Why Do We Believe Paul?

[Hawkins]

How do you figure? Let's ignore the content difference for a moment and talk about the author claiming he never received revelation directly from the Lord Jesus Christ. Doesn't that automatically eliminate Paul from being the author?

Which verse are you talking about?

Even when I assume that you are right. I said that it's possible for someone else wrote it under Paul's consent.

Early church Christians treated Hebrews as from Paul. Only later scholars disagree by looking into the writing style and wordings used in Hebrews.

 

[Wick Stick]

I think you're an insane blasphemer

 

[dodge]

Christianity is Paul. Without Paul, the followers of Jesus would have remained yet another Jewish sect, and Jesus just one more failed messiah. Why does anybody believe Paul? Mostly due to Church tradition.

Christianity is Jesus NOT Paul. Paul was born into sin and needed Jesus' sacrifice and forgiveness as does every person born.

Mat 26:28
For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

 

[dodge]

Prizebeatz1;4834577] '. Jesus never really said he died for our sins.

Yes , actually He did:

Mat 26:28
For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

 

[Lilstu]

Acts 9:7
King James Version (KJV)
7And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man.

In this verse the men STOOD and HEARD A VOICE.
But let’s look at how Paul told the story at other times.

Acts 26:14
King James Version (KJV)
14And when we were all fallen to the earth, I heard a voice speaking unto me, and saying in the Hebrew tongue, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks.

In this verse THEY ALL FELL DOWN, while in the previous verse the men STOOD.

Acts 22:9
King James Version (KJV)
9And they that were with me saw indeed the light, and were afraid; but they heard not the voice of him that spake to me.

In this verse the men DID NOT HEAR A VOICE, but in the first verse they HEARD A VOICE.

Doesn't this make you suspicious of Paul?

 

[Zeke]

Yes , actually He did:

Mat 26:28
For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

Yet flesh and blood in the sense your taking it can't inherit the spiritual kingdom. Christ is crucified in the kingdom which is in us Luke 17:20-21, hints being Calvary which is Latin for skull!

 

[Hawkins]

Acts 9:7
King James Version (KJV)
7And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man.

In this verse the men STOOD and HEARD A VOICE.
But let’s look at how Paul told the story at other times.

Acts 26:14
King James Version (KJV)
14And when we were all fallen to the earth, I heard a voice speaking unto me, and saying in the Hebrew tongue, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks.

In this verse THEY ALL FELL DOWN, while in the previous verse the men STOOD.

Acts 22:9
King James Version (KJV)
9And they that were with me saw indeed the light, and were afraid; but they heard not the voice of him that spake to me.

In this verse the men DID NOT HEAR A VOICE, but in the first verse they HEARD A VOICE.

Doesn't this make you suspicious of Paul?

If you ever had a supernatural experience. That's not something of a surprise. It says that others may see a lightning and hear a voice. But no one besides Paul heard it spoken in Aramaic with meaningful sentence.

 

[dodge]

Yet flesh and blood in the sense your taking it can't inherit the spiritual kingdom. Christ is crucified in the kingdom which is in us Luke 17:20-21, hints being Calvary which is Latin for skull!

The verse was about the payment for sins i.e. Jesus' blood. Christ afterresurrection was in an immortal bodyand could go any where He wanted do.


Mat 26:28
For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

 

[Lilstu]

You get it wrong. With support from Peter, what Paul was fighting against is those Christians with a Jewish root tried to say that the gentiles need to observe Mosaic Law in order to be saved.

Unlike today's church where there are no longer the Jews keeping the Jewish customs, back then there was a serious conflict between the Jewish Christians and the gentile Christians in terms of what to do in order to be saved.

Paul not only needs to set up regulations but also has to make compromises with the Jewish Christians. That's why you can still find like "women should cover their hair inside the church" which no longer practiced today.

You fail to see the conflicts...
In the Torah men were not to cut the side locks of their hair. Paul changes the rules so men have short hair. Out goes the side locks.

 

[Zeke]

The verse was about the payment for sins i.e. Jesus' blood. Christ afterresurrection was in an immortal bodyand could go any where He wanted do.


