Where Mennonites and others connect
https://forum.mennonet.com/
Good point.Hats Off wrote:The tsiderrle sounds like leva vasht - that is one place the barshta could be evident. After all, in those days they used everything but the pig's squeal. Sorry for the hassa gspoua.
So your problem is with the inspiration/authority of the scriptures. I could launch in a defense of the canonization of the New Testament, but I feel it would largely be wasted.JohnHurt wrote:Dear Judas Maccabeus,Judas Maccabeus wrote:
I would say, they are both equally inspired, and there is ultimately there is no final conflict between the two.
Acts 15:27-29 herefore we are sending Judas and Silas to confirm by word of mouth what we are writing. It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with anything beyond the following requirements: You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality. You will do well to avoid these things.
What you suggest seems to go far beyond "these things."
J.M.
The verse you have quoted in Acts 15:27-29 is a good representation of Paul, for Paul would not receive instruction from the Apostles.
For Paul does not follow the instructions from the Apostles that we are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols. Paul argues that if you have "knowledge" or "gnosis", you can sit and eat meat offered to idols in an idol temple. (1 Cor 8:10). But someone else who doesn't have this hidden "gnosis" will perish. Paul said It is all about what you think inside your mind, not what you do with the physical actions performed by your body - much like you are saved by faith, not works, (Eph 2:8-9) while Christ said you are saved by your physical actions of keeping the 10 Commandments. (Mark 10:17-19)
So Paul believes that with "gnosis" or knowledge, you can eat meat offered to idols, and even purchase this meat in the meat market, which provides an income to the idol temples. Paul's purchases of meat from these temples is providing a financial support for idol worship, and gives the same effect as offering a sacrifice to them, financially.
Christ said we should not eat meat offered to Idols. (Rev 2:14, Rev 2:20). So not only did Paul contradict the Apostles, he contradicted Christ.
Paul also contradicted Exodus 22:20, and his actions show him to be the prophet of Deuteronomy 13.
Christ said in Revelation 2:14 that what Paul is teaching is the doctrine of Balaam, which cast a stumbling bloc before the children of Israel, to eat things sacrificed to idols. (Rev 2:14) This is also what a woman of Thyatira called "Jezebel" (Rev 2:20) taught, which was to eat meat sacrificed to idols. I think Balaam is a code word for Paul, and Jezebel is a name for an early convert made by Paul (Acts 16:14).
And in addition to teaching us to eat meat offered to idols, they also taught fornication, as Paul did in 1 Cor 7:15, when he said a person can get married again if their unbelieving spouse departs.
(15) But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases: but God hath called us to peace.
That is, if you have an unbelieving husband, and they depart, you are not under bondage to remain single but you can get married again. Christ did not tell us that if someone was an unbeliever, he could be put away from his wife. Christ said:
Mark 10:
(11) And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her.
(12) And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery.
Paul is not superior to Christ. And Paul does not have the credentials to speak about marriage, having never been married, and being unwilling to accept clear instructions from the Apostles about not eating meat offered to idols.
I think that Paul is the person that Christ refers to as someone dismissed by the Church of Ephesus as a false apostle:
Revelation 2:
(2) I know thy works, and thy labour, and thy patience, and how thou canst not bear them which are evil: and thou hast tried them which say they are apostles, and are not, and hast found them liars:
Who else could be put on trial by the church at Ephesus for saying they were an Apostle, but were not, but Paul? And why are all of the churches that are being corrected by Christ in Revelation 2 and 3 the same churches where Paul had his ministry?
So here is my question:
How, and when, did Paul become an Apostle?
Did Paul not have to follow the same requirements for Matthias to become an Apostle, such as being voted by the other Apostles, (Acts 1:26), or that an Apostle had to be someone that had been with Christ beginning from the baptism of John and until the day of the Ascension? (Acts 1:21-22)
The Bible clearly states that there can be only 12 Apostles, not 13. (Rev 21:14)
Yet Paul not only singularly calls himself a 13th Apostle, but also claims that his friends Titus (2 Cor 8:23) and Epaphroditus (Phillipians 2:25) are also "messengers", or more accurately the 14th and 15th "Apostles" to the churches. The Douay Rheims Catholic Bible is one of the few versions that has these verses translated correctly:
8:23 Either for Titus, who is my companion and fellow labourer towards you, or our brethren, the apostles of the churches, the glory of Christ.
2:25 But I have thought it necessary to send to you Epaphroditus, my brother and fellow labourer, and fellow soldier, but your apostle, and he that hath ministered to my wants.
Paul is setting up these false "Apostles" to the churches, just as he set himself up as an Apostle. And there is only 12, not 50 of them.
And if you want to tell me that Paul became an Apostle when he was given a commission by Christ to preach to the Gentiles, then when was this commission given?
Was it given by Christ to Ananias, not Paul in Acts 9:15 (which I suppose would not count as an Apostleship), or did Paul receive this commission from Christ while in a trance in the Temple (Acts 22:17-21), or did Christ give this commission to Paul while he was on the road to Damascus? (Acts 26:17) Which version of Paul's story do you like the most?
