Johnny Mac telling it like it is...

[brianb]

What are you smoking?

1 Corinthians 15:4?10 (ESV): 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures,
5 and that he APPEARED (physical) to Cephas, then to the twelve.
6 Then he APPEARED (physical) to more than five hundred brothers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep.
7 Then he APPEARED (physical) to James, then to all the apostles (physical).
8 Last of all, as to one untimely born, he APPEARED (physical) also to me.
9 For I am the least of the apostles, unworthy to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God.

How on Earth are you gonna state that Paul's appearance was different than every other one. The rest were all physical appearances why do you not believe Paul's was physical? Stop smoking crack and start looking at verses without your bias.

So you are saying Luke's record contradicts Paul's here and Jesus didn't appear as light and/or voice but in a physical, resurrected body? Since there is zero record of Paul ever seeing the physical Jesus and no reason to have facial recognition, and since his Damascus Road experience was prophesied by Jesus as a warning, why should we believe he knew for certain it was Jesus he was talking with? Even Peter's vision in Acts 10, there was no body present, only a voice which Peter recognized. How? HE WALKED WITH JESUS PERSONALLY almost daily for at least 3 years. Paul had no idea who/what he was talking to and produced no eye-witnesses with him that could confirm his story.

Joseph Smith the LDS founding father had the same credibility Paul did. The only difference, is those who ministered with Paul, particularly those who did know the "real" Jesus, eventually abandoned him once they figured out the fraud he was.

2 Peter 3:15-16 (KJV)  And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;
As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

Was that before or after Peter called him beloved and said he was writing scripture?

Sent from my ONEPLUS A5000 using Tapatalk
[/quote]

Paul saw what or who Stephen saw (Acts 7:55). I believe God wanted to give Paul that same experience but it wasn't just to convert him.  I think he already had God working on him after Stephen's message but he was kicking against the goads (fighting God's conviction in his heart). Why else would he so easily accept what Jesus had to say at that point?  Without a heart conviction from God a visible appearance or a voice could be dismissed as mere insanity or something of Satan. To every one who has allegedly heard or seen Jesus how do they know?

Also if Paul wasn't the apostle to the Gentiles who was? Peter was called to the "circumcision". There were a few Gentiles who were saved in Israel but Peter for the most part ministered to Jews. Even the other apostles stayed in Israel for a while. I believe it wasn't until after Paul's death that the other apostles such as John  focused on the Gentiles such as the churches mentioned in Revelation.  Remember also that Paul was a legal Roman. He could use that to get out of jail. The others couldn't. 

 

[Twisted]

Also if Paul wasn't the apostle to the Gentiles who was?

Maybe one of the others?

https://bmarkanderson.com/how-many-apostles-in-the-new-testament-12-or-25/

 

[Anon1379]

Couple things. First, II Peter calls Paul "Brother" and not "Apostle".

Second, it also says Paul spoke "with wisdom", not "with inspiration".

Correct he did speak with wisdom.  Now lets look at the ESV, with me underlining some stuff.
    "Just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him,
          16      as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures.

Now you stated later that the writer was bashing Paul. First he still called him beloved brother that spoke with wisdom. 2nd he clearly stated that what Paul wrote was twisted, and therefore made the ignorant and unstable go to their destruction. Then he states that the unstable and ignorant who twist Paul's letters also do so "as they do the other Scriptures." You would have to completely twist what Peter is saying in order to come to your conclusion.

Third, dysnoetas can also be translated as "nonsensical" or "unintelligible" thoughts meaning Paul's teachings were rubbish.

What dictionary is that? I checked ALL  of mine.
BDAG - Hard to understand.
DBL - difficult to understand; hard to comprehend
Louw NIda- pertaining to being understandable, but only with great effort??difficult to understand, not easily understood.
LSJ - hard to be understood
EDNT - hard to undertand
LXGRCANLEX - hard to undertand
Greek - English dict. of NT - hard to understand
TDNT - something hard to understand
PLGNT - hard to understand
CDWGTHB - hard to undertand. Difficult of perception
GELNT - Hard to be understoodFourth

Now some of there lexicons are the best of the best, and none agreed with your translation. So i ask again where did you get that definition.
          For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.
          20      Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?
          21      For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.
          22      For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom:
          23      But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness;
          24      But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God.
          25      Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men.
Interesting that  this seems to coincide with Peter's writing here. those who are lost will not understand the Scripture, and it will be a stumblingblock to them. Look at the similarities between these two passage.

