Saul's Revelation of Jesus Christ.

jeremiah1five

Well-known member
I've come across many who post Galatians 1:11-12 in which Saul states he received "revelation of Jesus Christ" and this led me to understand that in the way this passage is quoted and used that the poster believe that Jesus Christ left 'the right hand of God', came back to earth and sat face to face and one-on-one with Saul and taught him all he wrote about. This isn't true.

Now, I don't know about you but as a born-again Christian the thing Saul experienced on the road to Damascus in Acts 9 is the same experience that happened to me with a light and a voice from heaven speaking to me. Now, I cannot say if the light was witnessed by others in fellowship (Church), nor will I tell you what the voice said to me because it is between me and the Lord, but it played out the same way as with what happened with Annanias when in prayer when the Lord spoke to him and told him some things about Saul that confirmed to Saul that what the voice told him was true. Saul adds more information about his experience in Acts 22.

The point I want to make is that Saul, being a rabbi taught in the rabbinic tradition and was a Pharisee of Pharisees 'above many mine equals' was a perfect choice to receive the ministry he did for as being a rabbi he knew what the Hebrew Scriptures (Law, Psalms, Prophets) said about all that he knew of the Jewish religion. Given the experience on the road to Damascus and whatever discussions he had with Annanias, Saul left for Arabia for three years and other places to read and study the Old Testament Scripture I'm sure he had copy of to search the Scripture to understand and make sense of the New Covenant era all of Israel found itself in. Everything Saul wrote about in his letters to Jewish Christians at the various Jewish home churches in the locations to which he addressed his letters were to give his understanding of what he learned from the Old Testament to help others in the Jewish religion and from their bible this "new thing" (Isaiah 43:19) God was doing in the earth towards His covenant people Israel, and that is the New Covenant prophesied in Jeremiah 31.

The things Saul came to understand and which he wrote about is the same understanding we can come to when we read and study the Old Testament about Jesus Christ. Everything we read in the New Testament comes from the Old Testament. When any of the apostles wrote in their gospel (Matthew) or in their letters (Saul, Peter), they would say something and then quote an Old Testament passage to support what they've said or wrote in order to help those they wrote to help them to understand the New Covenant era Israel as a people found themselves in. None of the writers of what came to be the New Testament ever sat face to face after Pentecost and taught personally by Jesus Christ. ALL that these men knew (except for the twelve) ALL came to understand things based upon their knowledge of the Old Testament Scripture. It took Saul up to fourteen to seventeen years (depending on when you date his Galatian letter) to come to the understandings he did and of which he wrote to others of the Jewish religion about what he found in Scripture. But from members comments it seems to me many have elevated Saul to 'god' status thinking Jesus Himself left heaven to sit with Saul and teach him everything he wrote about. Nothing can be further than the truth. The revelation Saul said he received came from reading and studying the Scripture under the anointing and nothing more. We, or at least, some of us, do the same thing and the Holy Spirit reveals things about what we read that enlarge our understanding of the "so-great salvation" and our faith in Jesus Christ. This dynamic occurs to any submitted believer who searches the Scripture to find out the truth about their faith in order to believe what the bible teaches and not what man teaches through commentaries or other theology books. So, what books did Saul have? He definitely had a copy of the Tanakh, the Talmud, the Mishnah, and maybe the writings from others in the Jewish religion of their interpretation of the Torah. Many Gentile Christians - if there such a thing - don't know it but a great deal of Saul's rabbinic training comes out in his letters, from arguing a point to actually coming to conclusions when he argues with himself in his letters about something in the Old Testament. He'll bring up a point, argue it, come to a supposed conclusion, then bring out the correct interpretation. You can find some of these rabbinic arguments where he says, "God forbid!" Saul was a rabbi. Saul was a Pharisee. After his conversion he continued to be obedient to the Law of Moses as did every born-again Jew that came to accept Jesus as their long-awaited Messiah. Saul was a Pharisee. Why wouldn't his rabbinical training come out in his letters? A study of the origins of the Pharisees and the Sadducees is very interesting and help one to gather the knowledge to understand these two groups and their influence in the Jewish religion (post-exile) and their interaction with Jesus Messiah.

