Was Paul a false apostle?

[derekkye]

I Kings 14:29
Now the rest of the acts of Rehoboam, and all that he did, are they not written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Judah?

why the question? this happens a few times when other books reference Chronicles. you'll notice a common denominator when things don't seem to "add" up - that common denominator being Chronicles for the most part

Chronicles also has David as the seventh son of Jesse when in fact in Samuel it is strongly suggested David is the eighth son of Jesse;

my conclusion: the book of Chronicles is corrupt - cannot be trusted;

I include Chronicles with Paul's writings...before you unleash on me please read Revelation 2:2

[Richard Amiel McGough]

I Kings 14:29
Now the rest of the acts of Rehoboam, and all that he did, are they not written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Judah?

why the question? this happens a few times when other books reference Chronicles. you'll notice a common denominator when things don't seem to "add" up - that common denominator being Chronicles for the most part

Chronicles also has David as the seventh son of Jesse when in fact in Samuel it is strongly suggested David is the eighth son of Jesse;

my conclusion: the book of Chronicles is corrupt - cannot be trusted;

I include Chronicles with Paul's writings...before you unleash on me please read Revelation 2:2
Hey derekkye,

Don't worry ... I don't want to "unload" on you. :sFi_machinegunsdual

But now I am very curious - which books of the Bible do you accept as the Word of God? Any of them?

Here's the verse you wanted me to read:

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:
I take it that you are saying that this verse applies to the Apostle Paul. If so, do you have any evidence to support that idea?

Richard

[derekkye]

II Corinthians 12:16
But be it so, I did not burden you: nevertheless, being crafty, I caught you with guile.

John 5:43
I am come in my Father's name, and ye receive me not: if another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive.

At first I was seduced by Paul's writings - I thought that the commandments did not need to be kept.

From the new testament I adhere to the gospel of John, and the book of Revelation.

There are numerous internet sites that make the case against Paul. Although I do not agree with all these sites have to say I do agree that Paul is a false apostle. After all there are only 12 apostles of the lamb - Paul is not counted as one of them

[Richard Amiel McGough]

II Corinthians 12:16
But be it so, I did not burden you: nevertheless, being crafty, I caught you with guile.

John 5:43
I am come in my Father's name, and ye receive me not: if another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive.

At first I was seduced by Paul's writings - I thought that the commandments did not need to be kept.

From the new testament I adhere to the gospel of John, and the book of Revelation.

What makes you think those two books are valid?

Why do you accept any of them if you reject 25 out of 27 books? If the vast majority of NT books are corrupt, why believe any of them?



There are numerous internet sites that make the case against Paul. Although I do not agree with all these sites have to say I do agree that Paul is a false apostle. After all there are only 12 apostles of the lamb - Paul is not counted as one of them
How do you know that there were only 12 Apostles? Sure, Revelation speaks of "the twelve apostles" but it does not say that there were not others that came after. And besides that, Revelation does not list the names of the 12, so you don't know if Paul was or was not included.

Richard

[derekkye]

Revelation 21:14
And the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and in them the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.

it's quite clear there are only twelve apostles of the Lamb

so you believe Paul's name will be one of them? If not then Paul is not an apostle of the Lamb. If so then who have you eliminated?

To me it's obvious Paul is a false apostle. I don't need to debate it nor convince you. Most "Christians" seem to disagree with me on this matter, but then again most "Christians" don't keep God's commandments.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Revelation 21:14
And the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and in them the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.

it's quite clear there are only twelve apostles of the Lamb

so you believe Paul's name will be one of them? If not then Paul is not an apostle of the Lamb. If so then who have you eliminated?

To me it's obvious Paul is a false apostle. I don't need to debate it nor convince you. Most "Christians" seem to disagree with me on this matter, but then again most "Christians" don't keep God's commandments.
Hey derekkye,

I move this to its own thread because it was way off-topic in the original thread.

You did not give any support to your statement that "it's quite clear there are only twelve apostles of the Lamb." I already explained that Revelation does not say there were only 12 apostles. The phrase "the 12 apostles" could simply refer to the original 12. And since the names were not listed, we don't know if Judas was left out (as he obviously should have been) or who may have been added.

We also know that the list of 12 tribes leaves out Dan and this means that we can not simply "assume" anything about the names of the 12 apostles.

