here guys.  The thread was started by a troll.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Knotical said:

Let's not get too far into the weeds here guys.  The thread was started by a troll.

It makes no difference who, or what anyone thinks of the person, its the subject matter that I responded to. Even if this were a person who had posted a thousand times, my response would still be the  same. God bless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Just FYI:

"We know, from the writings of St. Irenaeus and others, and from actual textual discoveries, that the four gospels, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were being bound together in codices and utilized exclusively in churches by the middle part of the second century, i.e. the 150’s A.D.  St. Irenaeus points out that this is the case in cities like Rome and Antioch, no proffering at that early point that those cities had some special authorities, but rather pointing out that at that early date, there was still a living memory in those Christian communities of the proclamation of the Apostles themselves to those communities, and this verified that these were the books which they had received from those same Apostles."

 

"Its is also now broadly accepted by scholars that by the year 100 A.D., St. Paul’s epistles had been gathered into a collection, and were circulating together, rather than as individual books.  One of our earliest manuscripts of St. Paul’s epistles is, in fact, an early edition of this collection, identified as Parchment 46.  This collection includes the Epistle to the Hebrews, directly after the Epistle to the Romans, but that is a subject for another time.  There is very good historical evidence, much of it from the controversy with Marcion at the very dawn of the second century, that already these two books, the codex of the Gospels and the codex of St. Paul’s epistles, were functioning as scripture in Christian worship throughout the world in a way very similar to their function today in the Orthodox Church.  In fact, 2 Peter 3:16 identifies St. Paul’s epistles as scripture."

 

- (Fr. Stephen De Young)

 

 

Edited by atpollard
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK,Origen;who selected which books stayed and which got shredded ? You got nothing better to do than try to discredit everyone by demanding evidence. Well,not gonna work here'You go look it up if you are so concerned.I don't need to know the name ;add. & ph. # of every judge on the panel. I'm not that dense ! The facts remain regardless of who made the descision.Or do you deny that hundreds of essays ;previously accepted,were rejected from the New Test.by somebody ??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Just Mike said:

It makes no difference who, or what anyone thinks of the person, its the subject matter that I responded to. Even if this were a person who had posted a thousand times, my response would still be the  same. God bless.

First of all look at who responded and how they responded.  For the most part it was pretty much the same as more mature Christians chimed in on what was obviously an inflammatory post.  My point on this is to not something to get carried away with as was meant to stir people up.  Some of us fell for it hook-line-and-sinker.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, pastor marty said:

OK,Origen;who selected which books stayed and which got shredded ?

That has nothing to do with your claim.   I know you want to get out from under the microscope and make this about me rather than your claim, but there will be no changing of the subject.   You said:

 

"It is true that a group of Religious scholars decided which texts to include and which ones to excluded. This did happen in the time of Constantine."

 

Now can you cite any primary sources?

 

1 hour ago, pastor marty said:

You got nothing better to do than try to discredit everyone by demanding evidence.

Yeah that is just awful.  I want you to provide evidence to support your claim.  I ought to just take your word for it.

 

NOT GOING TO HAPPEN!!!  Weak Marty very weak.  It is only a problem for those who cannot support their claims.  Hint, hint!

 

1 hour ago, pastor marty said:

Well,not gonna work here'You go look it up if you are so concerned.

That tell us all everything we need to know.  In other words, you don't know of any primary sources.

 

1 hour ago, pastor marty said:

I don't need to know the name ;add. & ph. # of every judge on the panel. I'm not that dense ! The facts remain regardless of who made the descision.

And that is why you believe a falsehood and cannot cite any primary sources to support your view.  Rigorous research is not for you.

 

1 hour ago, pastor marty said:

Or do you deny that hundreds of essays ;previously accepted,were rejected from the New Test.by somebody ??

You haven't even supported your original claim yet (i.e. "It is true that a group of Religious scholars decided which texts to include and which ones to excluded.This did happen in the time of Constantine.").  Prove that it happen in the first place with primary sources.  Why don't you all show us when and where with primary sources?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Origen said:

That has nothing to do with your claim.   I know you want to get out from under the microscope and make this about me rather than your claim, but there will be no changing of the subject.   You said:

 

"It is true that a group of Religious scholars decided which texts to include and which ones to excluded. This did happen in the time of Constantine."

 

Now can you cite any primary sources?

 

Yeah that is just awful.  I want you to provide evidence to support your claim.  I ought to just take your word for it.

 

NOT GOING TO HAPPEN!!!  Weak Marty very weak.  It is only a problem for those who cannot support their claims.  Hint, hint!

 

That tell us all everything we need to know.  In other words, you don't know of any primary sources.

 

And that is why you believe a falsehood and cannot cite any primary sources to support your view.  Rigorous research is not for you.

 

You haven't even supported your original claim yet (i.e. "It is true that a group of Religious scholars decided which texts to include and which ones to excluded.This did happen in the time of Constantine.").  Prove that it happen in the first place with primary sources.  Why don't you all show us when and where with primary sources?

Origen, it seems odd to me that a pastor would challenge that Paul was not an Apostle or that the books the Holy Spirit inspired Paul to write are Authentically to be called Scripture. 

 

It seems to me when a pastor is missing some basic understanding as to how all the books in the New Testament were determined to be Holy Scripture. This is so very important to be fully informed BEFORE one would even consider becoming a "pastor". Then again a "BISHOP" surly should have settled this issue long before this. What church or denomination would even ordain any man who has not settled this long before even considering going into ministry. Oh my this is  beyond my understanding!

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Knotical said:

First of all look at who responded and how they responded.  For the most part it was pretty much the same as more mature Christians chimed in on what was obviously an inflammatory post.  My point on this is to not something to get carried away with as was meant to stir people up.  Some of us fell for it hook-line-and-sinker.

I had my mouth closed so the hook did not get me. I generally respond, not for the person who started this, but just giving my opinion. So I meant nothing towards anyone. I hope my post was not taken as being offensive. I just sometimes give my two cents worth. It might not be worth even one cent...God bless.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×