13 The cloke that I left at Troas with Carpus, when thou comest, bring with thee, and the books, but especially the parchments.
2 Timothy 4:13.

11 But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man.
12 For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.
13 For ye have heard of my conversation in time past in the Jews’ religion, how that beyond measure I persecuted the church of God, and wasted it:
14 And profited in the Jews’ religion above many my equals in mine own nation, being more exceedingly zealous of the traditions of my fathers.
15 But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother’s womb, and called me by his grace,
16 To reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen; immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood:
17 Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me; but I went into Arabia, and returned again unto Damascus.
18 Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days.
19 But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord’s brother.
20 Now the things which I write unto you, behold, before God, I lie not.
21 Afterwards I came into the regions of Syria and Cilicia;
22 And was unknown by face unto the churches of Judaea which were in Christ:
23 But they had heard only, That he which persecuted us in times past now preacheth the faith which once he destroyed. 24 And they glorified God in me.

1 Then fourteen years after I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, and took Titus with me also.
2 And I went up by revelation, and communicated unto them that gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but privately to them which were of reputation, lest by any means I should run, or had run, in vain.
Galatians 1:11–24 to 2:1-2.

Bottom line: Jesus Christ did not leave heaven, come back to earth and personally face to face teach Saul all that he wrote about in his letters. Saul gained his 'revelations' simply by reading and studying (the Old Testament for him) the bible under the anointing and allowing the Holy Spirit - NOT YOUR SPIRIT - lead and guide you in understanding the bible.
 
You disagree, @Fred ?
I'm not being spiritual enough?
Saul did not become born-again different that the rest of us. Jesus didn't leave His throne on the right hand of God and return for a second coming just to deal with Saul.
Get your doctrine in line with the Word of God and stop being too spiritually minded to be of any earthly good.
 
You disagree, @Fred ?
I'm not being spiritual enough?
Saul did not become born-again different that the rest of us. Jesus didn't leave His throne on the right hand of God and return for a second coming just to deal with Saul.
Get your doctrine in line with the Word of God and stop being too spiritually minded to be of any earthly good.

See 1 Corinthians 9:1.
 
See 1 Corinthians 9:1.
As a rabbi and Pharisee in the Sanhedrin and likely present at Jesus' trial and other times Jesus taught in the streets, yeah, he saw Jesus.


1 Am I not an apostle? am I not free? have I not seen Jesus Christ our Lord? are not ye my work in the Lord?
1 Co 9:1.
 
As a rabbi and Pharisee in the Sanhedrin and likely present at Jesus' trial and other times Jesus taught in the streets, yeah, he saw Jesus.


1 Am I not an apostle? am I not free? have I not seen Jesus Christ our Lord? are not ye my work in the Lord?
1 Co 9:1.

1 Corinthians 9:1
Am I am not an apostle? Am I not free? Have I not seen Jesus our Lord? Are not ye my work in the Lord?

Acts 9:27
But Barnabas took him, and brought him to the apostles, and declared unto them how he had seen the Lord on the road, and that He had spoken to him, and how he had spoken boldly at Damascus in the Name of Jesus.
 
I am suspicious of there being a light from heaven in this case since the message you are sharing is distorting Paul's epistles as if they were written to Jews. You also improperly expect Paul was reading the Mishnah and Talmud, since those did not exist yet. However, you seem correct about many people assuming Paul got immediate understanding of the gospel and its application to gentiles. Instead, it appears that the 14 years after his conversion was a time of searching deep in the scriptures both for understanding the gospel as pertains to the Jews but, more importantly, the way these benefits were extended to the gentiles. He describes the benefits to the gentiles as not being very obvious in the OT but are recognized by way of mystery to be enjoyed by the gentiles.
So, Paul's study of the gospel in the OT is one of the few things you were correct in observing. As to your vision, I think you need to question the authenticity since the fruit of it appears to be rather unscriptural and nonsensical. It appears you interpret Paul's writings based on your vision instead of testing your vision based on Paul's writings. My issue does not concern some encounters of what we might call supernatural types. A friend was prompted by an angel in a fashion that led him to get saved. Another friend had some demonic events and a dream involving him dying that was part of his path to becoming a Christian. They never used that to create unusual doctrine though. (These men also have proven over time to be honest and level-headed -- to my satisfaction.)
 