If this is the kind of logic used to reject Paul as an apostle, then Paul's position as a true apostle is totally secure.

The question I am most interested in is how you could convince yourself that only two of the 27 NT books are valid, and the rest corrupt. That seems like an impossible position to support with any logic or facts.

Richard

[derekkye]

II Corinthians 12:16
But be it so, I did not burden you: nevertheless, being crafty, I caught you with guile.

Who uses guile? Answer: the devil, and his servants

looks like you're caught - hook, line, and SINKER

bee seeing you

[Richard Amiel McGough]

II Corinthians 12:16
But be it so, I did not burden you: nevertheless, being crafty, I caught you with guile.

Who uses guile? Answer: the devil, and his servants

looks like you're caught - hook, line, and SINKER

bee seeing you
That is extremely faulty logic. Paul was using a rhetorical device in the specific context of what he had written earlier in the same letter:
2 Corinthians 11:1 Would to God ye could bear with me a little in my folly: and indeed bear with me. 2 For I am jealous over you with godly jealousy: for I have espoused you to one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ. 3 But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.
The Apostle Paul knew precisely what he meant when he used the word "guile" in 2 Cor 12:6, and it was nothing like what you suggest.

To be frank, such arguments appear to me to be utterly moronic. No offense intended, but since you feel comfortable telling me what you think, as when you said I have been "caught hook, line, and SINKER," I figure you deserve an equally honest response.

See ya! (or not),

Richard

PS: If you want to pursue this topic, I would be most interested in your answer to the question I asked in Post #6:
The question I am most interested in is how you could convince yourself that only two of the 27 NT books are valid, and the rest corrupt. That seems like an impossible position to support with any logic or facts.

[CWH]

II Corinthians 12:16
But be it so, I did not burden you: nevertheless, being crafty, I caught you with guile.

Who uses guile? Answer: the devil, and his servants

looks like you're caught - hook, line, and SINKER

bee seeing you

Hi derekkye,

I agree with Richard that it is an extremely false logic. I have no doubt that Paul is a true apostle. This is based on the following:

1. It is the Lord who issue Paul a calling. God would not be so foolish or careless to recruit a false apostle to be among the 12 apostles. Why would God want to test the 12 apostles and causing discord and confusion among them when the goal was to preach the Kingdom of God throughout the world? God himself appointed Paul to preach to the Gentiles, see below passage, verse 15 (in bold):

Act: 9:4He fell to the ground and heard a voice say to him, "Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?"
5"Who are you, Lord?" Saul asked.

"I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting," he replied. 6"Now get up and go into the city, and you will be told what you must do."

7The men traveling with Saul stood there speechless; they heard the sound but did not see anyone. 8Saul got up from the ground, but when he opened his eyes he could see nothing. So they led him by the hand into Damascus. 9For three days he was blind, and did not eat or drink anything.

10In Damascus there was a disciple named Ananias. The Lord called to him in a vision, "Ananias!"
"Yes, Lord," he answered.

11The Lord told him, "Go to the house of Judas on Straight Street and ask for a man from Tarsus named Saul, for he is praying. 12In a vision he has seen a man named Ananias come and place his hands on him to restore his sight."

13"Lord," Ananias answered, "I have heard many reports about this man and all the harm he has done to your saints in Jerusalem. 14And he has come here with authority from the chief priests to arrest all who call on your name."

15But the Lord said to Ananias, "Go! This man is my chosen instrument to carry my name before the Gentiles and their kings and before the people of Israel. 16I will show him how much he must suffer for my name."

17Then Ananias went to the house and entered it. Placing his hands on Saul, he said, "Brother Saul, the Lord—Jesus, who appeared to you on the road as you were coming here—has sent me so that you may see again and be filled with the Holy Spirit." 18Immediately, something like scales fell from Saul's eyes, and he could see again. He got up and was baptized, 19and after taking some food, he regained his strength.

2. Paul was appointed the apostle for the Gentiles. He is not in the 12 apostles judging over the 12 tribes of Israel but he certainly is an apostle judging over the Gentiles in the Kingdom of God. The clues lie in that Paul self proclaimed to be the apostle to the Gentiles. Paul would not dare to offend God by self-proclaiming as apostle to the Gentiles unless he was ordained by God as stated in 1 Timothy 2:7 (in bold):

Romans 1:5
Through him and for his name's sake, we received grace and apostleship to call people from among all the Gentiles to the obedience that comes from faith.

