March 20, 2005 / Volume 9, Issue 12
Was Paul A Deceiver
...continued
| SHRINER'S CLAIMS | ANSWERS |
There are those who will vehemently defend the inerrancy of the Word of God and then completely ignore HOW it was compiled, filtered, and put together by pagans!
The Council of Nicea in 325 in Rome DECIDED for us what books would be included and what would be official church doctrine. Constantine was the ultimate approver or disapprover, not a Spirit led born again believer in Jesus! Most will claim Constantine was a believer, what they don't tell you is that Constantine didn't convert until he was on his deathbed! Which means the early church majority did nothing as a pagan compiled and TOLD US what doctrine was true or false!
It is the duty of every believer in Y'hoshua Jesus to go back and learn what the truth really was before Constantine corrupted the church!
Pray for truth in all things daily and seek Yah for the truth!! Not man!! | Shriner's ignorance with regard to how the Bible came together is evident. The 1st council of Nicea (325 AD) primarily addressed the teachings of Arius, not the canon of Scripture. The Catholics claim the 3rd council of Carthage (397 AD) for giving us the canon of Scripture. However, long before this time, Christians knew the canon (standard, rule) of Scripture.
Regarding the Old Testament canon, Jesus spoke of "...all the Law and the Prophets..." (Mt 22:40; cf. Lk 24:44). By the time of Christ, the Jews knew and accepted the inspired Hebrew scriptures. Josephus, a first century Jewish historian wrote of the Old Testament canon, "...during so many ages as have already passed, no one has been so bold as either to add anything to them or take anything from them, or to make any change in them; but it is become natural to all Jews, immediately, and from their very birth, to esteem these books to contain Divine doctrines, and to persist in them, and, if occasion be, willingly to die for them."
The writings of the early Christians bear witness to what they (well before the Carthage council) accepted as inspired books. We can see all 27 books which we now call the New Testament referenced through the writings of Clement of Rome (30-100 AD), Ignatius of Antioch (30-115 AD), Polycarp (69-155 AD), Papias (70-140 AD), Justin Martyr (100-165 AD), Irenaeus 140-203 AD), Tertullian (150-222 AD), Clement of Alexandria (155-215 AD), Origen (185-254 AD), and several others through the first three centuries AD. No council of the Catholics gave us the Bible – God gave it through his holy apostles and prophets. |
Ok, so now you're wondering if any of this is really true. When Yah kept leading me to this there were many times I had my doubts. So I know that you're going through and thinking. Yah kept bringing several of the points made on this website to my mind. He led me to people and places and books for a long time before I finally accepted it as the self evident truth that it is. Some of the facts He kept bringing to my mind during times of doubt and questioning and prayer were these:
1. There are three different accounts of Paul's testimony of the Damascus Road Revelation that we know of in the Scriptures (probably many more that we don't even know of), the very words out of Paul's mouth. All 3 were different accounts of the same event. These weren't translation errors, they were different stories of the same event as told by PAUL. Why the differences? Because Liars can't keep up with the truth. The Apostles didn't believe Paul's story and we shouldn't either.
2. After this "divine revelation" Paul disappeared for 2 years into the wilderness to receive more and more revelations. There were never any accounts listed anywhere from any of the soldiers or witnesses who were there to confirm that this event really happened. He never sought the disciples or to learn from them Yah's ways and teachings directly from the men who knew Yah the most. He claimed by divine revelation the very falsehood that almost got him excommunicated from the church completely! He argued with the apostles that circumcision was no longer necessary and in Jesus would profit them nothing when circumcision was a command, a sign of the covenant Yah made with Israel! To escape excommunication, Paul relented and stopped preaching his falsehood on circumcision. In other words, Paul's revelation wasn't so divine when it was held up and scrutinized in God's Word. Paul was exposed for the fraud and liar he was! And instead of dealing with him once and for all the disciples "swept him under the rug."
I don't think any of the apostles realized at the time how dangerous this Paul was going to be to the church today. When they visited cities and towns Paul had preached in, they spent their time undoing the damage Paul did and setting the people straight on doctrine. In fact it got so bad the entire area of Asia completely rejected Paul! They didn't even want to see him! When he was thrown in prison in Rome the people wouldn't even visit him!
Yet, almost half of the New Testament today are books Paul wrote. Hindsight...would have been nice. But Yah allowed it to serve His own purposes. Just as He allowed the serpent to bequile Eve in the garden of Eden.
How many preachers today have "divine revelations" and have introduced false, heretical, and blasphemous teachings and doctrines into the churches?
Now you know where it started.
3. Some will say that through translations Paul's words were twisted and he was made to look bad by the transcribers themselves. For this, I refer you to point # 1 and # 2. |
We need not wonder if what Shriner has said is true, for we have spent the last couple months testing her teaching, and have found it to be wanting. God revealed none of this garbage to Shriner, she has simply convinced herself that it is from God.
We have addressed already the "different accounts" of Paul's Damascus Road experience, and have noted that they are not contradictory. Rather than revisit this, you are invited to go back to the previous articles and see this to be the case.
So far as an account of Paul's experience on the Damascus road, Luke gives us the account. Shriner chooses to call it contradictory.
Of Paul's time in Arabia, we do not know whether anyone was with him, nor does it matter. Do we have an accounting of Peter's what Peter did all the time? How about the actions of John? In fact, several of the apostles are not mentioned again in Scripture after the gospels. The lack of a record regarding a portion of their work (or in the case of some, all their work), does not nullify their divine calling, nor the revelation which was given to them.
Circumcision was not a point of contention between Paul and the other apostles. In the letter sent to the Gentiles from Jerusalem, we read, "...we have heard that some who went out from us have troubled you with words, unsettling your souls, saying, ‘You must be circumcised and keep the law' – to whom we gave no such commandment..." (Ac 15:24). Paul continued to teach that circumcision was not necessary, even as can be seen in the book of Galatians.
What proof has Shriner that the apostles went about undoing the damage caused by Paul in the churches? This is nothing more than Shriner making up stories. There is no evidence in Scripture of this, nor in history. In fact, the apostles received Paul, giving him the right hand of fellowship (Gal 2:9; 2 Pe 3:15). Did the people of Asia completely reject Paul, as Shriner suggests? See a previous article which deals with this false accusation.
Paul's writings are included in the Scripture because they are Scripture. Hear the words of Peter, "...as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, has written to you, as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures." (2 Pe 3:15-16).
Note:
Peter speaks of the wisdom given to Paul, and calls his writings Scripture;
Those who twist Paul's writing and the rest of Scripture (as Shriner has) do so to their own destruction
May Shriner change her tune before it's too late. |
Click here for this week's Answering The Atheist
Was Ahaz buried with his fathers? 2 Kings 16:20 says that he was buried with his fathers in the city of David, while 2 Chronicles 28:27 reveals that he was buried in Jerusalem, but not in the sepulchre of the kings of Israel. Is there a contradiction?
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
