logo
Welcome Guest! To enable all features please Login or Register.

Notification

Icon
Error

5 Pages«<345
Options
View
Go to last post Go to first unread
Offline Swalchy  
#201 Posted : Monday, August 23, 2010 4:05:24 AM(UTC)
Swalchy
Joined: 7/4/2007(UTC)
Posts: 250
Man
Location: England

MadDog wrote:
No, you still haven't answered my question. Is Paul a false prophet or not? A simple yes or no would be nice. Someone from an earlier post stated that you were not pro-Paul, but from what I am reading you are. Can I get a yes or no from you?


I'm pro truth, MD, not pro Paul. If what people were saying about Paul were true, I wouldn't be proving them wrong, and I wouldn't have any problem with what they were saying.

As it happens, what people are accusing Paul of, just isn't true. So whilst I'm most certainly not Pro-Paul, it looks like I am because I'm having to correct everyone's false claims.

There isn't just a "Pro Paul" or "Anti Paul" side to all this, MD. There's the extremely large grey area in the middle.

And as far as I'm concerned, a false prophet is someone who makes false prophecies. Isn't one of Yada's points that Paul doesn't actually make any prophecies? That therefore means he can't be a false prophet, because you've got to say something that's wrong in order to be false. Hence the meaning of the word.

And seeing as though not a single person has answered any of my posts or questions, nor have they even acknowledged what kp wrote regarding the Benjamin prophecy of Genesis 49:27, I deem it to be absurd and unreasonable that people can demand us to answer questions, when they themselves refuse to do the same.
Offline BiynaYahu  
#202 Posted : Monday, August 23, 2010 4:42:31 AM(UTC)
BiynaYahu
Joined: 4/5/2008(UTC)
Posts: 314
Man
Location: British Columbia, Canada

Peace and wellbeing everyone,

First of all I would like to point out that most people are getting far to heated over this discussion. Also, Swalch-meister I realize you are getting very attacking responses, but don't let it get to you. Your arguments are very sound. I've yet to make up my mind either way. Besides I barely read the Messianic writtings anyway. Besides the fulfillments, the Tanakh has everything we need anyway.