Remember, there is no other witness that Paul ever saw Christ on the road to Damascus, other than Paul. His traveling companions either stood speechless (Acts 9:7), or they all fell to the ground (Acts 26:14), they heard a voice (Acts 9:7), or they did not hear a voice (Acts 22:9). Take your pick.
Both Paul and Ananias were a single witness to themselves, which violates Deuteronomy 19:15. Paul saw Christ in the desert, and Ananias saw Christ in his secret chamber.
Christ specifically warned us about Paul and Ananias in Matthew 24:26. Christ said that when He will not come back to show Himself to just one person, but that everyone will see Him when he returns, not just Paul or Ananias.
So yes, how did Paul become an Apostle, and when did Paul become an Apostle?
If anyone has input on this point, I am interested.
Or chitlins?Hats Off wrote:The tsiderrle sounds like leva vasht - that is one place the barshta could be evident. After all, in those days they used everything but the pig's squeal. Sorry for the hassa gspoua.
John Hurt, it seems you are not welcomed here (looking at the likes) when you challenge 'historic Christian belief' so we better forget that list I said I was interested in. I had provided a listening ear. Instead PM me if you care to continue on this. I might be next with what I said in support of a form of open theism and my views of conditional immortality, etc that are not mainline traditional beliefs. Not sure just where we cross the line but I think this forum basically wants threads created by those who currently are primarily of Anabaptist belief. If I am wrong, Robert can correct me.mike wrote:Mennonites, like other Anabaptists and for that matter most Christians, accept Paul's apostleship as well as the authority of his writings. Not that they agree on application and interpretation. John Hurt did a fair amount of posting on MD on this topic, and I don't know why he expects to find a listening ear on this topic on a Mennonite forum. John, I must say I appreciate the kind tone of your writing, but your view of Paul is so negative and inconsistent with historic Christian belief that I don't find any discussion about it to be interesting or profitable.Hats Off wrote:Would it be possible to take this issue of Paul versus everyone else to another thread? Or better yet, to another forum altogether.
Sudsy, et al.Sudsy wrote:John Hurt, it seems you are not welcomed here (looking at the likes) when you challenge 'historic Christian belief' so we better forget that list I said I was interested in. I had provided a listening ear. Instead PM me if you care to continue on this. I might be next with what I said in support of a form of open theism and my views of conditional immortality, etc that are not mainline traditional beliefs. Not sure just where we cross the line but I think this forum basically wants threads created by those who currently are primarily of Anabaptist belief. If I am wrong, Robert can correct me.mike wrote:Mennonites, like other Anabaptists and for that matter most Christians, accept Paul's apostleship as well as the authority of his writings. Not that they agree on application and interpretation. John Hurt did a fair amount of posting on MD on this topic, and I don't know why he expects to find a listening ear on this topic on a Mennonite forum. John, I must say I appreciate the kind tone of your writing, but your view of Paul is so negative and inconsistent with historic Christian belief that I don't find any discussion about it to be interesting or profitable.Hats Off wrote:Would it be possible to take this issue of Paul versus everyone else to another thread? Or better yet, to another forum altogether.
John, I am also one who challenges some main historic Christian beliefs and some within Anabaptism (i.e. Greg Boyd) also do this in their faith journey. However, we have a going in position that the bible as we have it, the 66 books are our main guide to faith and practise. We believe that the entire Bible was inspired by God through the Holy Spirit. So, if we don't have a same base to work from and parts of the bible are thought to be in error, then we are not working with interpretations of that source.JohnHurt wrote: So I will only post about things we have in common, such as non-violence and the Selective service, and how to build the Christian community.
Thanks,
John Hurt
I agree. And I think we have a lot of common cause in rejecting materialism and a lot of the mainstream attitudes of the world around us. But we don't have the same starting point for how to do theology, and that makes some things hard to discuss.appleman2006 wrote:John I for one appreciate your attitude even though I strongly disagree with your theology.
Exactly. And I think we sometimes need to do a better job of discussing our own perspective and putting some flesh on it. I may have overreacted yesterday, but when I look at the active topics day after day, it often looks like a list of foolish controversies, things to get all riled up about and debate each other instead of learning how to better follow Jesus in the kind of discipleship we claim to be all about.appleman2006 wrote:I cannot speak for others but I am guessing the point they were more or less trying to make is that your thinking is so far out in most of our minds that it barely warrants the time to debate it especially on a public forum that many come on to discover more about what Anabaptists believe. Filling up thread after thread on some of the issues you bring up really distracts from that.
I do too.appleman2006 wrote:Having said that I am more concerned about the spiritual fruit in your life than some of the other stuff you believe and I want to say that I see some good things there.
It seems this kind of discussion would be more appropriate for MennoNerds, which is expressly open to a wide variety of theological opinions and views, including those who do not view all 66 books as inerrant. And I think it would be a more productive place to have these kinds of discussions.appleman2006 wrote:John I for one appreciate your attitude even though I strongly disagree with your theology.
I cannot speak for others but I am guessing the point they were more or less trying to make is that your thinking is so far out in most of our minds that it barely warrants the time to debate it especially on a public forum that many come on to discover more about what Anabaptists believe. Filling up thread after thread on some of the issues you bring up really distracts from that.
Having said that I am more concerned about the spiritual fruit in your life than some of the other stuff you believe and I want to say that I see some good things there.