Evidence for God from Science

in my youtube ministry I have now twice gone head to head with some seeming quite educated and informed people who are convinced that paul was a deceiver. I've pointed out peter 3:15. they seem to ignore that. I've pointed out that paul was accompanied by great miracles and successful evangelism. they say luke was his crony and so acts cannot be trusted. these people are so deceived. they call all of us paulinians not Christians. they calim they are the only true Christians, that their special knowledge is needed to be saved. two that I have argued with are this guy:
http://youtu.be/2jVBoPCnQ7c
and this guy:
http://youtu.be/Vgig9LRRjrs (note the ankh)

now I don't doubt that these men are either false teachers or have been falsely taught or both. I have pointed out to them that the Lord would not allow pauls writings in the bible if they were false. that for nearly 2000 years Christianity has thrived on the advice of this incredible servant of God - our dear brother Paul. but they hate him.
the question is, apart from a satanic reason, what is their motive? I asked them to tell me what it is that paul taught that they think conflicts with Jesus. no straight answer. so the question is: did the apostle paul teach anything that even remotely clashes with the teaching of the Lord?
j
ps: might I add that they even go so far as to suggest that the bad man who sowed the tares in the field of wheat in the parable is none other than paul.

Ah...and here I was thinking the post was about an certain Australian political 'Red-headed' lass...



Much cheers to all.

Paul was controversial at times, that is the issue.
He spoke from the heart, wore his heart on his sleeve and that meant that, at times, he was brash and too quick with his tongue/pen.
He was very zealous and as with many people full of zeal, he could come off as an extremist.
All that said, how ANYONE can have a problem with someone that writes this is beyond me:

1 Corinthians 13:4-8
New American Standard Bible (NASB)
4 Love is patient, love is kind and is not jealous; love does not brag and is not arrogant, 5 does not act unbecomingly; it does not seek its own, is not provoked, does not take into account a wrong suffered, 6 does not rejoice in unrighteousness, but rejoices with the truth; 7 bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.

8 Love never fails; but if there are gifts of prophecy, they will be done away; if there are tongues, they will cease; if there is knowledge, it will be done away.

The other issue is that no other writer ( other than John perhaps) was more "christological" than Paul and for some, that is a bad thing.

Personally, I love Paul's writings.

I have run into this, but it was a while back. The person was under the influence of a sunday school teacher who was anti-pauline, and obviously could not defend the arguments. I warned them of the danger, but haven't spoken to them in years.

Let's see what Peter says about Paul's ministry:
"Bear in mind that our Lord’s patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. 16 He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction." (2 Peter 3:15-16)

I would say that Satan wants nothing more than to discredit the ministry of Paul. Paul is OUR apostle. Not Peter. Not James. (Romans 11:13)

jlay wrote:I have run into this, but it was a while back. The person was under the influence of a sunday school teacher who was anti-pauline, and obviously could not defend the arguments. I warned them of the danger, but haven't spoken to them in years.

Let's see what Peter says about Paul's ministry:
"Bear in mind that our Lord’s patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. 16 He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction." (2 Peter 3:15-16)

I would say that Satan wants nothing more than to discredit the ministry of Paul. Paul is OUR apostle. Not Peter. Not James. (Romans 11:13)

A very good point, one that gentiles tend to forget.

amen jlay!

I also agree paulsacramento about paul's occasional brashness or sarcasm but he was under the influence of the Holy Spirit and I think these anti-Pauline people are referring to something doctrinal. I just cannot see what it is.

PaulSacramento wrote:

jlay wrote:I have run into this, but it was a while back. The person was under the influence of a sunday school teacher who was anti-pauline, and obviously could not defend the arguments. I warned them of the danger, but haven't spoken to them in years.

Let's see what Peter says about Paul's ministry:
"Bear in mind that our Lord’s patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. 16 He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction." (2 Peter 3:15-16)

I would say that Satan wants nothing more than to discredit the ministry of Paul. Paul is OUR apostle. Not Peter. Not James. (Romans 11:13)

A very good point, one that gentiles tend to forget.

One obviously does not have to agree with premise that Paul is the only apostle to the gentiles to agree that Paul's influence as a great apostle is undeniable. The Church of Peter and Paul has testified to that from the apostles' age.

Byblos wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:

jlay wrote:I have run into this, but it was a while back. The person was under the influence of a sunday school teacher who was anti-pauline, and obviously could not defend the arguments. I warned them of the danger, but haven't spoken to them in years.