Romans 11:13
I am talking to you Gentiles. Inasmuch as I am the apostle to the Gentiles, I make much of my ministry

Galatians 2:8
For God, who was at work in the ministry of Peter as an apostle to the Jews, was also at work in my ministry as an apostle to the Gentiles.

1 Timothy 2:7
And for this purpose I was appointed a herald and an apostle—I am telling the truth, I am not lying—and a teacher of the true faith to the Gentiles.


I believe Paul was not given the task to Revelation was because he had done many crimes in the persecution of Christians. They were crying for their revenge as in Seal 5 of revelation and I believe Paul will have to account for that even though the Lord may have forgiven Paul:

9When he opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of those who had been slain because of the word of God and the testimony they had maintained. 10They called out in a loud voice, "How long, Sovereign Lord, holy and true, until you judge the inhabitants of the earth and avenge our blood?" 11Then each of them was given a white robe, and they were told to wait a little longer, until the number of their fellow servants and brothers who were to be killed as they had been was completed.


The discussions in the internet teaching that Paul is a false apostle is a last minute attempt to accuse the whole new testement as false so as to undermine the plan of God.
PS: http://alt.nntp2http.com/religion/jehovahs-witn/2009/07/07c412292425939ced2cc0fbc1a429c8.html



Many Blessings to you

[joel]

Paul said that he was persuaded that nothing is unclean of itself......this persuasion, he said, came from the Lord.......but,......if a person "logics" himself to think of a particular thing as unclean.....to him,.....that particular thing is unclean. (Romans 14:14).

How do you persuade such a person otherwise, knowing that their "logic" is flawed?

Case in point......the "preterists" see the logic of the "futurists" as flawed, and so do the "futurists" see the "preterists".

The answer to the one who sees something as unclean, the one in the first example, is to refrain from partaking of the unclean thing in their presence. Otherwise, the work of God in that "weak" one's faith, weak as it may be, may be further impaired by your lack of love.

This is a constant "sticking point" in the forum. Certain ones who have, by their logic, come to a place where they stand separated from others who have not arrived at the same conclusion, may depart from "love" by insisting on their views. After all, aren't they saying, in effect, that the other is weaker because of their alleged faulty views?

Paul, when encountering such ones, reminded them that he only preached Christ, and Him crucified. That is good advice indeed.

Joel

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Paul said that he was persuaded that nothing is unclean of itself......this persuasion, he said, came from the Lord.......but,......if a person "logics" himself to think of a particular thing as unclean.....to him,.....that particular thing is unclean. (Romans 14:14).

How do you persuade such a person otherwise, knowing that their "logic" is flawed?

Case in point......the "preterists" see the logic of the "futurists" as flawed, and so do the "futurists" see the "preterists".

Hey Joel,

I don't understand your "Case in point." As far as I can tell, the debate between preterism and futurism is not based on both sides merely asserting that the "logic" of the other side is flawed. The issue is one of facts. What does the Bible actually say? I have spent two years pressing for futurists to present a Biblical foundation for their beliefs, and as yet, no one has risen to the challenge.

Case in point - I presented an integrated complex of mutually confirming verses that strongly imply that the Great and Notable Day of the Lord (http://www.biblewheel.com/Forum/showthread.php?t=1174) was fulfilled in the first century. No one in that thread has shown any errors in my conclusion, and neither has any futurist presented a similar integrated complex of mutually confirming verses that imply a future fulfillment. So the issue is not properly described as a mere disagreement about "logic." It is a matter of facts. What does the Bible really teach?



The answer to the one who sees something as unclean, the one in the first example, is to refrain from partaking of the unclean thing in their presence. Otherwise, the work of God in that "weak" one's faith, weak as it may be, may be further impaired by your lack of love.

I don't see any lack of love. On the contrary, real love does everything it can to help the "weaker brother" understand the truth proclaimed in God's Word. False doctrines are very harmful and can lead to a destruction of the "weaker brother's" faith. For example, after years and years and years of false predictions about the rapture from noted Bible "scholars" the "weaker brother" is likely to toss the entire faith out the window, concluding that if the "scholars" are always wrong about the rapture, they may well be wrong about everything else they teach.



This is a constant "sticking point" in the forum. Certain ones who have, by their logic, come to a place where they stand separated from others who have not arrived at the same conclusion, may depart from "love" by insisting on their views. After all, aren't they saying, in effect, that the other is weaker because of their alleged faulty views?