Last edited:
1 Corinthians 9:1
Am I am not an apostle? Am I not free? Have I not seen Jesus our Lord? Are not ye my work in the Lord?

Acts 9:27
But Barnabas took him, and brought him to the apostles, and declared unto them how he had seen the Lord on the road, and that He had spoken to him, and how he had spoken boldly at Damascus in the Name of Jesus.
As I said, Saul was a rabbi and a Pharisee. Of course he saw the Lord, sometimes on the street teaching or at his trial, but not after He ascended for this would mean Jesus left heaven and returned to earth a second time and taught face to face to Saul things that were already accessible in the Old Testament.
For those that believe in the false Gentile teaching of a rapture, start calling it the Third Coming of Jesus Christ.
Makes no sense for Jesus the man to do that when all those things Saul taught was already in the Old Testament.

27 But Barnabas took him, and brought him to the apostles, and declared unto them how he had seen the Lord in the way, and that he had spoken to him, and how he had preached boldly at Damascus in the name of Jesus. Acts 9:26–27.

Barnabas said this, not Saul, and I say the same thing sometimes when I SEE the hand of the Lord doing something good in my life.
But Saul never saw Jesus the man personally. That would mean that Jesus came to earth a second time and you have to call the false Gentile teaching of a rapture a Third Coming of Jesus Christ.
 
As I said, Saul was a rabbi and a Pharisee. Of course he saw the Lord, sometimes on the street teaching or at his trial, but not after He ascended for this would mean Jesus left heaven and returned to earth a second time and taught face to face to Saul things that were already accessible in the Old Testament.
For those that believe in the false Gentile teaching of a rapture, start calling it the Third Coming of Jesus Christ.
Makes no sense for Jesus the man to do that when all those things Saul taught was already in the Old Testament.

27 But Barnabas took him, and brought him to the apostles, and declared unto them how he had seen the Lord in the way, and that he had spoken to him, and how he had preached boldly at Damascus in the name of Jesus. Acts 9:26–27.

Barnabas said this, not Saul, and I say the same thing sometimes when I SEE the hand of the Lord doing something good in my life.
But Saul never saw Jesus the man personally. That would mean that Jesus came to earth a second time and you have to call the false Gentile teaching of a rapture a Third Coming of Jesus Christ.

uhh. Jesus came to earth many times. He was seen at least 10 times over a span of 40 days. That is the nature and ability after the resurrection. How come you misunderstand these basic details? Paul says he saw Jesus -- In 1 Corinthians 15:8, he says Jesus appeared to him last of all, "as to one abnormally born." Your visions are not supposed to override scripture.
 
uhh. Jesus came to earth many times. He was seen at least 10 times over a span of 40 days. That is the nature and ability after the resurrection. How come you misunderstand these basic details? Paul says he saw Jesus -- In 1 Corinthians 15:8, he says Jesus appeared to him last of all, "as to one abnormally born." Your visions are not supposed to override scripture.
3 To whom also he shewed himself alive after his passion by many infallible proofs, being seen of them forty days, and speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God: Acts 1:2–3.

Jesus was on the planet for forty days from His resurrection and continued teaching the disciples things pertaining to the kingdom of God. Forty days. There was no went to be with the Father, came back, went to be with the Father, came back...

Saul witnessed the crucifixion. This is what he means by "haven't I seen the Lord."

2 For I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified. 1 Cor. 2:1–2.

You got Jesus coming and going and that's not what happened. Jesus remained with the disciples for forty days after His resurrection and continued to teach His disciples things pertaining to Himself (kingdom of God.)