II Peter was debated as being canonical or not:
Every book was. What is your point? Luther debated whether or not James was canonical, i could go on with every book. At the end of the day man does not determine the canon, God does. Every Bible today has 2 Peter. God would not have let this whole book slip in. Im curious as to what your method is for determining what is canon or not. Do you accept only the red letters? Only the old testament? Only the stuff that makes sense?

https://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf201.pdf

Fifth, Calvin thought someone other than Peter wrote the book, so those wouldn't have been written by Peter:

For though some affinity may be traced, yet I confess that there is that manifest difference which distinguishes different writers. There are also other probable conjectures by which we may conclude that it was written by another rather than by Peter. At the same time, according to the consent of all, it has nothing unworthy of Peter, as it shews everywhere the power and the grace of an apostolic spirit.

Source: http://www.biblestudyguide.org/comment/calvin/comm_vol45/htm/vii.htm

Now you quote calvin, but calvin  still believed the epistle to be inspired. You do not, so why even mention Calvin's quote here?


Now concerning the authorship, its kinda hard to easily summarize in a few sentences.  FirstClement wrote a commentary on it, stating the author was Peter. Origin reffered to the "epistles of peter." THe Apocalypse of peter (apocrypha) was based off of 2nd peter, and was written in 110, which would throw back the authorship of 2 Peter even farther. Eusebius stated it was canon and then said the reason why most said it was not, was because it was not as well known as the rest. Councils of hippo and Carthage accepted it as cannon and in the same council rejected 1 Clement and barnabas as canon. There is a whole lot more i could write if you want me to. I litreally gave like 10%.



So whoever wrote II Peter was actually bashing Paul which drove Calvin to assume Peter did not write the epistle. The writer said Paul was writing nonsense and people were falling for it. So to assume Pauline inspiration of his epistles based on one verse taken out of context is not a good enough argument for me.
In no way shape or form. He calls him beloved. He calls him a brother, and then calls his writing scripture.

 

[Smellin Coffee]

Also if Paul wasn't the apostle to the Gentiles who was? Peter was called to the "circumcision". There were a few Gentiles who were saved in Israel but Peter for the most part ministered to Jews. Even the other apostles stayed in Israel for a while. I believe it wasn't until after Paul's death that the other apostles such as John  focused on the Gentiles such as the churches mentioned in Revelation.  Remember also that Paul was a legal Roman. He could use that to get out of jail. The others couldn't.

No, Paul said Peter was called to the 'circumcision'. That was wrong. Peter was called to the Gentiles.

You would rather believe Paul than what Peter said in Acts 15:7:

After much discussion, Peter got up and addressed them: "Brothers, you know that some time ago God made a choice among you that the Gentiles might hear from my lips the message of the gospel and believe.

Yep, Peter died in Rome, a GENTILE city, ministering to Gentiles.

1913 Catholic Encyclopedia regarding the apostle, "It is an indisputably established historical fact that St. Peter labored in Rome during the last portion of his life, and there ended his earthly course by martyrdom."

Source: https://www.biblestudy.org/roman-empire/did-peter-live-die-in-rome.html

 

[Ransom]

No, Paul said Peter was called to the 'circumcision'. That was wrong. Peter was called to the Gentiles.

You would rather believe Paul than what Peter said in Acts 15:7:

You appear to be under the delusion that the two were contradictory. Peter was the apostle through whom the Gospel first went to the Gentiles--God "first intervened" to choose the Gentiles through Peter. Peter, along with the rest of the Twelve, ministered primarily amongst the Jews (Galatians 2:9). Paul was entrusted by the Twelve with ministering to the Gentiles (Acts 15:22,25), but his custom was to minister in the synagogues whenever he arrived in a new city (Acts 17:1-2).