I am not insisting on my views when I insist that we adhere to what the Bible actually states. The division is caused by those who insist on their own beliefs that can not be shown to be founded upon Scripture.



Paul, when encountering such ones, reminded them that he only preached Christ, and Him crucified. That is good advice indeed.

Joel
Yes, that is excellent advice. But it must not be misunderstood. Paul preached many things that go well beyond Christ and Him crucified. For example, Paul's letter to the Thessalonians is used by futurists to insist on the doctrine of the rapture.

Great to be chatting,

Richard

[joel]

[QUOTE=RAM][What does the Bible really teach?
/QUOTE]

Maybe the fact that you have not been persuaded is that there is no sufficient "teaching" to present to you regarding these matters which you insist are so important, and so obvious to you, and represent a vital part of what is to taught, as you see it.

What does Paul have to say on this very basic question? What has Paul taught?

I can relate to that question, and use all 13 of his letters as background material. But, I cannot use anything he said to discuss 70 A.D.and the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple. As far as I can tell, he said nothing about it.

Joel

[Richard Amiel McGough]

What does the Bible really teach?


What does Paul have to say on this very basic question? What has Paul taught?

I can relate to that question, and use all 13 of his letters as background material. But, I cannot use anything he said to discuss 70 A.D.and the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple. As far as I can tell, he said nothing about it.

Joel
If you limit yourself to Paul's letters only, how will you ever get a full or accurate understanding of what the entire Bible is teaching?

And why have you spoken so much about Elijah and the future of national Israel? Paul said little if anything on either topic.

Richard

[joel]

If you limit yourself to Paul's letters only, how will you ever get a full or accurate understanding of what the entire Bible is teaching?

And why have you spoken so much about Elijah and the future of national Israel? Paul said little if anything on either topic.

Richard

You are right concerning Paul's silence as to Elijah. I should have taken his cue and remained silent as well as we have gone around that mountain too many times. I learned a good lesson there.

I do not limit myself to Paul's letters.....I think I have demonstrated that the entire scripture is profitable and should be studied.

I've expressed this before.....so it should not be something new......Paul was sent to the Gentiles, as their apostle. His preaching is what we should preach. All of us are to preach what he preached, not just "preachers"........the preaching concerns Christ, as you know.

Additionally, whatever we teach (preaching is one thing.....teaching another) we should attempt to align our teaching with Paul's instructions. We may supplement the teaching with any and all parts of scripture, but, according to his instructions, we are to focus on his teachings as he taught of Christ.
That is why so much of what we discuss can be counter-productive as it provokes the flesh, and may be the result of man's wisdom, using enticing words which appeal to ears that need tickling:chores037:.......like rattling a garbage can.

Joel

[Richard Amiel McGough]

You are right concerning Paul's silence as to Elijah. I should have taken his cue and remained silent as well as we have gone around that mountain too many times. I learned a good lesson there.

Does that mean that you do not believe in a future coming of Elijah? And if you do, then upon what do you base your belief?



I do not limit myself to Paul's letters.....I think I have demonstrated that the entire scripture is profitable and should be studied.

I've expressed this before.....so it should not be something new......Paul was sent to the Gentiles, as their apostle. His preaching is what we should preach. All of us are to preach what he preached, not just "preachers"........the preaching concerns Christ, as you know.

And I answered that Paul did not restrict his preaching to the Gentiles. On the contrary, he said that the Gospel he preached was "to the Jew first, and also to the Greek." (Rom 1:16)



Additionally, whatever we teach (preaching is one thing.....teaching another) we should attempt to align our teaching with Paul's instructions. We may supplement the teaching with any and all parts of scripture, but, according to his instructions, we are to focus on his teachings as he taught of Christ.

There is nowhere that Paul told us to follow only his writings. On the contrary, he emphatically proclaimed that the OT was written "for our admonition."
1 Corinthians 10:11 Now all these things happened to them as examples, and they were written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the ages have come.
The attempt to divide the teachings of Paul from the rest of the Bible is the source of a great division in the body of Christ. It is the fundamental doctrine of dispensationalism which also teaches that God's people are divided into Jews and Gentiles. I think this is a grave error.