I still think that "Mattithyahu 7:15-20 should be considered here:
Pay attention to and direct your mind towards, watch out for and be on guard against, be concerned about and take heed of, be aware of and be careful of false prophets, those who falsely profess to declare the thoughts of the Supreme One before and in the presence of mankind, separating yourselves from them, they who come and appear, arise and make their public appearance to you in, by and with sheep’s clothing, garments and raiment’s, but nevertheless, from within and inside their soul and inner being they are and exist as vicious and destructive, rapacious and ravenous wolves, being cruel and violently greedy robbers, plunderers and extortionists, swindlers who only want to take your wealth and lead you astray. From their fruit and works, acts and deeds, effects and products, outcomes and consequences, results and rewards you will accurately know and clearly see, perceive and fully understand, recognise and acknowledge them, completely comprehending who they really are. Do people gather or get, pick or collect clusters and bunches of grapes from thorns, thistles and brambles, or figs from thistles and briars, burrs and prickly samphire’s? So in this manner and way, thus and so, every good and pleasant, excellent and distinguished, useful and right, beneficial and fine, perfect and fitting, upright and worthy, admirable and satisfactory, dependable and pure, virtuous and honourable tree and large bush makes and performs, accomplishes and executes, practises and brings about, keeps and carries out, constructs and establishes, manufactures and creates, forms and produces, appoints and ordains, undertakes and prepares, constitutes and provides good and pleasant, excellent and distinguished, useful and right, beneficial and fine, perfect and fitting, upright and worthy, admirable and satisfactory, dependable and pure, virtuous and honourable fruit and works, acts and deeds, effects and products, outcomes and consequences, results and rewards. But nevertheless, the bad and evil, unwholesome and corrupt, putrid and rotten, useless and unfit, harmful and worthless, dangerous and decayed tree and large bush makes and performs, accomplishes and executes, practises and brings about, keeps and carries out, constructs and establishes, manufactures and creates, forms and produces, appoints and ordains, undertakes and prepares, constitutes and provides evil and troublesome, sorrowful and poor, pitiable and unfit, unattractive and useless, worthless and morally reprehensible, morally corrupt and wicked, annoying and unethical, diseased and blind, perilous and criminal, vicious and malignant, harmful and incompetent, bad and wretched, pernicious and noxious fruit and works, acts and deeds, effects and products, outcomes and consequences, results and rewards. A good and pleasant, excellent and distinguished, useful and right, beneficial and fine, perfect and fitting, upright and worthy, admirable and satisfactory, dependable and pure, virtuous and honourable tree and large bush does not have the power or might, ability or capability, force or influence, authority or significance, competence or excellence to make and perform, accomplish and execute, practise and bring about, keep and carry out, construct and establish, manufacture and create, form and produce, appoint and ordain, undertake and prepare, constitute and provide evil and troublesome, sorrowful and poor, pitiable and unfit, unattractive and useless, worthless and morally reprehensible, morally corrupt and wicked, annoying and unethical, diseased and blind, perilous and criminal, vicious and malignant, harmful and incompetent, bad and wretched, pernicious and noxious fruit and works, acts and deeds, effects and products, outcomes and consequences, results and rewards, nor is an evil and troublesome, sorrowful and poor, pitiable and unfit, unattractive and useless, worthless and morally reprehensible, morally corrupt and wicked, annoying and unethical, diseased and blind, perilous and criminal, vicious and malignant, harmful and incompetent, bad and wretched, pernicious and noxious tree able to make and perform, accomplish and execute, practise and bring about, keep and carry out, construct and establish, manufacture and create, form and produce, appoint and ordain, undertake and prepare, constitute and provide good and pleasant, excellent and fine, useful and beneficial, nice and salutary, upright and worthy, admirable and commendable, precious and genuine, flawless and lovely, virtuous, beautiful and honourable fruit and works, acts and deeds, effects and products, outcomes and consequences, results and rewards. Every individual and collective tree and large bush that does not make and perform, accomplish and execute, practise and bring about, keep and carry out, construct and establish, manufacture and create, form and produce, appoint and ordain, undertake and prepare, constitute and provide good and pleasant, excellent and fine, useful and beneficial, nice and salutary, upright and worthy, admirable and commendable, precious and genuine, flawless and lovely, virtuous, beautiful and honourable fruit and works, acts and deeds, effects and products, outcomes and consequences, results and rewards is cut down and cut off, eliminated and removed, sundered and separated, struck down and hewn off, excluded and expelled, exterminated and done away with, and is thrown and cast, scattered and hurled, propelled and expelled into the blazing fire. Then and therefore, accordingly and as a result of this, from their fruit and works, acts and deeds, effects and products, outcomes and consequences, results and rewards you will indeed accurately know and clearly see, perceive and fully understand, recognise and acknowledge them, completely comprehending who they really are."

And the fruit of Paul is Christianity. I don't think this part of Mattithyahu is ABOUT Paul, but it may apply. Unless you argue that Christianity is based solely on Galatians in which case, if it wasn't written by Paul, we may be being a little unfair to Sha'ul here. Finally, once again, I think everyone should re-read their responses. becoming overly terse can cause people not to heed what you have written. Tact can be a powerful ally.


Your brother,
Mike Browell
Someone who does not dearly love or welcome, entertain, look fondly upon or cherish people with strong affection or highly esteem them with great favour, goodwill or benevolence, be loyal to or greatly adore them has not known or understood, perceived or realized, noticed or discerned, discovered or observed, experienced or ascertained, learned about or distinguished, comprehended, acknowledged or recognized God*, for concerning this, God* is and exists as brotherly love and affection, good will, esteem and benevolence.
Offline MadDog  
#203 Posted : Monday, August 23, 2010 4:48:22 AM(UTC)
MadDog
Joined: 6/19/2009(UTC)
Posts: 157
Man
Location: San Antonio, Texas

Swalchy wrote:
I'm pro truth, MD, not pro Paul. If what people were saying about Paul were true, I wouldn't be proving them wrong, and I wouldn't have any problem with what they were saying.

