- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
09 Jan 21
2 edits
• Jesus Teaches There Are Only 12 Apostles Into Eternity, But Paul Adds Himself To The List As a Thirteenth.
The slanderous innuendo here is that Paul was a bragging worker adding himself to the original twelve apostles. Actually, Paul said he was less than the least of ALL SAINTS (Christians) let alone the top apostle.
"To me, less than the least of all saints was this grace given to announce to the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ as the gospel." (Eph. 3:8)
Paul does not add his name to the list of the original twelve apostles in a way of "completing" the list as apostle # 13.
He says rather wrote also that he was not fit to be called an apostle. He persecuted the church for which he had regret.
" . . . He [the resurrected Christ] appeared to Cephas, then to THE TWELVE ... (1 Cor. 15:5) . . .
Then He appeared to over five hundred brothers at one time, of whom the majority remain until now, but some have fallen asleep;
Then He appeared to James, then to all the apostles;
And last of all He appeared to me also ... For I am the LEAST of the apostles, who am not fir to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. But by the grace of God I am what I am ..." (vs 7-10a)
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
09 Jan 21
2 edits
... But Paul Adds Himself To The List As a Thirteenth.
Now Paul the apostle does say that as an apostle he "labored more abundantly then all of them." Why should we dispute this? If God wanted Peter or John to write so many New Testament books He surely could have.
"I labored more abundantly than all of them, yet not I but the grace of God which is with me." (v.10)
Paul pioneered deeply into the experience of the empowering grace of God through Jesus Christ living in him. And skeptics like Ghost have of course despised him ever since.
Paul wrote some 13 of the 27 New Testament documents preserved by God's sovereignty as the inspired canon of the New Testament.
Paul was clearer than James.
Paul was recommended by Peter as to his wisdom.
Paul we see established most of the local churches we read about in the NT.
Corinth, Ephesus, Philippi, the Galatians churches, even the Colossian church which had never seen his face. His co-workers seemed to have established it at Paul's direction.
At the same time many turned away from his ministry. He says "all Asia" turned away from him. That may mean all the co-workers there or all the churches he established there. We are not sure which. (2 Tim. 1:15)
Regardless, what the Christian church owes to this apostle of Christ is incalculable.
09 Jan 21
Three times Jesus in the Book of Revelation condemns eating meat sacrificed to idols, even saying this is the doctrine of a false prophet. (Rev. 2:6, 14 (Ephesus); Rev. 2:14-15 (Pergamum); Revelation 2:20 (Thyatira).
This absolute prescription also was set forth in James' ruling at the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15:20. Then it is repeated when it was put in a letter. (Acts 15:29.) Finally, James reiterates this for a third and final time in Acts chapter 21. James tells Paul that many claim Paul is teaching lawless doctrine -- "apostasia." (Acts 21:21.) So James reminds Paul what was the ruling at the Jerusalem Council. He tells Paul that previously "we wrote giving judgment that they [i.e., the Gentiles] should keep themselves from things sacrificed to idols...." (Acts 21:25.) James asks Paul to reassure everyone that Paul believes the Law is still valid by Paul performing the vow from Numbers chapter six. Paul agrees, impliedly leading James to assume Paul never wavered from the principle that it is unlawful to eat meat sacrificed to idols.
However, Paul clearly teaches multiple times that there is nothing wrong in itself eating meat sacrificed to idols. Paul reasoned that a "strong" conscience knows an idol is nothing. Thus, eating meat sacrificed to nothing can have no consequences. Those who thought otherwise Paul says were "weak" minded in thinking the fact an idol was involved meant eating meat sacrificed to an "idol" made it wrong to do so. (1 Corinthians 8:4-13, and 1 Corinthians 10:19-29. See also Romans 14:21.)
Why did Paul devote so much time, and take the risk endorsing eating idol meat unless you were in the presence of such a "weak" minded brother? Well, idol temples apparently gave such meat away free to anyone who would come to the idol's temple after the sacrifice to sit and enjoy the feast of meats. Such feasts were a primary way the public enjoyed any game-meat. So this was an important teaching by Paul which would attract poor followers to Paul's doctrines.
(Link already provided in OP)
09 Jan 21
@sonship
You may have prayed on the contradiction but returned to the thread speaking in tongues and failing utterly to resolve it.
I would have had more respect for you if you had simply said you couldn't explain it.
09 Jan 21
@sonship
Jesus made abundantly clear in the Book of Revelation that eating meat sacrificed to idols was the doctrine of a false prophet.
What is it with you and false prophets? Seriously?