That is why so much of what we discuss can be counter-productive as it provokes the flesh, and may be the result of man's wisdom, using enticing words which appeal to ears that need tickling:chores037:.......like rattling a garbage can.

Joel
The flesh is provoked when its pride is insulted by truth that exposes its private doctrines are not based on Scripture. The spirit rejoices in the proclamation of Biblical truth.

I think you are taking things too personally. I see nothing "unproductive" in our discussions. They have taught me many things I probably would not have learned in isolation, and they have greatly helped me to conform my understanding to what is actually taught in Scripture.

Richard

[CWH]

Hi Joel and Richard,

It's a common fact that people views other people's belief as flawed. The main reason is that people believed what they believe is RIGHT. Preterists use facts to support their belief so are the futurists; and they all believed their facts are right. Preterists claimed that futurists speculate, I can also say that preterist speculate on AD 70 because nothing in the Bible mentioned the word "AD 70". What's the big deal about speculating; we speculate all the time... stock market, government policies, weather, election etc. Preterist claimed that futurist made no inroad in their speculations for the last 2,000 years, I can also say that preterist did not made much influence for the past 2,000 years either with their "AD 70" concept.

Now back to the topic. I have never thought that Paul was a false apostle and the reasons were already cited by me. Besides, Paul have never shown himself to be a false apostle that we know of such as making fire fall from heaven or built an image to honor(revelation 13) or say "Here is the Messiah!" (Matthew 24). I do understand that some teachings of Paul are controversial but these does not made him a false apostle.

Many Blessings to you both.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Hi Joel and Richard,

It's a common fact that people views other people's belief as flawed. The main reason is that people believed what they believe is RIGHT. Preterists use facts to support their belief so are the futurists; and they all believed their facts are right. Preterists claimed that futurists speculate, I can also say that preterist speculate on AD 70 because nothing in the Bible mentioned the word "AD 70".

That logic is flawed. Jesus spoke specifically about the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple in the Gospels, and the events he spoke of happened in 70 AD. Therefore, there is no "speculation" involved in using the date "70 AD" when discussing these facts.

The futurist position is entirely different. That position is based on speculations about things that simply are not found in the Bible. Case in point - the "second coming of Elijah" before the "second coming of the Lord." There is nothing in the Bible that specifically states any such event, so it is based on speculation, pure and simple.

This is the fundamental difference between preterism and futurism. The former is founded upon what the Bible actually states, the latter is founded on nothing.



What's the big deal about speculating; we speculate all the time... stock market, government policies, weather, election etc.

The "big deal" is that speculation is easily confused with facts, and this leads to false or unsupported doctrines being taught as truth. And this leads to the rejection of the faith as obviously false by unbelievers who listen to the false teachings and failed speculations of the futurists.

In short, the "big deal" is that the truth of what the Bible really teaches is of the utmost importance. Too much speculation destroys the testimony of truth that God proclaims in His Word.



Preterist claimed that futurist made no inroad in their speculations for the last 2,000 years, I can also say that preterist did not made much influence for the past 2,000 years either with their "AD 70" concept.

The idea of "having much influence" has nothing to do with which is true, and which is false.

There is no comparison between preterists and futurists on this point. Preterists have never changed the fundamental understanding that the words of Christ in the Olivet Discourse were true and fulfilled. Futurists, on the other hand, make new predictions every year, and have always been wrong. The difference between them is the difference between night and day, truth and falsehood.



Now back to the topic. I have never thought that Paul was a false apostle and the reasons were already cited by me. Besides, Paul have never shown himself to be a false apostle that we know of such as making fire fall from heaven or built an image to honor(revelation 13) or say "Here is the Messiah!" (Matthew 24). I do understand that some teachings of Paul are controversial but these does not made him a false apostle.

Many Blessings to you both.
And on this point we agree completely! Let us rejoice!

:talk008:

Richard

[joel]

I think you are taking things too personally.

Perplexed.......but not in despair.

Joel

[Richard Amiel McGough]

I think you are taking things too personally.

Perplexed.......but not in despair.

Joel
I thank God that you are not in despair, my brother!

Perhaps I misread the emotional tone you intended in your post. And that's a very important thing we must all remember. These little strings of characters are entirely insufficient to capture the full meaning intended, so we should always double check with each other to be sure we understood before making any judgments.

Many blessings to you, my Peacemaker friend,

Richard

[joel]

Amen.....we all three agree. Joel

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Amen.....we all three agree. Joel
Hey Joel!