Mat 26:28
For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

Still flesh and blood sacrifice has nothing to do with a spiritual kingdom, it's only a temporal state, you are Jesus in that you are a grain of what ever type God gave you before you fell, the Lamb slain before the foundation of the world. Types and shadows represent spiritual patterns not literal application for salvage of a temporal body/tomb/cocoon, Matt 11:11 flesh and blood, that verse is another hint/treasure in the field that shows Jesus was born spiritually within man from the Mother of us all Sarah/Jerusalem like Isaac Galatians 4:24-28.

 

[Lilstu]

Yes , actually He did:

Mat 26:28
For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

That is a very interesting verse......
If you have a red letter edition with Jesus' words in red letters, as you read through Paul's letters you will see that Paul does not know any of Jesus' sayings. But with one exception...the bread and wine. This is purely from Mithra which was copied back into the gospels from Paul's letter.
In Jewish tradition the wine is blessed first then the bread. Paul has it backwards like Mithra.
The Torah does not permit the eating of blood. This was written into John's gospel.

 

[Lilstu]

If you ever had a supernatural experience. That's not something of a surprise. It says that others may see a lightning and hear a voice. But no one besides Paul heard it spoken in Aramaic with meaningful sentence.

I appreciate your effort to adjust the truth.

 

[dodge]

Still flesh and blood sacrifice has nothing to do with a spiritual kingdom, it's only a temporal state, you are Jesus in that you are a grain of what ever type God gave you before you fell, the Lamb slain before the foundation of the world. Types and shadows represent spiritual patterns not literal application for salvage of a temporal body/tomb/cocoon, Matt 11:11 flesh and blood, that verse is another hint/treasure in the field that shows Jesus was born spiritually within man from the Mother of us all Sarah/Jerusalem like Isaac Galatians 4:24-28.

Without the shedding of Jesus' blood no one born would have access to the spiritual kingdom.

There was no spiritual birth through Sarah, but the blood line of Jesus came through Sarah.The Spiritual birth is when the Holy Spirit convicts one and that person then repents, yields to God and His truth.

 

[dodge]

That is a very interesting verse......
If you have a red letter edition with Jesus' words in red letters, as you read through Paul's letters you will see that Paul does not know any of Jesus' sayings. But with one exception...the bread and wine. This is purely from Mithra which was copied back into the gospels from Paul's letter.
In Jewish tradition the wine is blessed first then the bread. Paul has it backwards like Mithra.
The Torah does not permit the eating of blood. This was written into John's gospel.

Jesus taught to drink the wine , representing His blood, in remembrance of Him.

 

[Prizebeatz1]

Yes , actually He did:

Mat 26:28
For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

I think it depends on how one interprets it and there are many ways. Who are the many whose sins are remissed? The whole thing is symbolic so how many different conclusions can we come up with? We all want to draw the conclusions that will make our beliefs true. But can we do without our precious beliefs for even a moment? Why not? What is underneath the desperate need for them? It's the fear of what would happen if we were to let go. Let's get real and be honest.

At any rate, Jesus dying for our sins is not the message we get from the 4 Gospels. It comes from the letters of Paul which are placed after the Gospels to highlight what someone else thought was important about Jesus. If we just read the Gospels by themselves hardly no one would draw the conclusion that Jesus died for our sins. We only draw that conclusion because we've been swayed by the books after the Gospels. The real reward is in finding out the higher meaning of the Gospels for oneself. Peace.

 

[Zeke]

Without the shedding of Jesus' blood no one born would have access to the spiritual kingdom.

There was no spiritual birth through Sarah, but the blood line of Jesus came through Sarah.The Spiritual birth is when the Holy Spirit convicts one and that person then repents, yields to God and His truth.

Sarah like Abraham was a type, secular religious tradition put skin and bone on them, that off spring is awakened in man after being born of a earthly flesh and blood woman, Galatians 4:24 gives you another hint that voids tradition has does Gen 32:30.

Two Fathers, Mothers, Siblings, one flesh and blood the other Divine Cain and Able, to think Galatians 4:20-28 is referring to two flesh and blood siblings is life behind the veil of flesh and blood perceptions that denies Luke 17:20-21 is the Divine kingdom within man.