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
09 Jan 21
6 edits
Three times Jesus in the Book of Revelation condemns eating meat sacrificed to idols, even saying this is the doctrine of a false prophet. (Rev. 2:6, 14 (Ephesus); Rev. 2:14-15 (Pergamum); Revelation 2:20 (Thyatira).
This absolute prescription also was set forth in James' ruling at the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15:20.
James's ruling about the controversy was not that adequately faithful to the new covenant. Though James was a very godly man, it is typical that Christians would look to the physical BROTHER of Jesus to be an authority on Jesus. This is typical of religious human nature.
ie "Get the BROTHER of Jesus. He should lead the movement. "
Yet God used James to write one book of the NT and used Paul to write thirteen. The church in Jerusalem under the leadership of James was still historically with one foot in the old covenant. We appreciate James. But Paul's epistles are higher, clearer, and more of the essence of the new covenant than James's writings and judgments.
It is understandable that the early church TRANSITIONED gradually from the old covenant law keeping to the new covenant living by the indwelling grace of the indwelling Spirit of Christ. The historical gradualism from James's kind of straddling leadership and Paul's clear break from the old testament apostleship is understandable.
Paul, taking the advice of James in Jerusalem caused a situation that blew up in Paul's face. God would not honor his apostle Paul to pretend to be still under the law of Moses. This shows that both men were human even though servants of God. Paul however, seemed to have learned a lesson. And his strongest letters bringing the Christians forth from the Old Covenant law of Moses were written after his calamity of rejection from the Jerusalem episode.
James, the flesh brother of Jesus, was very influential. Paul was a clearer apostle. James, bless his heart, thought pretty much Jesus was there to HELP people keep the law of Moses better. Paul wrote of "the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus". Paul was closer to what Christ taught about how His disciples would live after His resurrection.
And your other comments I will examine with additional time.
You are doing a lot to try to nullify what Christ SAID about Paul, that he was a special ambassador of His to take His gospel to the world and suffer dearly for it.
"But the Lord said to him [Ananias] , Go, for this man [Paul] is a chosen vessel to Me, to bear My name before both the Gentiles and kings and the sons of Israel; For I will show him how many things he must suffer on behalf of My name." (Acts 9:15,16)
Understand readers that all this criticism of Paul is REALLY criticism of Jesus misdirected at a faithful servant of His. Make no mistake about it. The REAL target of Ghost of a Duke's critical opposition is disguised. It is actually Jesus Christ who Ghost is trying to slander.
09 Jan 21
@sonship saidI think you will find Ghost of a Duke's stance is that the convoluted rote-learned ideology that you regurgitate does not add up. He isn't "slandering" anyone.
Make not mistake about it. The REAL target of Ghost of a Duke's critical opposition is disguised. It is actually Jesus Christ who Ghost is trying to slander.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
09 Jan 21
Three times Jesus in the Book of Revelation condemns eating meat sacrificed to idols, even saying this is the doctrine of a false prophet. (Rev. 2:6, 14 (Ephesus); Rev. 2:14-15 (Pergamum); Revelation 2:20 (Thyatira).
Eating food sacrificed to idols is mentioned twice. Revelation 2:6 is about "the works of the Nicoliatans, which I also hate."
Read it. That's about something else.
09 Jan 21
@sonship saidYes, yes, any criticism of your failure to explain a biblical contradiction is an attack on Jesus. It has nothing whatsoever to do with your lack of personal understanding.
Understand readers that all this criticism of Paul is REALLY criticism of Jesus misdirected at a faithful servant of His. Make no mistake about it. The REAL target of Ghost of a Duke's critical opposition is disguised. It is actually Jesus Christ who Ghost is trying to slander.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
09 Jan 21
2 edits
@Ghost-of-a-Duke
I am not finished yet.
Your slander that Paul "thumbs up" idolatry contrary to Christ's thumbs down was debunked.
Your insinuation that neither Christ or Paul recognized the subtlety that could be destructive to the church over the matter of physical food eating was also debunked.
Your Acts statements are being examined and not rushed.
09 Jan 21
1 edit
@ghost-of-a-duke saidThe man is a delusional religious fanatic. Problem is that his is fanatical about the wrong things. The simple answer to all these apparent contradictions is that Christ and Paul had difference audiences. One preached to the Jews only. One preach mostly to Gentiles. They are two different groups with difference cultures and religion. Nobody gets any brownie points for being able to reconcile all these contradictions.
Yes, yes, any criticism of your failure to explain a biblical contradiction is an attack on Jesus. It has nothing whatsoever to do with your lack of personal understanding.
