Where is water baptism of Paul?

[Yahwehismywitness]

Jesus says follow him at least 20 times in the gospels.
Jesus was water baptized Matthew 3:14:17
Must do for Holy Spirit promise

Was name change a substitute?

[Checkpoint]

[Replying to post 129 by Yahwehismywitness]

Checkpoint wrote:

What church said who was "apostle to the heretics"?

As for Ananias, upon becoming a repentant believer, would have turned his back on Sadducee-ism, and on those High Priests and Sanhedrin, been forgiven, and so become a follower of the Lord Jesus.

Thus he was chosen by Jesus to convey his message to Saul. Acts 9:10-17.

You wrote:

The most direct heirs of the Jewish-Christian group­ings within earliest Christianity [i.e., the early Jerusalem church] regarded Paul as the great apostate, an arch enemy,� citing Epistula Petri 2.3; Clem. Hom. 17:18-19. (James D. G. Dunn, The Cambridge Companion to St. Paul (Cambridge University Press, 2003) at 2.)

Tertullian, an orthodox church member in Carthage, Africa, wrote in 207 A.D. his famous rebuttal to Marcion. In it, Tertullian raised every ground possible to dispute whether Paul was truly an apostle of Jesus Christ. Tertullian even sug­gested Paul was a false prophet as warned of by Jesus Christ. We previously quoted this daring analysis from Tertullian. In that passage, Tertullian says that Paul’s claim to apostleship is totally self-serving, and by Jesus’ standards is invalid. Scholars generally now recognize this is a valid criticism of Paul’s claims. In the end, Tertullian even suggested “[Paul] is the apostle of the heretics.� (Tertul­lian, Adversus Marcion 3:5, “haereticorum apostolus�.)

One church and one later leader gave their opinion and made their judgment.

I choose to believe Luke and Peter.

You choose to continue persecuting Paul.

[Yahwehismywitness]

One church and one later leader gave their opinion and made their judgment.

This was not the only one but the one Jesus established the very first

Scholars Realize Luke's Gospel and Acts Are Both At Odds With Paul's Epistles

Moreover, the Jesus portrayed in Luke's Gospel is so doctrinally at odds with Paul's epistles that scholars concur that Luke had no knowledge of Paul's epistles when he wrote the Gospel or Acts. The discrepancies are embarassing to either Paul or Luke, depending upon who is responsible for the differences.

First, neither Luke's Gospel nor Acts says anything helpful to the acceptance of Paul's epistles because much is contradictory to them, both factually and doctrinally.

This was first exposed by theologian F.C. Bauer (1790-1860), a professor at Blaubeuren Theological Seminary.

Recently, Christian scholars Hengel and Schwemer in their book Paul: Between Antioch and Damascus (Westminster John Knox Press, 1997) at 322 say "since F.C. Bauer and his pupils, there has been no evidence that knowledge of Paul's letter by Luke can be demonstrated." Hengel et al add:

"When Luke was writing, Paul's letters may have been in the archives of one community or another. The use of them begins only with I Clement or shortly after 100 CE....They will have been collected and edited around this time" while Luke wrote "twenty years earlier."

Pauline and non-Pauline scholars acknowledge the same truth about Luke's Gospel carries over into the book of Acts.

In R.B. Rackham's article, "The Acts of the Apostles, A Plea for an Early Date," Journal of Theological Studies (London: MacMillan, 1900) Vol. 1 at 76, this pro-Paul writer acknowledges that Luke could not have known of Paul's epistles because of the material discrepancies between Acts and Paul's Epistles which, had Luke known of said epistles, "we cannot imagine his leaving such inconsistencies in their present form." The full quote reads:

It is clear that the writer [Luke] has not used our Epistles of St. Paul as his authorities. They can be fitted in, but there was no special desire of illustrating or even harmonizing with them. This is evident from some apparent discrepancies, especially between the Acts and Galatians. If St. Luke wrote at a date when the Epistles were the public property of the Church and widely read, we cannot imagine his leaving such inconsistencies in their present form. ...The letters of St. Paul were numerous, our Epistles had not won their pre-eminent position, and as yet they were the private property of the Churches to whom they were addressed....St. Luke was writing at a time when the Epistle to the Galatians was not yet widely circulated. That Epistle contained the record of St. Paul's 'secret history' poured out to his apostate children. Id., at page 84 (emphasis added).

(Richard Beiward Rackham was a highly prolific evangelical scholar, writing Acts of the Apostles:An Exposition (1901); Authority in the Matter of Faith (with Baptist scholar, A. Robertson); The Voice of the Church and the Bishops (1896), etc.)

Thus, from such differences, Rackham deduces Luke could not have known of Paul's epistles. Luke's obvious desire to vindicate Paul in the upcoming trial at Rome would be negated by those epistles. Had Luke known of the epistles, Luke obviously would either have narrowed his favorable account about Paul to not conflict with them, or have abandoned a favorable view of Paul because Luke's account of Jesus' doctrines varied from Paul's doctrines in the Pauline epistles.