As it happens, what people are accusing Paul of, just isn't true. So whilst I'm most certainly not Pro-Paul, it looks like I am because I'm having to correct everyone's false claims.

There isn't just a "Pro Paul" or "Anti Paul" side to all this, MD. There's the extremely large grey area in the middle.

And as far as I'm concerned, a false prophet is someone who makes false prophecies. Isn't one of Yada's points that Paul doesn't actually make any prophecies? That therefore means he can't be a false prophet, because you've got to say something that's wrong in order to be false. Hence the meaning of the word.

And seeing as though not a single person has answered any of my posts or questions, nor have they even acknowledged what kp wrote regarding the Benjamin prophecy of Genesis 49:27, I deem it to be absurd and unreasonable that people can demand us to answer questions, when they themselves refuse to do the same.


Well then I'm questioning you Steve. As far as proving people wrong you have about 7 billion people to go and who knows who how many more in the past two thousand years. There is no Grey area as far I as I see. Paul said plently wrong. He only put a question mark behind every word or phrase he uttered, which brings me back to the Garden of Eden.

Gen.3
[1] Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?

And to your credit, from what I am gathering from you is that you don't know the answer. From no lack of knowledge I might add.
Offline Swalchy  
#204 Posted : Monday, August 23, 2010 5:03:57 AM(UTC)
Swalchy
Joined: 7/4/2007(UTC)
Posts: 250
Man
Location: England

Until I see everything for and against, MD, you're right - I don't know the answer.

And neither does anyone else, for that matter.

And whilst you might not see a grey area, MD, there are enough of us who do. Just because you don't see it, doesn't mean it's not there.

And technically, Paul never wrote any question marks - they weren't around until about the 8th Century CE :)

Quote:
Also, Swalch-meister I realize you are getting very attacking responses, but don't let it get to you. Your arguments are very sound.


Thanks Biyny, and don't worry, I'm not letting anything get me down :)
Offline MadDog  
#205 Posted : Monday, August 23, 2010 6:35:49 AM(UTC)
MadDog
Joined: 6/19/2009(UTC)
Posts: 157
Man
Location: San Antonio, Texas

Swalchy wrote:
Until I see everything for and against, MD, you're right - I don't know the answer.

And neither does anyone else, for that matter.

And whilst you might not see a grey area, MD, there are enough of us who do. Just because you don't see it, doesn't mean it's not there.

And technically, Paul never wrote any question marks - they weren't around until about the 8th Century CE :)



Thanks Biyny, and don't worry, I'm not letting anything get me down :)


I do see a grey area hanging your words Swalch concerning Paul. And as far as question marks, you all know what I mean by that.
And before I say anthing else I'd like to hear from either Yada or Ken.

As far as the question mark, Adam and Chavah were waiting for the 8th century to come around so someone could invent the
question mark? Come on man!?!?! Adam named every animal on the face of the planet. You make it seem like Adam was some kind
of cave man.

And one more thing. A false prophet is someone who proclaims ANYTHING against what Yahweh has said, past, present, or future.

I can see how this forum is looking at this Stevie, but that is not my intent. Peace and Shalom be upon you Steve. May Yahweh bless
you and your family. I am sorry I've made this a house of discontent.

Offline bigritchie  
#206 Posted : Monday, August 23, 2010 6:37:27 AM(UTC)
bigritchie
Joined: 4/15/2010(UTC)
Posts: 305
Location: USA

Swalchy wrote:
I'm pro truth, MD, not pro Paul. If what people were saying about Paul were true, I wouldn't be proving them wrong, and I wouldn't have any problem with what they were saying.

As it happens, what people are accusing Paul of, just isn't true. So whilst I'm most certainly not Pro-Paul, it looks like I am because I'm having to correct everyone's false claims.