The Scripture tells me what to believe, unlike yourself and others that spiritualize the practical and as Gentiles steal the inheritance of the Hebrew people, stealing their inheritance and changing times and seasons by making everything belonging to Israel to make it all fit Gentiles. That is a grave, delusional sin. But God did say "I will send them a delusion that they should believe a lie," and the lie is that Gentiles are included in the Abrahamic Covenant.
God made NO COVENANT with Gentiles. NONE. Nor will Saul, as rabbi and Pharisee ever say that Gentiles are part of the Hebrew covenants for such teaching would break Scripture and be a lie:

2 And I will make my covenant between me and thee, and will multiply thee exceedingly. Gen. 17:1–2.

There are NO GENTILES (non-Hebrews) in the Abrahamic Covenant.

4 As for me, behold, my covenant is with thee, Gen. 17:3–4.

There are NO GENTILES (non-Hebrews) in the Abrahamic Covenant.

7 And I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee. Gen. 17:6–7.

There are NO GENTILES (non-Hebrews) in the Abrahamic Covenant.

10 This is my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed after thee; Gen. 17:9–10.

There are NO GENTILES (non-Hebrews) in the Abrahamic Covenant.

and my covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant. Gen. 17:13.

There are NO GENTILES (non-Hebrews) in the Abrahamic Covenant.

19 And God said, Sarah thy wife shall bear thee a son indeed; and thou shalt call his name Isaac: and I will establish my covenant with him for an everlasting covenant, and with his seed after him. Gen. 17:18–19.

That would mean Jacob. There are NO GENTILES (non-Hebrews) in the Abrahamic Covenant,

21 But my covenant will I establish with Isaac, Gen. 17:21.

There are NO GENTILES born to Isaac or Jacob.

Scripture cannot be broken. Will you break Scripture and say Gentiles are included in the Abrahamic Covenant as recorded by Moses in Genesis 17 when the covenant was made with Abraham?

Let me ask you...are Gentiles included in the Abrahamic Covenant as declared by God above in these passages?
 
3 To whom also he shewed himself alive after his passion by many infallible proofs, being seen of them forty days, and speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God: Acts 1:2–3.

Jesus was on the planet for forty days from His resurrection and continued teaching the disciples things pertaining to the kingdom of God. Forty days. There was no went to be with the Father, came back, went to be with the Father, came back...

Saul witnessed the crucifixion. This is what he means by "haven't I seen the Lord."

blah blah blah etc.

Let me ask you...are Gentiles included in the Abrahamic Covenant as declared by God above in these passages?
yes
 
I doubt you will believe Genesis.


Genesis 22:17–18 (ESV)
17 I will surely bless you, and I will surely multiply your offspring as the stars of heaven and as the sand that is on the seashore. And your offspring shall possess the gate of his enemies,
18 and in your offspring shall all the nations of the earth be blessed,because you have obeyed my voice.”

Verse 18 may specifically be treated/handled as a promise to the Seed, who is Christ, since it is Christ who is sent to bless the nations. Gentiles therefore fully enjoy blessing through Christ. A little bit of more reading of Paul could make this clearer to you.
 
I doubt you will believe Genesis.


Genesis 22:17–18 (ESV)
17 I will surely bless you, and I will surely multiply your offspring as the stars of heaven and as the sand that is on the seashore. And your offspring shall possess the gate of his enemies,
18 and in your offspring shall all the nations of the earth be blessed,because you have obeyed my voice.”

Verse 18 may specifically be treated/handled as a promise to the Seed, who is Christ, since it is Christ who is sent to bless the nations. Gentiles therefore fully enjoy blessing through Christ. A little bit of more reading of Paul could make this clearer to you.
I ask you to identify Gentiles being in the Abrahamic Covenant in Genesis 17 when these promises by God were given to Abraham and you can't do it. Instead, you want to try to use Genesis 22 where no covenant is mentioned nor made and pass it off as excuse for Gentiles in the Abrahamic Covenant and your understanding and interpretation of Genesis 22 is also in error and falls short.