In fact, this is now generally recognized. For Pauline scholars have had to insist that Paul's letters are more valid representations of Paul's own views even though Luke inexplicably contradicts the views Paul had of himself and Paul's doctrines in the epistles. For example, Christian scholars who are pro-Paul realize Luke's Acts does not support the claim of an apostleship from Jesus that Paul makes in Paul's epistles. In "Historical Reliability of Book of Acts," Wikipedia (2013), we read:

A key contested issue is the historicity of Luke's depiction of Paul. According to the majority viewpoint, Acts described Paul differently from how Paul describes himself, both factually and theologically.[4] Acts differed with Paul's letters on important issues, such as the Law, Paul's own apostleship, and his relation to the Jerusalem church.[5] Scholars generally prefer Paul's account over that in Acts.[6]

Apostleship Contradiction. For example, Acts contradicts Paul's claim to being an apostle of Jesus Christ -- something Paul repeats numerous times in his opening line of his epistles. However, in none of the three appearance-accounts in Acts - in chapters 9, 22 and 26 -- does Luke record the "Jesus" of Damascus as making Paul an apostle. By Luke also recording in chapter one of Acts that the the Lord Jesus chose Matthias as the 12th by means of a lot (Acts 1:24-26), there was no room for the "Jesus of Damascus" in Acts 9 to name Paul the 12th. Hence, we read from conservative evangelical scholars:

"In Acts...Paul is denied the title of Apostle." (Hengel & Schwemer, Paul between Damascus and Antioch (John Knox Press, 1997) at at 321 n. 3.)

Even a Paul defender, George Reber angrily accuses Luke in Acts of trying to promote Peter at Paul's expense by denigrating whether Paul was an apostle:

Scholars Realize Luke's Gospel and Acts Are Both At Odds With Paul's Epistles

Moreover, the Jesus portrayed in Luke's Gospel is so doctrinally at odds with Paul's epistles that scholars concur that Luke had no knowledge of Paul's epistles when he wrote the Gospel or Acts. The discrepancies are embarassing to either Paul or Luke, depending upon who is responsible for the differences.

RDamascus" in Acts 9 to name Paul the 12th. Hence, we read from conservative evangelical scholars:

"In Acts...Paul is denied the title of Apostle." (Hengel & Schwemer, Paul between Damascus and Antioch (John Knox Press, 1997) at at 321 n. 3.)

Even a Paul defender, George Reber angrily accuses Luke in Acts of trying to promote Peter at Paul's expense by denigrating whether Paul was an apostle:
https://jesuswordsonly.com/recommendedr ... story.html

Second Peter proved Paul was a "brother," that is truly what it says, but it is no proof Paul is an apostle. It should be noted that Second Peter says Paul writes by the "wisdom God gave him" but not by inspiration. Second Peter also said Paul's wisdom was sometimes not present in a material way, and in fact Paul's words were salvation threatening when read by the "ignorant and unstable." For Second Peter says Paul's writings are "sometimes dysnoetas." Noetas means sensible. The prefix DYS in ancient Greek means "DESTROYING THE GOOD SENSE OF A WORD" which follows this Greek prefix. (Liddell & Scott quoted at Dictionary.com]. English uses the prefix the same way. For example, non-functional means something that does not work. But dysfunctional means something that malfunctions. See Dictionary.com.

This word dysnoetas thus means “contrary to good sense" or "destructive of good sense." You could lessen it to "nonsensical" with a pejorative intention but that may be still too soft.
https://jesuswordsonly.com/recommendedr ... ostle.html

[Checkpoint]

[Replying to post 132 by Yahwehismywitness]

First, neither Luke's Gospel nor Acts says anything helpful to the acceptance of Paul's epistles because much is contradictory to them, both factually and doctrinally.

That is not the issue we are debating.

The issue is Paul's credibility.

You are questioning and/or inferring things from passages in Acts, and I am responding to that.

I accept what Luke wrote in his Acts introduction. His writing is considered, meticulous, and reliable. He knew Paul well.

[Checkpoint]

[Replying to post 132 by Yahwehismywitness]

Apostleship Contradiction. For example, Acts contradicts Paul's claim to being an apostle of Jesus Christ -- something Paul repeats numerous times in his opening line of his epistles. However, in none of the three appearance-accounts in Acts - in chapters 9, 22 and 26 -- does Luke record the "Jesus" of Damascus as making Paul an apostle. By Luke also recording in chapter one of Acts that the the Lord Jesus chose Matthias as the 12th by means of a lot (Acts 1:24-26), there was no room for the "Jesus of Damascus" in Acts 9 to name Paul the 12th.

He never claimed to be a 12th or 13th apostle.

His claim is supported by what Jesus told him, as found in Acts.

From HELPS Word-studies

Cognate: 652 apóstolos (from 649 /apostéll�, "to commission, send forth") – properly, someone sent (commissioned), focusing back on the authority (commissioning) of the sender (note the prefix, apo); apostle.