In other words, they each ministered both to Jew and Gentile, although recognizing that they were each called to a different focus. The division of labour wasn't a sharp one, and no one was going to file a grievance with the Evangelists Union local if Paul darkened the door of a synagogue. It's dishonest of you to selectively quote parts of Acts 15 while ignoring other parts of the same chapter that militate against your bias.

 

[brianb]

Back to the topic. I don't think MacArthur or any one here is saying that women can't teach men. There was Aquila and Priscilla (one time the names are reversed) who taught Apollos but you'll notice that they are partners not co-pastors over a church.  Philip had daughters who prophesied but it was Agabus that gave a prophecy (a warning) that applied to Paul and those with him. 

And really no one should listen to Beth Moore as she relies on "revelation" (for example to judge someone's motives) which is purely subjective.  A real prophet has to prove that he or she is one (Deuteronomy 18:22) and we will also know them by their fruits.  Beth Moore will probably come up with something more wacky or dangerous (maybe worse than that of Joyce Meyer who she approves as well as Joel Osteen).  They always go where the money is and by that I mean a lot of it.     

 

 

[Anon1379]

No, Paul said Peter was called to the 'circumcision'. That was wrong. Peter was called to the Gentiles.

You would rather believe Paul than what Peter said in Acts 15:7:

You appear to be under the delusion that the two were contradictory. Peter was the apostle through whom the Gospel first went to the Gentiles--God "first intervened" to choose the Gentiles through Peter. Peter, along with the rest of the Twelve, ministered primarily amongst the Jews (Galatians 2:9). Paul was entrusted by the Twelve with ministering to the Gentiles (Acts 15:22,25), but his custom was to minister in the synagogues whenever he arrived in a new city (Acts 17:1-2).

In other words, they each ministered both to Jew and Gentile, although recognizing that they were each called to a different focus. The division of labour wasn't a sharp one, and no one was going to file a grievance with the Evangelists Union local if Paul darkened the door of a synagogue. It's dishonest of you to selectively quote parts of Acts 15 while ignoring other parts of the same chapter that militate against your bias.

The guy has to be a troll. No way you can look at Scripture and state that Paul and Peter were at odds. There is no way you can twist acts and 2 Peter unless you already made your mind up and wish to only see what you want.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A5000 using Tapatalk

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

No, Paul said Peter was called to the 'circumcision'. That was wrong. Peter was called to the Gentiles.

You would rather believe Paul than what Peter said in Acts 15:7:

You appear to be under the delusion that the two were contradictory. Peter was the apostle through whom the Gospel first went to the Gentiles--God "first intervened" to choose the Gentiles through Peter. Peter, along with the rest of the Twelve, ministered primarily amongst the Jews (Galatians 2:9). Paul was entrusted by the Twelve with ministering to the Gentiles (Acts 15:22,25), but his custom was to minister in the synagogues whenever he arrived in a new city (Acts 17:1-2).

In other words, they each ministered both to Jew and Gentile, although recognizing that they were each called to a different focus. The division of labour wasn't a sharp one, and no one was going to file a grievance with the Evangelists Union local if Paul darkened the door of a synagogue. It's dishonest of you to selectively quote parts of Acts 15 while ignoring other parts of the same chapter that militate against your bias.

The guy has to be a troll. No way you can look at Scripture and state that Paul and Peter were at odds. There is no way you can twist acts and 2 Peter unless you already made your mind up and wish to only see what you want.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A5000 using Tapatalk

Smellin has been posting on this forum for a long time, he has been a part of both incarnations of the fff.
He went to Hyles and I believe his parents worked/served the ministry in Hammond.
He has been on a downward spiral (from orthodoxy) for years. Like many others, he just couldn?t understand the hypocrisy, man worship and double standards he saw clearly in the ministry there...and wondered how anyone with eyes, ears and common sense could go along with such.

Now, to justify his nonbelief,  he grasps at straws, like the Peter/Paul assertion....Helen Keller could see through his idiotic hermeneutic. He is a bleeding heart liberal, who probably truly cares for the ?downtrodden?...but his blindness caused by the number Hyles did on him, just can?t see how vacuous his arguments are....