The Abrahamic Covenant is between God, Abraham, and later passed to Isaac, then Jacob, and Jacob's twelve sons who are later identified as the twelve tribes of Israel (Jacob.) So, let me clue you in on something. First, Abram is Hebrew from the family line of Eber, a family separated to God from the rest of the Adamites who stayed together (Gen. 11) in disobedience of the command of God to separate. A man named Salah obeyed God and crossed over the Jordan river away from the rest of the disobedient. To commemorate this separation from the rest Salah named his son "Eber" which means "crossed over." This name is a family name from which the term "Hebrew" derives. This is why in Genesis 14:13 God calls Abram a Hebrew to differentiate this family from the rest of the Adamites after God made promises to Abraham and sealed this covenant with the sign of circumcision. These promises were given to Abraham and his seed from which Abraham and Sarah (his niece) were from the Eber family line and after God promised Sarah a son the covenant was passed to Isaac. Two Hebrews having children have Hebrew offspring. There are no Gentiles that came from the womb of Sarah. In effect, Hebrew children were born to Hebrew parents. But Abraham also had Ishmael, and Isaac had Esau. Neither did the inheritance of the promises given to Abraham pass to these two nor to their descendants. It is also the designation of "nations" are given to Ishmael's and Esau's descendants. And for the purposes of identification in this immediate matter let me show you something:

6 And I will make thee exceeding fruitful, and I will make nations of thee, and kings shall come out of thee.
Gen. 17:5–6.

4 As for me, behold, my covenant is with thee, and thou shalt be a father of many nations. Gen.17:3–4.

This does not mean that non-Hebrews (Gentiles) were born to two Hebrew parents. That makes no sense. So, "nations" and "kings" refer to the descendants of Abraham through Ishmael and Esau, whose descendants became great people and kings did come from this non-promised family line. Both Ishmael and Esau were circumcised but the promise went to Isaac not Ishmael, and to Jacob not Esau.

So, your passage in Genesis 22 is referring to these non-promised descendants. Later, as the families from Ishamel and Esau filled the land they could be considered "nations" (but not non-Hebrew) because offspring from two Hebrew parents produces Hebrew children (after their kind.) And of course, kings did come from these two descendants of Abraham, but not non-Hebrew children. That's why I made distinction when I mentions Gentiles (non-Hebrew.)

In Scripture God blessed Ishmael and Esau greatly and of these two came kings and princes. But in the Abrahamic Covenant there are NO GENTILES (non-Hebrews) in this covenant which was sealed after promises were made and God left off speaking and promising.

Then there are the designation of the "nation" of Israel. This does not mean "non-Hebrew." It identifies an ethnicity such as Hebrews which are an ethnic people and non-Hebrews which are an ethnic people. Jews and Gentiles. And each are at times called "nations," but the mere mention of "nations" does not always mean non-Hebrew. So, there are no non-Hebrews (Gentiles) in the Abrahamic Covenant.
So, your interpretation is in error. Scripture is clear and cannot be broken. God made covenant promises with Abraham and his seed (Isaac, Jacob, and Jacob's descendants called the children of Israel, the Hebrew people God delivered out of Egypt. In the desert God made covenant with the children of Jacob called the Mosaic Covenant with animal sacrifices that prefigured the eventual personal sacrifice of God's Chosen Son in accordance with the Mosaic Covenant and prophecy. All the New Covenant is is only the Mosaic Covenant fulfilled and neither are there any non-Hebrews (Gentiles) in these covenants as well. Jesus Christ was prophesied to and for Israel to redeem Israel and Israel alone since Jesus died in accordance with the Mosaic Covenant on the day of the Jewish Passover to save the Jewish people ONLY.

So, you are wrong. There are NO GENTILES (non-Hebrews/Jews) in any of the three Hebrew covenants.

None.
 
I ask you to identify Gentiles being in the Abrahamic Covenant in Genesis 17 when these promises by God were given to Abraham and you can't do it. Instead, you want to try to use Genesis 22 where no covenant is mentioned nor made and pass it off as excuse for Gentiles in the Abrahamic Covenant and your understanding and interpretation of Genesis 22 is also in error and falls short.

...