I found us a couple smilies.

You are a PeaceMaker ..... :thpeace_dove_olive_

I am a Bike rider ..... :biking_better:

[Rose]

That logic is flawed. Jesus spoke specifically about the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple in the Gospels, and the events he spoke of happened in 70 AD. Therefore, there is no "speculation" involved in using the date "70 AD" when discussing these facts.

The futurist position is entirely different. That position is based on speculations about things that simply are not found in the Bible. Case in point - the "second coming of Elijah" before the "second coming of the Lord." There is nothing in the Bible that specifically states any such event, so it is based on speculation, pure and simple.

This is the fundamental difference between preterism and futurism. The former is founded upon what the Bible actually states, the latter is founded on nothing.


The "big deal" is that speculation is easily confused with facts, and this leads to false or unsupported doctrines being taught as truth. And this leads to the rejection of the faith as obviously false by unbelievers who listen to the false teachings and failed speculations of the futurists.

In short, the "big deal" is that the truth of what the Bible really teaches is of the utmost importance. Too much speculation destroys the testimony of truth that God proclaims in His Word.


The idea of "having much influence" has nothing to do with which is true, and which is false.

There is no comparison between preterists and futurists on this point. Preterists have never changed the fundamental understanding that the words of Christ in the Olivet Discourse were true and fulfilled. Futurists, on the other hand, make new predictions every year, and have always been wrong. The difference between them is the difference between night and day, truth and falsehood.


And on this point we agree completely! Let us rejoice!

:talk008:

Richard

Hey my dear,

You forgot to mention the "second desecration" of the "second rebuilt temple", before the "second coming of Elijah" followed by the "second coming of Jesus"...... :prophet:


Rose

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Hey my dear,

You forgot to mention the "second desecration" of the "second rebuilt temple", before the "second coming of Elijah" followed by the "second coming of Jesus"...... :prophet:


Rose
And we must not forget the "second coming of the Roman empire" - I mean somebody is gonna have to re-desolate the re-built Temple.

[joel]

Hey Joel!

I found us a couple smilies.

You are a PeaceMaker ..... :thpeace_dove_olive_

I am a Bike rider ..... :biking_better:

Priceless........

can you find a runner? I need to get back into the grove but ever since my heart issue I have refrained....but surely miss it.

The dove with moving wings while holding the olive branch is a classic.....are you a Lance wannabe?......or a serious biker? I can't imagine you taking anything at a basic level.......will I see you in France on the TV?......team BibleWheel!

Joel

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Priceless........

can you find a runner? I need to get back into the grove but ever since my heart issue I have refrained....but surely miss it.

The dove with moving wings while holding the olive branch is a classic.....are you a Lance wannabe?......or a serious biker? I can't imagine you taking anything at a basic level.......will I see you in France on the TV?......team BibleWheel!

Joel

Here's one for you bro ... but I need to make its background transparent to be best ...

:animated_runner:

I was a very a very serious :biking_better: some years ago. I rode all the way from Seattle to LA and back. It was a wonderful experience. I also used to commute to my job at GE in Seattle most days. It was a 30 mile round trip. But I've slowed down a bit in the last year. I've only got 2000 miles on my bike that I bought two years ago! :eek: So I won't be competing with Lance in France, and I guess that means I won't see the rain in Spain that falls mainly in the plain ... :lol:

I did my big bike ride before discovering the Bible Wheel. I guess it was some sort of typological prophecy .... :winking0071:

[derekkye]

deleted post

[joel]

Here's one for you bro ... but I need to make its background transparent to be best ...

:animated_runner:

I was a very a very serious :biking_better: some years ago. I rode all the way from Seattle to LA and back. It was a wonderful experience. I also used to commute to my job at GE in Seattle most days. It was a 30 mile round trip. But I've slowed down a bit in the last year. I've only got 2000 miles on my bike that I bought two years ago! :eek: So I won't be competing with Lance in France, and I guess that means I won't see the rain in Spain that falls mainly in the plain ... :lol:

I did my big bike ride before discovering the Bible Wheel. I guess it was some sort of typological prophecy .... :winking0071:

Priceless.

Thanks, RAM, the bicycle man,..........now your insights into the Biblewheel have a real life practical application.

Let me know when the runner emiticon is finished.

