The thought of Paul possibly being a mega church p..

Paul = mega church preacher

2 w

The thought of Paul possibly being a mega church preacher came up on Shabbat and a message I received from a Jehovah's Witness yesterday just make it more pronounced.

The attached message beautifully summarizes what I was taught in my own "revival" church and how modern-Christians interprets his teachings.

i haven't replied to the message and and would like your input on what I should say in response.

#paul #jw #jehovahswitness

Comment

Wow that poor fellow is far far off.
There a number of approaches you can take. Personally I don’t bother with such folk cuz it’s a framework and worldview problem. He’s using all of Shaul as a prooftext for why the Torah is no more.
If you answer inside that frameworks you will be unintentionally accepting his view while simultaneously arguing against it.
I’d begin by fixing the lexicon.
It’s not Law, apostle, Paul, and sin etc. It’s Torah, the emissary (as opposed to the Greek version and a title), and Sha’ul. And its violations of Torah as opposed to sin. It’s okay to use the other terms in conversational speaking but when getting down to the reality we have to strip aside the colloquialism. Especially when conversing with those who don’t understand that these terms are actually colloquialisms.
Once the terminology is fixed then we can try to help the person fix their vision if they are willing. If it’s the Torah-it’s divine instruction to everyone not just the law of the Jews. If he is Sha’ul not Paul he’s a Hebrew still and teaching in a Hebrew manner. If he is an Apostle, he’s the authority, but if he’s and emissary he has the authority of another and speaks for that person. So who was He the emissary of? And lastly sins are whatever feels naughty or a denomination says is evil or what everyone agrees will ruin civilization like murder and cannibalism etc. But the Bible talks of specific things that are violations of the Torah. So if Torah is already set aside for a “better way” then so are the violations of it and therefore sin doesn’t exist. It’s nonsensical.
You could thereafter point out Sha’ul never says the Torah was ONLY a shadow. That’s interpreter’s Addition. He also said the ARE a shadow of things still YET TO COME. They want it to be only a shadow and not one of things yet to come but of things that were to come. So while Sha’ul is telling us who don’t have the actual physical Yeshua standing with us on earth that we have His shadow and therefore a vague approximation of His likeness within all these Torah things, those folks are using shaul’s analogy to belittle the Torah as nothing but a shadow and only one of things that used to be rather than what was written of it being the shadow of what is still yet to come. Not to mention shadows prove the substance is real. If we follow a shadow we find the reality. And no illusion castes a shadow. And a person is not opposed to their shadow nor is a shadow contrary to the one casting it. Etc etc etc.

Wow that poor fellow is far far off.  
There a number of approaches you can take. Personally I don’t bother with such folk cuz it’s a framework and worldview problem. He’s using all of Shaul as a prooftext for why the Torah is no more.  
If you answer inside that frameworks you will be unintentionally accepting his view while simultaneously arguing against it.  
I’d begin by fixing the lexicon.  
It’s not Law, apostle, Paul, and sin etc. It’s Torah, the emissary (as opposed to the Greek version and a title), and Sha’ul. And its violations of Torah as opposed to sin. It’s okay to use the other terms in conversational speaking but when getting down to the reality we have to strip aside the colloquialism. Especially when conversing with those who don’t understand that these terms are actually colloquialisms.  
Once the terminology is fixed then we can try to help the person fix their vision if they are willing. If it’s the Torah-it’s divine instruction to everyone not just the law of the Jews. If he is Sha’ul not Paul he’s a Hebrew still and teaching in a Hebrew manner. If he is an Apostle, he’s the authority, but if he’s and emissary he has the authority of another and speaks for that person. So who was He the emissary of? And lastly sins are whatever feels naughty or a denomination says is evil or what everyone agrees will ruin civilization like murder and cannibalism etc. But the Bible talks of specific things that are violations of the Torah. So if Torah is already set aside for a “better way” then so are the violations of it and therefore sin doesn’t exist. It’s nonsensical.  
You could thereafter point out Sha’ul never says the Torah was ONLY a shadow. That’s interpreter’s Addition. He also said the ARE a shadow of things still YET TO COME. They want it to be only a shadow and not one of things yet to come but of things that were to come. So while Sha’ul is telling us who don’t have the actual physical Yeshua standing with us on earth that we have His shadow and therefore a vague approximation of His likeness within all these Torah things, those folks are using shaul’s analogy to belittle the Torah as nothing but a shadow and only one of things that used to be rather than what was written of it being the shadow of what is still yet to come. Not to mention shadows prove the substance is real. If we follow a shadow we find the reality. And no illusion castes a shadow. And a person is not opposed to their shadow nor is a shadow contrary to the one casting it. Etc etc etc.

· Reply · 1742295906

1 Reply

There's more covered in the Law than sacrifices. In fact, the sacrifices would not have been except Israel couldn't get it's head out of Egypt. Tossing all the other Laws out, however, without understanding them (and even understanding why certain animals are used as certain sacrifices) misses the point of having Laws in the first place.

· Reply · 1742313738

5 Replies

Ya I got a lot of issues with that goobley gob written there. Lol.

· Reply · 1742350640

This follows the pattern of treating Christ as a more convenient sacrifice, which is of course walking the crumbling edge of blasphemy - Paul's point, which he could not have made clearer, was that the rituals of the law are for a different purpose, never for salvation in any degree

He does not treat Christianity as a separate religion (sleek, modern, new and improved, salvation without the mess and headache!). He gives as the example of his point Abraham, who was saved Before circumcision. The point was that the rituals of the circumcision are the seal of the righteousness Abraham already had, and thus he is the father of all that believe, though they be not circumcised.

· Reply · 1742381647

3 Replies

Paul = mega church preacher

Caleb Lussier

raphaelmalachi

David Martin

Patrick Lauser

Frankincense - Hojary Superior (Boswellia sacra)

Exodus, fine art print

Day One, fine art print

Garden of Emunah, fine art print

Eyes of Grace

His and Hers Promise Rings