But Sonship has already established a reputation over the last 14 years, for promoting Pauls faith only doctrine and ignoring Christ's keeping of the commandments doctrine. So he has already twisted Pauls doctrine out of shape.
The truth is that BOTH Christ and Paul preached this exact same doctrine..... that in order to enter the Kingdom of God, Jesus must find the person did good works and live righteously.
Nothing else matters. But the man cannot bring himself to say that.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
09 Jan 21
7 edits
Jesus made abundantly clear in the Book of Revelation that eating meat sacrificed to idols was the doctrine of a false prophet.
I explained it in English and not in tongues.
I explained it as economically I could as many here who don't like long posts.
Recap. I am glad you acknowledge the resurrected and glorified Christ to be "clearly" speaking in Revelation.
Now the honest Bible student learns not only what is written. He learns what ALSO is written. And Jesus talk about all foods being clean in the Gospels and not being deceived (Balaam style) to drift into idolatry in Revelation.
I have to believe both and consider the contexts and application.
You answer me. Is there or is there not a contradiction between Mark 7:19 and Revelation 2:14?
Which one should I believe Jesus was WRONG to speak?
And if I trust Him on BOTH speakings then how best do I consider the application of each speaking? Or don't you care?
If Jesus said it was not what enters into the mouth and stomach which defile a man declaring all foods clean than the case of being lured into eating idol sacrifices must have to do with not so much the physical food but the defiling of IDOLATRY going along with the feasts of idolatry.
============ Take a breather and then read more ============
Don't get tired of reading yet. In Revelation's highly symbolic talking there was no Jezebel anymore then. And there was no Balak or Balaam then. In fact "the tree of life" which the Ephesian overcomers were to eat was also no more literally. And the "hidden manna" that the Pergamos saints were to eat also was not physically in their possession.
You better take the EATING of the meat sacrificed to idols in a more spiritual way. For the "hidden manna" and the "tree of life" surely mean to EAT CHRIST the living presence in the Holy Spirit. So it is better to take this idol meat matter in the sense of not "eating" Christ but "eating" idols and the subtle dubious benefits which come along with idolatry.
Do you think there was an actual reincarnation of Jezebel in the city of Thyatira? I don't. I think Christ was speaking in very symbolic language for the sake of the Christian churches down through the centuries.
"But I have something against you, that you tolerate the woman Jezebel, she who calls herself a prophetess and teaches and leads My slaves astray to commit fornication and to eat idol sacrifices. "
How about we consider the Old Testament person of Jezebel as being symbolically referenced here? And not to say Christ doesn't care about idolatrous feasts and banquets, but probably they are being alluded to as distraction from taking in Christ in favor of deep things of the occult.
"And I gave her [Jezebel] time that she might repent, and she is not willing to repent of her fornication." (v.21)
Of course the actual Jezebel of First Kings had been killed centuries before in Old Testament times in her unrepentant state. So let's view the letters to the seven churches with more sense of them being "signs".
09 Jan 21
@sonship saidStraining at the gnat of what you eat or not eat.
@Ghost-of-a-Duke
Jesus made abundantly clear in the Book of Revelation that eating meat sacrificed to idols was the doctrine of a false prophet.
I explained it in English and not tongues.
I explained it as economically I could as many here who don't like long posts.
Recap. I am glad you acknowledge the resurrected and glorified Chr ...[text shortened]... state. So let's view the letters to the seven churches with more sense of them being "signs".
Swallowing the camel of disobedience to the commandments.
You are a moron. These atheists are spinning you around like a useless top.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
09 Jan 21
2 edits
Straining at the gnat of what you eat or not eat.
Swallowing the camel of disobedience to the commandments.
You are a moron. These atheists are spinning you around like a useless top.
No, I don't see them doing that. But it is no surprise that you would be cheering along with atheists on the Spirituality Forum.
And I already tried to enlighten you about your name calling.
First Peter 4:14
King James Bible
If ye be reproached for the name of Christ, happy are ye; for the spirit of glory and of God resteth upon you: on their part he is evil spoken of, but on your part he is glorified.
I trust that it is OK with you if I quote not the RcV here but the KJV for you.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
09 Jan 21
1 edit
Ghost, answer the question please.
I have to believe both and consider the contexts and application.
You answer me. Is there or is there not a contradiction between Mark 7:19 and Revelation 2:14?
If YES which one of Christ's speakings are wrong ?
Both ?
Answer please.
If NO, how would you think the reader should understand the difference?