6 And I will make thee exceeding fruitful, and I will make nations of thee, and kings shall come out of thee.
Gen. 17:5–6.

4 As for me, behold, my covenant is with thee, and thou shalt be a father of many nations. Gen.17:3–4.



So, you are wrong. There are NO GENTILES (non-Hebrews/Jews) in any of the three Hebrew covenants.

None.
So you deny Genesis 22 by denying the sense that even Paul gives it so you can hold to the ungodly vision you had in church. You still reject Paul (who you oppose by calling him by the name he virtually dropped upon taking on a ministry to gentiles). I would see your rejection of Paul as unacceptable from a sense of bible interpretation. If you are going to speak of Paul, don't just speak praises of him but deny all that he said and did. Maybe you can explain why Paul excluded the gentiles from any obligation to the Mosaic law in Gal 3:15-20. I'm not sure how else to help you.
One thing you obviously get confused about is that God indeed has given children and nations through Isaac and Jacob, even if some people have felt that Paul rejected that option. But the part you are missing is that Abraham through Christ has also blessed non-Hebrew nations -- those of Greece, Rome, Europe, Africa, Far East, etc. I'm presuming you you got over zealous protecting the first Jacob-bloodline nations and therefore rejected the inclusion of all these other peoples that Paul highlighted would be justified in Christ.

Another concept you can deny, this time of Christ, is that God is able to raise up children to Abraham from the stones. If God can reject the majority of Israel people for their sin and denying Christ, it is easy for God to raise up children from the non-Hebrew nations -- hence Paul's ministry -- a ministry to make Israel jealous if perchance they still would have accepted Christ.

Maybe you thought that since Jesus was sent due to the sins of Israel (yet saving only the remnant) that God was unable to extend that justification to the broader population -- beyond just a first century remnant. Paul's message obviously was to show that God had the broad globe in mind.
 
Last edited:
So you deny Genesis 22 by denying the sense that even Paul gives it so you can hold to the ungodly vision you had in church.
Nowhere does Saul quote or refer to Genesis 22 in any of his letters.
Nowhere. You're making things up.
You still reject Paul (who you oppose by calling him by the name he virtually dropped upon taking on a ministry to gentiles).
Nowhere does Scripture say Saul gave up his Hebrew name. On the contrary. As a rabbi and Pharisee who still continued to be obedient to the Law a name change would be contradictory to his Hebrew upbringing, which he still held to and was proud of.

24 Them take, and purify thyself with them, and be at charges with them, that they may shave their heads: and all may know that those things, whereof they were informed concerning thee, are nothing; but that thou thyself also walkest orderly, and keepest the law. Acts 21:23–24.

Purifying is a Temple practice, and given that he also performed the Nazarite vow along with shaving his head Scripture declares his obedience to the Law of Moses. Remember, Saul himself says he was "separated from his mother's womb" (Gal. 1), implying that God called him to the Nazarene service.
I would see your rejection of Paul as unacceptable from a sense of bible interpretation.
Gentiles put together what's called the "New Testament." Do you know why? And given that salvation is of the Jews, why would Gentiles do this without Hebrew/Jewish guidance? I find it self-serving where Saul is concerned and that there are some things he said in his letters that are problematic, such as contradicting himself on at least three places in his letters concerning righteousness being of the Law, Gentiles putting together Hebrew writings and calling it a "New Testament" does have its errors.
If you are going to speak of Paul, don't just speak praises of him but deny all that he said and did. Maybe you can explain why Paul excluded the gentiles from any obligation to the Mosaic law in Gal 3:15-20.
Why do you ignore what Saul said here in your passage:
15 Brethren, I speak after the manner of men; Though it be but a man’s covenant, yet if it be confirmed, no man disannulleth, or addeth thereto.
16 Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. Gal. 3:15–16.