There isn't just a "Pro Paul" or "Anti Paul" side to all this, MD. There's the extremely large grey area in the middle.

And as far as I'm concerned, a false prophet is someone who makes false prophecies. Isn't one of Yada's points that Paul doesn't actually make any prophecies? That therefore means he can't be a false prophet, because you've got to say something that's wrong in order to be false. Hence the meaning of the word.

And seeing as though not a single person has answered any of my posts or questions, nor have they even acknowledged what kp wrote regarding the Benjamin prophecy of Genesis 49:27, I deem it to be absurd and unreasonable that people can demand us to answer questions, when they themselves refuse to do the same.


In light of what the Ebionites are recording in church history of saying about Paul, IF IF IF Paul is a bad guy, I would lean against it ( it being the Benjamite Issue from Genesis). If they are correct it would put Paul more in category of "Those who say they are Jews are are not". (And once again this is a IF IF IF the Ebionites are correct)

I do not really buy the entire "Pharisee of Pharisee, who studied at the feet of Gamaliel" thing, considering the writer of Galatians and other letters could not even quote the Tanakh correctly. If Paul was the flower of Gamaliel, in Acts we have Gamaliel warning people saying something to the effect "Hey guys, just let this movement be, if it is from God you are fighting against God, if it is not from God, then it will die out".

Are we to believe Gamaliel would not have pulled his prize student over and said "Hey man, you really need to stop killing these people, and be very cautious about this". So we have a massive difference here between the "teacher" and the murderous "student". Are we to believe that Gamaliel's prize student, more zealous for the Torah then any of his peers, was also a murdering thug for the high priest?

Who knows?


Offline Swalchy  
#207 Posted : Monday, August 23, 2010 7:17:43 AM(UTC)
Swalchy
Joined: 7/4/2007(UTC)
Posts: 250
Man
Location: England

MadDog wrote:
I do see a grey area hanging your words Swalch concerning Paul. And as far as question marks, you all know what I mean by that.
And before I say anthing else I'd like to hear from either Yada or Ken.

As far as the question mark, Adam and Chavah were waiting for the 8th century to come around so someone could invent the
question mark? Come on man!?!?! Adam named every animal on the face of the planet. You make it seem like Adam was some kind
of cave man.

My point was MD, how are we sure that every time we see an English translation stick a question mark in one of Paul's letters, that Paul actually meant it as a question? I already pointed to one place in this thread where English translations have stuck in two question marks, when actually, there was only one that the context indicated (for question marks are decided on context - and who decides the context in Bible translations? That's right - the translation committee.)

It would also be a big stretch to say that Paul put question marks after every phrase he mentions, especially when letters like Philippians only have the one (and it's not necessarily a question about theology). That's at least 4000 words without a question by Paul :)

Quote:
And one more thing. A false prophet is someone who proclaims ANYTHING against what Yahweh has said, past, present, or future.

Then surely that's a false teacher, and not a false prophet? As far as I'm concerned the clue is in the name - a false prophet makes false prophecies, a false teacher declares false instructions. Because if a false prophet is, as you say MD, someone who "proclaims anything against what Yahweh has said", surely that makes nearly every pastor, priest or vicar a false prophet? To be honest, that would be giving them far too much credit.

And by such reasoning, I should be considered a false prophet because I declared things against what Yahweh has said when I was a Christian.

Quote:
I can see how this forum is looking at this Stevie, but that is not my intent. Peace and Shalom be upon you Steve. May Yahweh bless you and your family. I am sorry I've made this a house of discontent.

To be fair MD, it wasn't you who made this a house of discontent. But I digress. Shalom to you and your family as well.