Joel

[derekkye]

Jeremiah 23:33
And when this people, or the prophet, or a priest, shall ask thee, saying, What is the burden of the LORD? thou shalt then say unto them, What burden? I will even forsake you, saith the LORD.

Jeremiah 23:34
And as for the prophet, and the priest, and the people, that shall say, The burden of the LORD, I will even punish that man and his house.


Do we have examples in the bible of such prophets? you bet we do

Zechariah 9:1
The burden of the word of the LORD in the land of Hadrach, and Damascus shall be the rest thereof: when the eyes of man, as of all the tribes of Israel, shall be toward the LORD.

Malachi 1:1
The burden of the word of the LORD to Israel by Malachi.

&&

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:

Do we have examples in the bible of people who say they are apostles? We certainly do - namely Paul and Peter. Is it so much of a stretch to consider these men as the men God may have been referring to in Revelation 2:2? No no no!

[derekkye]

last chapter of the bible
last page of the bible



Revelation 22:14 - Blessed are they that do His commandments,...


If you're leaning on Paul's writings as justification for not keeping the commandments let me paraphrase the above scripture fragment

Not blessed are they that do not His commandments

- time to move on to better things

[derekkye]

The question I am most interested in is how you could convince yourself that only two of the 27 NT books are valid, and the rest corrupt. That seems like an impossible position to support with any logic or facts.


facts - okay let's start with the gospels. We seem to have four accounts of what Jesus did and said. Not all the gospels write about the same things that Jesus did or said, but there are some instances where they do. In these instances their accounts should be IDENTICAL - after all they are witnessing the same event.

So a question of fact - Who carried the cross of Jesus?

According to Mathew, Mark, and Luke it wasn't Jesus.



Mathew 27:31,32: And after that they had mocked him, they took the robe off from him, and put his own raiment on him, and led him away to crucify him. And as they came out, they found a man of Cyrene, Simon by name: him they compelled to bear his cross.



Mark 15:21: And they compel one Simon a Cyrenian, who passed by, coming out of the country, the father of Alexander and Rufus, to bear his cross.



Luke 23:26: And as they led him away, they laid hold upon one Simon, a Cyrenian, coming out of the country, and on him they laid the cross, that he might bear it after Jesus.



According to John it was Jesus who carried His own cross



John 19:16,17: Then delivered he him therefore unto them to be crucified. And they took Jesus, and led him away. And he bearing his cross went forth into a place called the place of a skull, which is called in the Hebrew Golgotha:


Lets the words speak for themselves. This is not a translation problem. This is not a "context" problem that so often gets mentioned. It is a different account altogether of what happened.

So who carried the cross of Jesus?

Because I adhere to the gospel of John I say Jesus did.

[gregoryfl]

A man is found dead at the bottom of a cliff. 2 Local papers write about the death.

One paper says "Man dies by a hit and run."

The other paper says "Man dies from complications after falling off a cliff."

Which paper do you believe? They both have their eyewitnesses sharing what happened.

Answer that and you will have the answer to your question about the 4 accounts, and the difference of John compared to the others.

Ron

[Richard Amiel McGough]

A man is found dead at the bottom of a cliff. 2 Local papers write about the death.

One paper says "Man dies by a hit and run."

The other paper says "Man dies from complications after falling off a cliff."

Which paper do you believe? They both have their eyewitnesses sharing what happened.

Answer that and you will have the answer to your question about the 4 accounts, and the difference of John compared to the others.

Ron
Excellent answer Ron! :thumb:

If the Gospels were identical, three would be redundant and we would be missing the richness that comes only from having four views of the life of Christ.

It is also extremely important to note that God designed the differences on the pattern of the Hebrew alphabet as explained in my article called Solution to the Synoptic Problem (http://www.biblewheel.com/canon/SynopticSolution.asp).

And we should not forget the correlation of the Four Gospels with the Four Cherubim as explained in my article called Fulfillment of Ezekiel's Prophecy of the Wheels (http://www.biblewheel.com/Wheel/Ezekiel_Wheels.asp).

Richard

[derekkye]

A man is found dead at the bottom of a cliff. 2 Local papers write about the death.

One paper says "Man dies by a hit and run."

The other paper says "Man dies from complications after falling off a cliff."

Which paper do you believe? They both have their eyewitnesses sharing what happened.

Answer that and you will have the answer to your question about the 4 accounts, and the difference of John compared to the others.