Clear as day Saul states the promises were made to Abraham and his seed, and NO MAN can add to or disannul that covenant. So, if the promises were made to Abraham and his seed (the twelve tribes of Israel), and no one can add to it, why do you and Gentiles add to it by adding Gentiles to the Abrahamic Covenant? Gentiles are NOT included in the Abrahamic Covenant and NO MAN can add to it. But Gentiles teach they are included in the Abrahamic Covenant and lie.
I'm not sure how else to help you.
One thing you obviously get confused about is that God indeed has given children and nations through Isaac and Jacob, even if some people have felt that Paul rejected that option. But the part you are missing is that Abraham through Christ has also blessed non-Hebrew nations -- those of Greece, Rome, Europe, Africa, Far East, etc. I'm presuming you you got over zealous protecting the first Jacob-bloodline nations and therefore rejected the inclusion of all these other peoples that Paul highlighted would be justified in Christ.
By your interpretation you add to the Abrahamic Covenant which promises given by God were given to Abraham and his seed, and Greeks, Italians, Europeans, Africans, Asians DO NOT COME FROM ABRAHAM'S SEED. Nothing but lies.
Another concept you can deny, this time of Christ, is that God is able to raise up children to Abraham from the stones. If God can reject the majority of Israel people for their sin and denying Christ, it is easy for God to raise up children from the non-Hebrew nations -- hence Paul's ministry -- a ministry to make Israel jealous if perchance they still would have accepted Christ.
First, God does not lie. The Abrahamic Covenant is made with Abraham and his seed, and it is an everlasting (eternal) covenant. God is not unfaithful to betrothed Himself to one Bride (Israel), and then to marry another (non-Hebrew Gentiles.) This makes God an adulterer. You take what happened in Jerusalem with the crucifixion in which it was the religious leaders (Saul, high priest, and the Sanhedrin) and say that because THEY rejected their Messiah that ALL the Hebrew tribes living in Gentiles lands, lands Jesus never visited who didn't know Messiah had come to place a sin upon them all for the acts of at LEAST 70 Jewish leaders - including Saul - who were not involved in what happened in Jerusalem. Doesn't Scripture say a 'man will die for THEIR OWN sin'? Well, you violated that word.

You forget that it was during a Hebrew Feast under the Law in which the Holy Spirit of Promise arrived as per covenant and prophecy and three thousand Jews were born-again and baptized into the body of Christ. And it also says in Acts 2:47 that "the Lord added to His Church daily such as should be saved" meaning everyday Jews in the thousands were being born-again by the Holy Spirit of Promise and Christ was building His Church and populating it with Jews as per covenant and prophecies. Why do you ignore this Word of God. It's there. It's in English for the English-speaking world. But Gentiles don't like these passages because the bottom line is they must agree that salvation - and all its parts - is OF THE JEWS, but that removes them from the equation, and they know it's true.

18 And the day following Paul went in with us unto James; and all the elders were present. 19 And when he had saluted them, he declared particularly what things God had wrought among the Gentiles by his ministry. 20 And when they heard it, they glorified the Lord, and said unto him, Thou seest, brother, how many thousands of Jews there are which believe; and they are all zealous of the law: Acts 21:18–20.

True, biblical Christianity is Hebrew based upon the Law and Saul does not deviate from that truth. Saul was among the Sanhedrin that rejected Jesus as Messiah and yet Christ saved him. This rejects your theology that because the Jews, including Saul, rejected their Messiah that they are no longer married to God. Lies from the pit of hell and death. God loves Israel and sends His Son to die for Israel's sin, even the sin of rejecting him, which was the sin of the religious leaders. But in a matter of months, it says in Acts 6 that a "great company of priests were obedient to the faith." A "great company" implies a majority of the Sanhedrin. You cannot account for that. It's bible and I support it and I say the same thing as God. But you don't.
Maybe you thought that since Jesus was sent due to the sins of Israel (yet saving only the remnant) that God was unable to extend that justification to the broader population -- beyond just a first century remnant. Paul's message obviously was to show that God had the broad globe in mind.
Yeah, about that remnant you say were the only ones saved. What do you think about your cherished and exalted Paul taking Isaiah's prophecy and changing a word to make it say something else? Isn't that manipulating God's Word? YES, IT IS!
Let's compare. Here is the original prophecy:

22 For though thy people Israel be as the sand of the sea,
Yet a remnant of them shall return:
Isaiah 10:22.

And this is what your Gentile Paul said:

27 Esaias also crieth concerning Israel, Though the number of the children of Israel be as the sand of the sea, a remnant shall be saved: Rom. 9:26–27.