Quote:
In light of what the Ebionites are recording in church history of saying about Paul, IF IF IF Paul is a bad guy, I would lean against it ( it being the Benjamite Issue from Genesis). If they are correct it would put Paul more in category of "Those who say they are Jews are are not". (And once again this is a IF IF IF the Ebionites are correct)

Satisfy my curiosity BR, but where are you finding information about the Ebionites? From what I've studied, what we know of the Ebionites stems from secondary sources, and not from anything they wrote. And also from what I can gather, we have no information about the Ebionites until 180 CE, when Irenaeus mentions them in his Against Heresies books. I'm always on the look out for more information, so please, let us in on your little secret stash :D

Quote:
I do not really buy the entire "Pharisee of Pharisee, who studied at the feet of Gamaliel" thing, considering the writer of Galatians and other letters could not even quote the Tanakh correctly. If Paul was the flower of Gamaliel, in Acts we have Gamaliel warning people saying something to the effect "Hey guys, just let this movement be, if it is from God you are fighting against God, if it is not from God, then it will die out".

Are we to believe Gamaliel would not have pulled his prize student over and said "Hey man, you really need to stop killing these people, and be very cautious about this". So we have a massive difference here between the "teacher" and the murderous "student". Are we to believe that Gamaliel's prize student, more zealous for the Torah then any of his peers, was also a murdering thug for the high priest?

Who knows?

Unfortunately, Gamaliel's words come from a time before the stoning of Stephen in Acts 7. But you know what Stephen was also accused of, that many people on here are also accusing Paul of?

Acts 6:8-15
And Stephen, full of favour and power, was doing great wonders and signs among the people. Then some of those who belonged to the synagogue of the Freedmen (as it was called), and of the Cyrenians, and of the Alexandrians, and of those from Cilicia and Asia, rose up and disputed with Stephen. But they could not withstand the wisdom and the Spirit with which he was speaking. Then they secretly instigated men who said, “We have heard him speak blasphemous words against Moses and God.” And they stirred up the people and the elders and the scribes, and they came upon him and seized him and brought him before the Sanhedrin, and they set up false witnesses who said, “This man never ceases to speak words against this set-apart place and the Torah, for we have heard him say that this Jesus of Nazareth will destroy this place and will change the customs that Moses delivered to us.” And gazing at him, all who sat in the Sanhedrin saw that his face was like the face of an Heavenly Messenger.

After the stoning of Stephen, everything changed.
Offline BiynaYahu  
#208 Posted : Monday, August 23, 2010 7:36:25 AM(UTC)
BiynaYahu
Joined: 4/5/2008(UTC)
Posts: 314
Man
Location: British Columbia, Canada

I always thought the Greek word Prophetes means one who interprets God's will or teaches by divine inspiration. If that were so, I believe, Paul did make these claims. Although, I'm not an expert... or even an intermediate. haha
Someone who does not dearly love or welcome, entertain, look fondly upon or cherish people with strong affection or highly esteem them with great favour, goodwill or benevolence, be loyal to or greatly adore them has not known or understood, perceived or realized, noticed or discerned, discovered or observed, experienced or ascertained, learned about or distinguished, comprehended, acknowledged or recognized God*, for concerning this, God* is and exists as brotherly love and affection, good will, esteem and benevolence.
Offline Richard  
#209 Posted : Monday, August 23, 2010 10:12:23 AM(UTC)
Richard
Joined: 1/19/2010(UTC)
Posts: 695
Man
United States

Thanks: 4 times
Was thanked: 8 time(s) in 7 post(s)
"Let your 'yes' be 'yes' and your 'no' be 'no'."

That leaves no room for 'maybe' or ''except for' or 'not until you first do this or that'. There is no gray area allowed with truth. So either Saul of Tarsus was personally taken aside by Yahushua, trained one on one by Him, and commissioned by Him to be a specially empowered messenger with a specific mission to convert Gentiles to the Way, or he was not. If he was, then we ought to pay attention to him. If he wasn't, then only a fool would defend him on any level.

So, brother Stephen, yes or no? Is Paul, aka Saul of Tarsus, to be believed or not? Save your blustering assaults on the ignorance of the unlearned masses for some other time. You begin to sound like the Pharisees who snarled, "As for these folks who don't know the Law, they are cursed!" You have a lot to offer us, man; don't let your stratospheric level of attainment make you rude, crude, and unreachable.