Let's see what Peter says about Paul's ministry:
"Bear in mind that our Lord’s patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. 16 He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction." (2 Peter 3:15-16)

I would say that Satan wants nothing more than to discredit the ministry of Paul. Paul is OUR apostle. Not Peter. Not James. (Romans 11:13)

A very good point, one that gentiles tend to forget.

One obviously does not have to agree with premise that Paul is the only apostle to the gentiles to agree that Paul's influence as a great apostle is undeniable. The Church of Peter and Paul has testified to that from the apostles' age.

No Byblos, I'm pretty sure Paul is THE apostle to the Gentiles.

nuthajason wrote:amen jlay!

I also agree paulsacramento about paul's occasional brashness or sarcasm but he was under the influence of the Holy Spirit and I think these anti-Pauline people are referring to something doctrinal. I just cannot see what it is.

It is important to note that Paul did speak under the HS in some of his writings ( Not I but the Lord says...) but also at times under his own authority/opinion ( Not the Lord but I...).
Regardless of that, Paul's influence is undeniable and far reaching and, IMO, we are all the better for it.
I say that even though I myself do NOT always like some of the things Paul wrote.

Paul is the only apostle to the gentiles. Scripturally, that is the case. That doesn't mean that Peter, James, etc. don't have something to teach us. They most certainly do. All scripture is useful for........ (2 Tim. 3:16)

Biblically speaking He was the first apostle to the Gentiles.
Acts seems to imply that Peter was also sent BUT we can't deny that if there is a THE apostle to the gentiles that it would be Paul.

jlay wrote:Paul is the only apostle to the gentiles. Scripturally, that is the case. That doesn't mean that Peter, James, etc. don't have something to teach us. They most certainly do. All scripture is useful for........ (2 Tim. 3:16)

For such a position to be true means there is not a single instance in scripture where either Paul ministered to Jews or that any other apostle ministered to gentiles. It so happens that there are more than one case for both so such a position is moot (at best). I won't belabor the point any further than that in this thread.

Byblos wrote: For such a position to be true means there is not a single instance in scripture where either Paul ministered to Jews or that any other apostle ministered to gentiles. It so happens that there are more than one case for both so such a position is moot (at best). I won't belabor the point any further than that in this thread.

Sorry Byb, but this is a strawman. I don't agree on any of those points. I don't think the Bible reveals that to be the case, and I certainly don't think that is what I am arguing. The Bible demonstrates that Paul most certainly (in his earlier ministry) went first to the Jew and then to the Gentile. And, the Bible also demonstrates that Paul is the ONLY apostle TO the gentiles. What I am saying is that Paul's teaching is direct revelation from God, specifically intent for the dispensation of grace we are all under today. Paul says it this way, "But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man. For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ." Paul wasn't duplicating the ministry of the 12. Paul and Peter even come to an agreement. "But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter." (Galatians 2:7)

I'm not saying that another apostle couldn't also reach out to the Gentiles. They could. But in this sense they are NOT the Apostle to the Gentiles. Paul says this is his OFFICE. He is not the 13th apostle. There were 12 and that is it, and they already had their commission. Paul was an apostle with a specific office. In this case, Apostle to the Gentiles. There is no scriptural basis to argue otherwise.

It should be made clear that the NT does mention others directly ( Peter) and others indirectly ( Barnabas and others) that preached to Gentiles.
That Paul is the most known of the 1st/2nd generation apostles to preach to the gentiles is clear.
That there were others during his time AND since his time is a logical conclusion.

in my youtube ministry I have now twice gone head to head with some seeming quite educated and informed people who are convinced that paul was a deceiver. I've pointed out peter 3:15. they seem to ignore that. I've pointed out that paul was accompanied by great miracles and successful evangelism. they say luke was his crony and so acts cannot be trusted. these people are so deceived. they call all of us paulinians not Christians. they calim they are the only true Christians, that their special knowledge is needed to be saved. two that I have argued with are this guy:

nj, you've taken the Scriptures as the foundation and standard for what you teach. These Anti-Paulines have set themselves above Scripture and use Scripture as a buffet where they take what they like and reject what they don't. You really are not coming from the same place. You can present the truth, try to persuade, but you can't reach inside their hearts and minds to force them to accept the truth.

My guess - from past experience - is that a thing that really sticks in these folks' craw about Paul is passages such as those in Romans 1 and 1 Corinthians 6, where Paul sets some very strong moral boundaries. IF that is the case, the Anti-Paulines haven't really paid very close attention to Jesus, as He avowed and amplified the moral standards set forth in the Law of Moses (which I assume these Anti-Paulines also thoroughly dislike). Ironically, Jesus did this in the "Sermon on the Mount", a favorite passage of many theological liberals.