Ron


Are you serious? I would assume the man got hit, fell, and died as a result of his injuries. Two different events are being talked about, and it seems the question of fact here is how the person died - was it from getting hit, or from the fall? The witnesses wouldn't know that.

Now answer the question - who carried the cross of Jesus?

Proverbs 10:10
He that winketh with the eye causeth sorrow: but a prating fool shall fall.

[derekkye]

If the Gospels were identical, three would be redundant and we would be missing the richness that comes only from having four views of the life of Christ.


Are you saying for the sake of not being redundant it's okay to say Jesus did something that he didn't do?

[CWH]

facts - okay let's start with the gospels. We seem to have four accounts of what Jesus did and said. Not all the gospels write about the same things that Jesus did or said, but there are some instances where they do. In these instances their accounts should be IDENTICAL - after all they are witnessing the same event.

So a question of fact - Who carried the cross of Jesus?

According to Mathew, Mark, and Luke it wasn't Jesus.






According to John it was Jesus who carried His own cross



Lets the words speak for themselves. This is not a translation problem. This is not a "context" problem that so often gets mentioned. It is a different account altogether of what happened.

So who carried the cross of Jesus?

Because I adhere to the gospel of John I say Jesus did.

Hi derekkye,

You have said that if 2 or 3 persons said the same thing about the words of God then it must be true. Matthew, Luke and Mark said the same thing that Simon of Cyrene carried the cross except for John, then I would say that Matthew, Luke and Mark were saying the truth except John. Therefore, can I say that John was a liar and must be a false apostle. No, because the BIble is also known to contain errors and that I have stated in my thread, "Contradictions and errors in the Bible" under Bible Studies. http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1186

I said this as an example of how you deduce Paul as a false apostle.

Many Blessings.

[gregoryfl]

Are you serious? I would assume the man got hit, fell, and died as a result of his injuries. Two different events are being talked about, and it seems the question of fact here is how the person died - was it from getting hit, or from the fall? The witnesses wouldn't know that.

Now answer the question - who carried the cross of Jesus?

Proverbs 10:10
He that winketh with the eye causeth sorrow: but a prating fool shall fall.

My scenario of the accounts was indeed a serious one, and the assumption you made was correct. I make the same assumption, that Jesus started out carrying the cross, but then because of his weakness from the horrible beating he took, they compelled the other man to carry it the rest of the way. I suspect that you will not believe that, but you have your answer. The answer is that both carried it, each at different times.

Ron

[derekkye]

You have said that if 2 or 3 persons said the same thing about the words of God then it must be true.


I did not say that.



My scenario of the accounts was indeed a serious one, and the assumption you made was correct. I make the same assumption, that Jesus started out carrying the cross, but then because of his weakness from the horrible beating he took, they compelled the other man to carry it the rest of the way. I suspect that you will not believe that, but you have your answer. The answer is that both carried it, each at different times.


No I don't believe that, but I do concede that is possible.

According to John Jesus did not go into the wilderness immediately after receiving the Spirit for forty days and forty nights as the others say. According to John Jesus rounded up His disciples, and on the third day attended a wedding in Cana of Galilee.

This a major difference between the gospels. So the question is did Jesus go into the wilderness for 40days/40 nights immediately after receiving the Spirit, or didn't he. John seems to STRONGLY indicate that He did not.

Read John 1:32-35, 1:43, and 2:1.

Choose your account of what happened

choose Mathew, Mark, and Luke

or

choose John

because their accounts of what happened are not the same, and are different in more than trivial ways

[derekkye]

Hi derekkye,

You have said that if 2 or 3 persons said the same thing about the words of God then it must be true. Matthew, Luke and Mark said the same thing that Simon of Cyrene carried the cross except for John, then I would say that Matthew, Luke and Mark were saying the truth except John. Therefore, can I say that John was a liar and must be a false apostle. No, because the BIble is also known to contain errors and that I have stated in my thread, "Contradictions and errors in the Bible" under Bible Studies. http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1186

I said this as an example of how you deduce Paul as a false apostle.

Many Blessings.

You can't say the bible is God's word, and then say bible contains errors. The two just don't go together. God knew what His word in english was going to be long before it came into print for us to read. The bible contains God's word, and God has allowed the devil's word in there too. Those who know God will come to know the difference between the two. Of course this is my opinion.