Still blinking in the headlights here,

Richard
Offline Matthew  
#210 Posted : Monday, August 23, 2010 11:05:44 AM(UTC)
Matthew
Joined: 10/3/2007(UTC)
Posts: 1,191
Man
Location: São Paulo, Brazil

Was thanked: 2 time(s) in 2 post(s)
People seemed to of missed my earlier post regarding Yada's use of Acts 15:10-11, in chapter 4 of QP, and claiming Paul said it when in actual fact Peter said it. He shows Peter speaking in verses 8-9, but then assumes Paul suddenly said the rest.

Quote:
"And (kai) Yahuweh (ΘΣ), the one who knows hearts (kardiognostes), provides testimony, speaking of (martyreo – witnessing on behalf of and vouching for) giving (didomi – producing and granting, appointing, assigning, and bestowing) them (autois) the Set-Apart (agion – and purifying) Ruwach/Spirit (ΠΝΑ), just as (kathos – for the same reason and to the same degree) also (kai) to us (emin). And no one can make a distinction (diakrinomai – can create a separation) between (metaxy) us (emon) and (kai) them (auton) in that which is trustworthy and reliable (pistis) cleansing (katharizo – healing and purifying) their (auton) hearts (kardias)." (Acts 15:8-9)


Quote:
"Now (nyn) therefore (oun), who (ti) submits a test and attempts to trap (peirazo – tempts) God, placing (epitithemai) a yoke (zygos) upon the neck of the Disciples (mathetes – followers who are tutored) which (on) neither (oute) we (emeis) nor (oute) our (emon) fathers (pateres) had the ability (ischuo) to endure (bastazo – accept, bear, and carry)?" (Acts 15:10)


Quote:
"To the contrary (alla), through (dia) the Charis-Charity/Gratia-Grace (charis – mercy, kindness, and favor) of the Upright One (ΚΥ), Yahushua (ΙΥ), we trust and rely (pistos) to be saved (sozo) according to (kata) this (on) manner (tropos – way of life) also (kai) those (ekeinos – a pronoun referencing people who are relatively distant or absent)." (Acts 15:11)


Yada says Paul interrupted Peter after verse 9, but Acts doesn't present that in any way. Yada has associated verse 10 and 11 to Paul, when Acts shows that Peter said it.

I've left out Yada's comments on Paul, but let's just say they're nasty. Yada was attacking Paul for saying verses 10 and 11, whereas I'm sure his review would be different if he knew he was associating those words to the wrong guy. And this passage in Acts sets up the whole of his chapter 4.
Offline Swalchy  
#211 Posted : Monday, August 23, 2010 11:10:09 AM(UTC)
Swalchy
Joined: 7/4/2007(UTC)
Posts: 250
Man
Location: England

flintface wrote:
"Let your 'yes' be 'yes' and your 'no' be 'no'."

That leaves no room for 'maybe' or ''except for' or 'not until you first do this or that'.

How is something that's about not taking oaths, now to do with what is the truth?

Quote:
There is no gray area allowed with truth.

Agreed. Unfortunately, everything has to be laid out on the table before we can ascertain was is true. As everything hasn't been set out for us to go over with carefully, there is still a "maybe" in the air.

Just like people who think there's either a heaven or a hell as your final destination - there's a huge section in the middle of these two ends.

Quote:
So either Saul of Tarsus was personally taken aside by Yahushua, trained one on one by Him, and commissioned by Him to be a specially empowered messenger with a specific mission to convert Gentiles to the Way, or he was not.

Seeing as though Paul never said he was personally taken aside by Yahushua, or trained one on one with him, this entire sentence is a straw-man. If people revert to an "but in Galatians..." argument, I'm afraid I've outlined in detail why Galatians wasn't written by Paul, and I would suggest they read The Great Galatians debate.