[Checkpoint]

[Replying to post 132 by Yahwehismywitness]

Second Peter proved Paul was a "brother," that is truly what it says, but it is no proof Paul is an apostle. It should be noted that Second Peter says Paul writes by the "wisdom God gave him" but not by inspiration. Second Peter also said Paul's wisdom was sometimes not present in a material way, and in fact Paul's words were salvation threatening when read by the "ignorant and unstable." For Second Peter says Paul's writings are "sometimes dysnoetas." Noetas means sensible. The prefix DYS in ancient Greek means "DESTROYING THE GOOD SENSE OF A WORD" which follows this Greek prefix. (Liddell & Scott quoted at Dictionary.com]. English uses the prefix the same way. For example, non-functional means something that does not work. But dysfunctional means something that malfunctions. See Dictionary.com.

This word dysnoetas thus means “contrary to good sense" or "destructive of good sense." You could lessen it to "nonsensical" with a pejorative intention but that may be still too soft.

That is so hilarious!

Your favorite site with its "recommended reading" has outdone itself.
o
A Greek word has been extracted from 2 Peter 3:15-16 and had its meaning changed from "hard to understand" to "nonsensical with a pejorative intention".

But of course, if you start with the wrong translation, you are bound to end up even further astray.

[Yahwehismywitness]

That is not the issue we are debating.

The issue is Paul's credibility.

You are questioning and/or inferring things from passages in Acts, and I am responding to that.

I accept what Luke wrote in his Acts introduction. His writing is considered, meticulous, and reliable. He knew Paul well.

Luke did not write well of Saul/Paul
Key Points in Acts:
Proved he was not Apostle Act 1:21-27
Murderous past working for Sadducees Acts 26:11
Sadducee help Acts 9:14
Signs and wonders only Acts 9:17


"Violent Ones" in dead seas scrolls Violence described in great detail , including extended reference to "the poor" (Ebionim) the situation how the High Priests in general called the last priests of Jerusalem profited from Violence of the people gather riches and spoils in run up to destruction of Jerusalem. The wicked Priest became puffed up proud and he deserted Yahweh and betrayed the laws because of riches. He plundered and collected the Riches of the Men of Violence, themselves rebels against Yahweh. Eiseman, Robert James Brother of Jesus page 523-524
Proverbs 6:16-19 lists seven things which are also abominations: "haughty eyes, a lying tongue, hands that shed innocent blood, a heart that devises wicked schemes, feet that are swift in running to mischief, a false witness who utters lies, and one who spreads strife among brothers."

[Yahwehismywitness]

He never claimed to be a 12th or 13th apostle.

His claim is supported by what Jesus told him, as found in Acts.

Paul said revelation came from no man, Jesus was Son of Man, flesh and blood it was not the true Jesus based on his own words.

[Yahwehismywitness]

That is so hilarious!

Your favorite site with its "recommended reading" has outdone itself.
o
A Greek word has been extracted from 2 Peter 3:15-16 and had its meaning changed from "hard to understand" to "nonsensical with a pejorative intention".

But of course, if you start with the wrong translation, you are bound to end up even further astray.

2 Corinthians 11:8 is not hard to understand he robbed churches?
The seventh commandment forbids unjustly taking or keeping the goods of one's neighbor and wronging him in any way with respect to his goods.

1 Peter 1:14 As obedient children, do not be conformed to the passions of your former ignorance,

Acts 5:32 And we are witnesses to these things, and so is the Holy Spirit, whom God has given to those who obey him.�

[Yahwehismywitness]

AS A HERODIAN SAUL OF TARSUS HAD THE MOTIVE AND THE OPPORTUNITY
TO WRECK TRUE CHRISTIANITY AND WRITE OUT JESUS BROTHER JAMES

Paul identifies his Herodian kinfolk.

In Romans 16:11 Paul writes: “Greet Herodion, my kinsman.�

Herodian' in this context is one of allegiance, not blood.

Mark 3:6, 12:13; Matthew 22:16; cf. also Mark 8:15, Luke 13:31-32, Acts 4:27)

[Checkpoint]

That is so hilarious!

Your favorite site with its "recommended reading" has outdone itself.
o
A Greek word has been extracted from 2 Peter 3:15-16 and had its meaning changed from "hard to understand" to "nonsensical with a pejorative intention".

But of course, if you start with the wrong translation, you are bound to end up even further astray.

2 Corinthians 11:8 is not hard to understand he robbed churches?
The seventh commandment forbids unjustly taking or keeping the goods of one's neighbor and wronging him in any way with respect to his goods.

1 Peter 1:14 As obedient children, do not be conformed to the passions of your former ignorance,

Acts 5:32 And we are witnesses to these things, and so is the Holy Spirit, whom God has given to those who obey him.�

Classic.

This post of yours is such a perfect illustration of what Peter wrote:

2 Peter 3:

15 Bear in mind that our Lord’s patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him.

16 He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.