But, you, me, and Helen Keller can.

 

[brianb]

No, Paul said Peter was called to the 'circumcision'. That was wrong. Peter was called to the Gentiles.

You would rather believe Paul than what Peter said in Acts 15:7:

You appear to be under the delusion that the two were contradictory. Peter was the apostle through whom the Gospel first went to the Gentiles--God "first intervened" to choose the Gentiles through Peter. Peter, along with the rest of the Twelve, ministered primarily amongst the Jews (Galatians 2:9). Paul was entrusted by the Twelve with ministering to the Gentiles (Acts 15:22,25), but his custom was to minister in the synagogues whenever he arrived in a new city (Acts 17:1-2).

In other words, they each ministered both to Jew and Gentile, although recognizing that they were each called to a different focus. The division of labour wasn't a sharp one, and no one was going to file a grievance with the Evangelists Union local if Paul darkened the door of a synagogue. It's dishonest of you to selectively quote parts of Acts 15 while ignoring other parts of the same chapter that militate against your bias.

The guy has to be a troll. No way you can look at Scripture and state that Paul and Peter were at odds. There is no way you can twist acts and 2 Peter unless you already made your mind up and wish to only see what you want.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A5000 using Tapatalk

Smellin has been posting on this forum for a long time, he has been a part of both incarnations of the fff.
He went to Hyles and I believe his parents worked/served the ministry in Hammond.
He has been on a downward spiral (from orthodoxy) for years. Like many others, he just couldn?t understand the hypocrisy, man worship and double standards he saw clearly in the ministry there...and wondered how anyone with eyes, ears and common sense could go along with such.

Now, to justify his nonbelief,  he grasps at straws, like the Peter/Paul assertion....Helen Keller could see through his idiotic hermeneutic. He is a bleeding heart liberal, who probably truly cares for the ?downtrodden?...but his blindness caused by the number Hyles did on him, just can?t see how vacuous his arguments are....

But, you, me, and Helen Keller can.

I think it was more what Hyles and others in Hammond didn't do for him than what they did (the negative stuff). I like to compare him to someone who is forced to eat a bunch of stuff good and bad (mostly bad) that he eventually vomits. But a smart eater will eat good things the right way so they grow. Eating here means hearing or learning. He didn't learn the right things but more importantly he didn't learn how to learn right doctrine and how to interpret scripture. 

 

[Anon1379]

No, Paul said Peter was called to the 'circumcision'. That was wrong. Peter was called to the Gentiles.

You would rather believe Paul than what Peter said in Acts 15:7:

You appear to be under the delusion that the two were contradictory. Peter was the apostle through whom the Gospel first went to the Gentiles--God "first intervened" to choose the Gentiles through Peter. Peter, along with the rest of the Twelve, ministered primarily amongst the Jews (Galatians 2:9). Paul was entrusted by the Twelve with ministering to the Gentiles (Acts 15:22,25), but his custom was to minister in the synagogues whenever he arrived in a new city (Acts 17:1-2).

In other words, they each ministered both to Jew and Gentile, although recognizing that they were each called to a different focus. The division of labour wasn't a sharp one, and no one was going to file a grievance with the Evangelists Union local if Paul darkened the door of a synagogue. It's dishonest of you to selectively quote parts of Acts 15 while ignoring other parts of the same chapter that militate against your bias.

The guy has to be a troll. No way you can look at Scripture and state that Paul and Peter were at odds. There is no way you can twist acts and 2 Peter unless you already made your mind up and wish to only see what you want.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A5000 using Tapatalk

Smellin has been posting on this forum for a long time, he has been a part of both incarnations of the fff.
He went to Hyles and I believe his parents worked/served the ministry in Hammond.
He has been on a downward spiral (from orthodoxy) for years. Like many others, he just couldn?t understand the hypocrisy, man worship and double standards he saw clearly in the ministry there...and wondered how anyone with eyes, ears and common sense could go along with such.