Quote:
So, brother Stephen, yes or no? Is Paul, aka Saul of Tarsus, to be believed or not? Save your blustering assaults on the ignorance of the unlearned masses for some other time. You begin to sound like the Pharisees who snarled, "As for these folks who don't know the Law, they are cursed!"

I haven't made a personal insult or attack on anyone, nor said they were "unlearned". I have answered peoples questions and queries left, right and centre, but people either ignored what I said, or brought up something else for me to answer. And not to mention kp's post in this thread which no one has even challenged. And now even Matt's posts are being ignored.

As to whether Paul should be believed or not, I'm pretty sure I made it clear that I did not know, and I wouldn't know until I studied all the evidence given by either side.

Quote:
You have a lot to offer us, man; don't let your stratospheric level of attainment make you rude, crude, and unreachable.

My quotes from Proverbs weren't meant to be taken as rudeness, Richard, but to point out that people need to take reproof very seriously. If I've said something that is incorrect, let me know - I make sure I do the same for each and every person who posts on this forum.

My best is all I can offer - if that isn't enough for people, well I'm sorry, but there's only so much I can do.
Offline bigritchie  
#212 Posted : Monday, August 23, 2010 11:24:14 AM(UTC)
bigritchie
Joined: 4/15/2010(UTC)
Posts: 305
Location: USA

in 1611 England, if you walked into a village and asked to see a "Prophet", the major would come out to great you. The Major spoke for the people of the town.

A Prophet, is not just a "Future teller" as we think in our western world.

A Prophet can also be anyone who claims to speak on behalf of the Creator or in his name, or Claims to represent him.

Aka a Pastor could be considered a "prophet", whether he tells the future or not.

The difference in the Biblical prophets is they not only represented the Creator but they could proclaim future events as they were revealed to them.

So yes, Paul would be a "prophet", and Paul does make "prophecies" for the later days, and Paul also claims to speak on behalf of the people.
Offline Swalchy  
#213 Posted : Monday, August 23, 2010 11:40:00 AM(UTC)
Swalchy
Joined: 7/4/2007(UTC)
Posts: 250
Man
Location: England

bigritchie wrote:
in 1611 England, if you walked into a village and asked to see a "Prophet", the major would come out to great you. The Major spoke for the people of the town.

A Prophet, is not just a "Future teller" as we think in our western world.

The point was is exactly this - in our English-speaking world, a "prophet" is someone who predicts the future, so claiming Paul is a "false prophet" and then stating that "he doesn't actually make a prophecy", is quite the oxymoron to the English-mind.

It would be like someone saying "He's a false writer" but then goes on to way "although he doesn't actually write anything".

I suggest that the better term would be "false teacher", which makes a lot more sense that stating someone is "a false prophet who doesn't make prophecies".

Quote:
and Paul does make "prophecies" for the later days

Then this is disagreeing with Yada, who asserts the opposite.

Quote:
and Paul also claims to speak on behalf of the people.

I'm probably missing where exactly this is, but in which letter does Paul state he speaks on behalf of the people, and to whom?

I'm still curious as to your Ebionites sources BR - you may have quite easily missed my request in the massive amount of text above :)


This is the final post I'm going to post in this thread. People have been given more than enough to study and think about, they just need to engage the time.
Offline bigritchie  
#214 Posted : Monday, August 23, 2010 12:54:59 PM(UTC)
bigritchie
Joined: 4/15/2010(UTC)
Posts: 305
Location: USA

I misspoke.

I meant to write "Paul claims to speak on behalf of God"
Offline Richard  
#215 Posted : Monday, August 23, 2010 9:45:55 PM(UTC)
Richard
Joined: 1/19/2010(UTC)
Posts: 695
Man
United States

Thanks: 4 times
Was thanked: 8 time(s) in 7 post(s)
Sorry, Stephen.

I jumped on the keyboard before carefully reading and considering what I had read. I know you would never be intentionally rude or vainglorious. As for the strawman, you're right. I know that Paul did not write the letter to the Galatians which the Christian Bible says he did. To have used information from that book to claim that Paul declared this or that is out of line.