 

[Prizebeatz1]

I think it depends on how one interprets it and there are many ways. Who are the many whose sins are remissed? The whole thing is symbolic so how many different conclusions can we come up with? We all want to draw the conclusions that will make our beliefs true. But can we do without our precious beliefs for even a moment? Why not? What is underneath the desperate need for them? It's the fear of what would happen if we were to let go. That fear does not come from God yet it plays us like a fiddle, does it not? Why can't we see the enemy in disguise at work here? Are we too proud to challenge our beliefs? Let's get real and be honest.

At any rate, Jesus dying for our sins is not the message I get from the 4 Gospels. It comes from the letters of Paul which are placed after the Gospels to highlight what someone else thought was important about Jesus. If we just read the Gospels by themselves hardly no one would draw the conclusion that Jesus died for our sins. We only draw that conclusion because we've been swayed by the books after the Gospels. The real reward is in finding out the higher meaning of the Gospels for oneself. Peace.

 

[dodge]

Prizebeatz1;4835521]I think it depends on how one interprets it and there are many ways. Who are the many whose sins are remissed? The whole thing is symbolic so how many different conclusions can we come up with? We all want to draw the conclusions that will make our beliefs true. But can we do without our precious beliefs for even a moment? Why not? What is underneath the desperate need for them? It's the fear of what would happen if we were to let go. Let's get real and be honest.

Was Jesus symbolically born ?

Did Jesus symbolically live for 33 years without sin?

Was Jesus symbolically crucified ?

Was Jesus symbolically in the tomb for 3 days and 3 nights ?

Did Jesus symbolically resurrect from the dead ?

Was Jesus symbolically seen by the Apostles and eventually by over 500 others ?

The many whose sins are remitted are those who are born again by the Spirit of God.

Jesus blood shed for the remission of sin can only be interpreted symbolically if one is without the Spirit of God residing within them to teach them TRUTH.

Truths based in scripture remain true and philosophizing of those truths usually removes the truth from those truths.

Jesus shedding His blood can only be interpreted ONE way and that is that HE died for our sins just like HE taught His disciples.

At any rate, Jesus dying for our sins is not the message we get from the 4 Gospels. It comes from the letters of Paul which are placed after the Gospels to highlight what someone else thought was important about Jesus. If we just read the Gospels by themselves hardly no one would draw the conclusion that Jesus died for our sins. We only draw that conclusion because we've been swayed by the books after the Gospels. The real reward is in finding out the higher meaning of the Gospels for oneself. Peace.

Jesus dying for our sins is the "central theme " of ALL scripture.

Nope, the 4 Gospels teach clearly that Jesus shed His blood and died for our sins. If all we had of scripture was the 4 Gospels we ( those who have the Spirit of God living within them ) would KNOW and understand this central theme of Jesus' sacrificing for the sins of those that would place their faith in Him.

If we just read the just the 4 Gospels we ( those who have the Spirit of God ) would have a full understanding of Jesus sacrifice as payment for sin.

I suggest you get yourself out of the way of what you think scripture should say ,and let the scripture be understood as they are written without your input/output.

 

[dodge]

Sarah like Abraham was a type, secular religious tradition put skin and bone on them, that off spring is awakened in man after being born of a earthly flesh and blood woman, Galatians 4:24 gives you another hint that voids tradition has does Gen 32:30.

Two Fathers, Mothers, Siblings, one flesh and blood the other Divine Cain and Able, to think Galatians 4:20-28 is referring to two flesh and blood siblings is life behind the veil of flesh and blood perceptions that denies Luke 17:20-21 is the Divine kingdom within man.

Types are in the OT and NT,which became reality, but no type ever saved anyone; however, those types realized made the possibility of salvation possible through faith in the finished work of Jesus.

 

[dodge]

Yet flesh and blood in the sense your taking it can't inherit the spiritual kingdom. Christ is crucified in the kingdom which is in us Luke 17:20-21, hints being Calvary which is Latin for skull!

I put NO sense on anything I simply quoted a verse. You drew that conclusion based on your assumptions.