Now, to justify his nonbelief,  he grasps at straws, like the Peter/Paul assertion....Helen Keller could see through his idiotic hermeneutic. He is a bleeding heart liberal, who probably truly cares for the ?downtrodden?...but his blindness caused by the number Hyles did on him, just can?t see how vacuous his arguments are....

But, you, me, and Helen Keller can.

I think it was more what Hyles and others in Hammond didn't do for him than what they did (the negative stuff). I like to compare him to someone who is forced to eat a bunch of stuff good and bad (mostly bad) that he eventually vomits. But a smart eater will eat good things the right way so they grow. Eating here means hearing or learning. He didn't learn the right things but more importantly he didn't learn how to learn right doctrine and how to interpret scripture.

Yeah makes sense. Grew up in IFB they don't teach anything but standards and soulwinning. The people I knew couldn't give you a verse on any major doctrine, couldn't tell you what justification, sanctification was.

 

[brianb]

No, Paul said Peter was called to the 'circumcision'. That was wrong. Peter was called to the Gentiles.

You would rather believe Paul than what Peter said in Acts 15:7:

You appear to be under the delusion that the two were contradictory. Peter was the apostle through whom the Gospel first went to the Gentiles--God "first intervened" to choose the Gentiles through Peter. Peter, along with the rest of the Twelve, ministered primarily amongst the Jews (Galatians 2:9). Paul was entrusted by the Twelve with ministering to the Gentiles (Acts 15:22,25), but his custom was to minister in the synagogues whenever he arrived in a new city (Acts 17:1-2).

In other words, they each ministered both to Jew and Gentile, although recognizing that they were each called to a different focus. The division of labour wasn't a sharp one, and no one was going to file a grievance with the Evangelists Union local if Paul darkened the door of a synagogue. It's dishonest of you to selectively quote parts of Acts 15 while ignoring other parts of the same chapter that militate against your bias.

The guy has to be a troll. No way you can look at Scripture and state that Paul and Peter were at odds. There is no way you can twist acts and 2 Peter unless you already made your mind up and wish to only see what you want.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A5000 using Tapatalk

Smellin has been posting on this forum for a long time, he has been a part of both incarnations of the fff.
He went to Hyles and I believe his parents worked/served the ministry in Hammond.
He has been on a downward spiral (from orthodoxy) for years. Like many others, he just couldn?t understand the hypocrisy, man worship and double standards he saw clearly in the ministry there...and wondered how anyone with eyes, ears and common sense could go along with such.

Now, to justify his nonbelief,  he grasps at straws, like the Peter/Paul assertion....Helen Keller could see through his idiotic hermeneutic. He is a bleeding heart liberal, who probably truly cares for the ?downtrodden?...but his blindness caused by the number Hyles did on him, just can?t see how vacuous his arguments are....

But, you, me, and Helen Keller can.

I think it was more what Hyles and others in Hammond didn't do for him than what they did (the negative stuff). I like to compare him to someone who is forced to eat a bunch of stuff good and bad (mostly bad) that he eventually vomits. But a smart eater will eat good things the right way so they grow. Eating here means hearing or learning. He didn't learn the right things but more importantly he didn't learn how to learn right doctrine and how to interpret scripture.

Yeah makes sense. Grew up in IFB they don't teach anything but standards and soulwinning. The people I knew couldn't give you a verse on any major doctrine, couldn't tell you what justification, sanctification was.

That wasn't true of all IFB back then (especially beginning in the 1980s). 

 

[Twisted]

That wasn't not true of all IFB back then (especially beginning in the 1980s). 

So it WAS true?

 

[brianb]

That wasn't not true of all IFB back then (especially beginning in the 1980s). 

So it WAS true?

Corrected.

 

[brianb]

If we are talking about women being bishops/pastors I found this to helpful. 
https://biblehub.com/greek/4245.htm
Looking at what an elder is supposed to be I think there are some pastors who don't qualify and were prematurely chosen.  Being a pastor is so much more than preaching, teaching and leading.  But the main qualification is it has to be a man (more specifically in the Greek presbyteros. There is no woman called a presbytera in the Bible).  If Titus for example was to ordain elder women it would say "ordain elders and elder women in every city" .