Saul is GUILTY of changing the Word of God and BREAKING IT!

And Scripture says Jesus was sent to the lost sheep of the house of Israel, and Jesus sent His disciples to the lost sheep of the House of Israel and being that only a remnant returned to the Holy Land a remnant would be about ten percent. This means that 90% of the Jews remained in Gentile lands. And given that the Jews were allowed by Cyrus to return, remember that it was Babylon who carried away in exile the southern kingdom and that means the two tribes (Judah and Bejamin) were taken captive back to Babylon, and if Cyrus gave permission for the Jews to return, the majority of Hebrews that did return - even in remnant - came from the tribes of Judah and Benjamin. The northern kingdom tribes, the TEN TRIBES, were scattered all throughout Assyria and in Gentile lands in between. Some were taken to Babylon after Babylon defeated Assyria, but not many. The northern kingdom tribes, ten of them, remained scattered even to this day. I can tell you know nothing of Hebrew history NOR of Hebrew culture.

Jesus again sent His disciples before He ascended into Gentile lands where the 90% of Jews lived in order for God to herald the message to those Jews living in Gentile lands that God has kept His Promise and that Israel's Messiah had come. It is a Hebrew covenant with a Hebrew Messiah. It is NOT a Gentile covenant with a Gentile Messiah.
You have it all wrong in a great deal of places and doctrine. But all that does is evidence how Gentiles have stolen the Jewish covenants and their Messiah and made it all to apply to Gentiles.
I say, "GUILTY AS CHARGED!"
 
So all that this guy has said about Paul following the ways of Jews before the Messiah is just fluff. This guy's discussion about Paul just uses the fact of Paul's bloodline to say only Jews are saved but he denies all that God has written in the New Testament. He boasts that the thousands saved is the remnant but does not recognize that they were the only ones saved before the nation was destroyed. That remnant is gone. That means that all that God did fizzled out after the first century. That means this guy is pretending to be religious but the religion has, on his terms, died.
 
Acts 9:27 refutes your heresy. By the way, so does Acts 23:11.

Thanks for making that easy for me.

I just saw the similar threads that lists this guy's assessment of Paul's letter to the Romans. Paul can only be trusted where Paul says what this guy wants to believe. This guy's vision is more important than what Paul said. It is funny ... well ... scary. I think this rejection of Paul's writing gained root for many people when a scholar tried to show the scholars were improperly characterizing Judaism of the first century based on selected passages from the Mishnah and other writings of the second century.
 
True, biblical Christianity is Hebrew based upon the Law and Saul does not deviate from that truth. Saul was among the Sanhedrin that rejected Jesus as Messiah and yet Christ saved him. This rejects your theology that because the Jews, including Saul, rejected their Messiah that they are no longer married to God. Lies from the pit of hell and death. God loves Israel and sends His Son to die for Israel's sin, even the sin of rejecting him, which was the sin of the religious leaders. But in a matter of months, it says in Acts 6 that a "great company of priests were obedient to the faith." A "great company" implies a majority of the Sanhedrin. You cannot account for that. It's bible and I support it and I say the same thing as God. But you don't.
That is quite an ignorant statement. First, you don't believe what Paul says and thus could say whatever you feel like about him.
It is obvious that Paul accepted Christ Jesus and suffered for the gospel. Paul is part of the remnant. You then claim that Pharisees were priests which is in no ways suggested in scripture. They were a political group and they pretended to be great spiritual examples but Jesus proved them to be frauds, especially since they were a party that was promoting the death of Jesus. So was God staying married to a people who killed his son?
The whole judgment on the people and the reason for Christianity was that the covenant with the earthly Israel people was being completed.

You should at least know the actual details of the religion you are following since you deny all that Christ has done.
 
Back
Top Bottom