Having said that, I am still of the opinion that I am better off ignoring everything Pauline since we cannot know for sure that he spoke for Yahuweh.

Hope we're still friends.

Richard
Offline Swalchy  
#216 Posted : Monday, August 23, 2010 10:55:19 PM(UTC)
Swalchy
Joined: 7/4/2007(UTC)
Posts: 250
Man
Location: England

flintface wrote:
Sorry, Stephen.

I jumped on the keyboard before carefully reading and considering what I had read. I know you would never be intentionally rude or vainglorious. As for the strawman, you're right. I know that Paul did not write the letter to the Galatians which the Christian Bible says he did. To have used information from that book to claim that Paul declared this or that is out of line.

Having said that, I am still of the opinion that I am better off ignoring everything Pauline since we cannot know for sure that he spoke for Yahuweh.

Hope we're still friends.

Richard


I fully understand that, Richard. I've done that many a time.

And if people want to ignore everything Pauline, you know, that is completely fine and I would much rather prefer them to do so.

What I don't like, however, is people stating things that aren't true. But ignoring Paul is the much preferable option.

And of course we're still friends :)
Offline Robskiwarrior  
#217 Posted : Tuesday, August 24, 2010 12:53:20 AM(UTC)
Robskiwarrior
Joined: 7/4/2007(UTC)
Posts: 1,470
Man
Location: England

Was thanked: 1 time(s) in 1 post(s)
bigritchie wrote:
I misspoke.

I meant to write "Paul claims to speak on behalf of God"


Where does Paul claim this? I remeber him claiming his own opinions on things but i cant actually remeber him stating "thus sayeth Yah" without quoting from TTP
Signature Updated! Woo that was old...
Offline Matthew  
#218 Posted : Wednesday, August 25, 2010 9:57:47 AM(UTC)
Matthew
Joined: 10/3/2007(UTC)
Posts: 1,191
Man
Location: São Paulo, Brazil

Was thanked: 2 time(s) in 2 post(s)
*bump [my two previous posts]

I'm still quite surprised no one has defended Yada's claim (in chapter 3 of QP) that Paul said Acts 15:10-11 when clearly Peter did. Even James (Ya'qob) confirms it in verse 14 that Simon (Shim'own, who is called Petros/Peter) said it. Yada's opens up with the claim that Paul said the Torah is a yoke that neither them nor their fathers could bear and that they (them and Gentiles) were saved by the grace (favour) of Yahshua; however, it was Peter who said it. The passage just confirms that God was performing miraculous signs and wonders via Paul and Barnabas to the Gentiles, where somehow Yada takes this to mean Paul interrupted Peter's speech.

Yada then in chapter 4 tries to say the use of Amos 9:12 by Ya'qob was either 1) "wrong [Ya'qob was] for citing it," 2) "that Luke was wrong for attributing this quotation to Ya’aqob," or 3) "that a later Scribe added it because he thought it fit." And that the quote didn't quite match the original word for word. Now regardless of this, the quote of Amos 9:12 is perfectly suitable for the context, well in a general sense yes. Yes the Amos prophecy was specifically related to End Times and the Millennial Sabbath, but Amos 9 does refer to there being Gentiles (the nations) who will carry Yahweh's Name, so therefore the gift of Salvation is for the Gentiles too, hence being referred to in Acts 15. What I also notice is that Peter quoted Joel in Acts 2 and associates it with The Twelve and those present when the Spirit descended upon them even though the prophecy of Joel is specifically related to the End Times.

*bump Robski's post as well

Guys, this is a tough topic to discuss and head-butting will occur and we certainly need to be mature about it. However, I'm still not convinved of Yada's view, for example seeing numerous errors, such as Acts 15 in his QP work, hence why I post what I do (and I know others on the forum who share the same view). Spotting errors (in my opinion) opens the door to question the rest of his work.
Users browsing this topic
5 Pages«<345
Forum Jump  
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.