Was Paul a heretic?

Deu 18:20 But the prophet, which shall presume to speak a word in my name, which I have not commanded him to speak, or that shall speak in the name of other gods, even that prophet shall die.

Rom 13:1 Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.
Rom 13:2 Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.
Rom 13:3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same:
Rom 13:4 For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.
Rom 13:5 Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake.
Rom 13:6 For for this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God's ministers, attending continually upon this very thing.


1Sa 8:5 And said unto him, Behold, thou art old, and thy sons walk not in thy ways: now make us a king to judge us like all the nations.
1Sa 8:6 But the thing displeased Samuel, when they said, Give us a king to judge us. And Samuel prayed unto the LORD.
1Sa 8:7 And the LORD said unto Samuel, Hearken unto the voice of the people in all that they say unto thee: for they have not rejected thee, but they have rejected me, that I should not reign over them.


Paul clearly contradicted Samuel: unless the rulers of the Roman empire had a connection to God that the Israel Kings lacked. And if you believe Samuel's statement is from God then Paul contradicted God on the issue of Human Rulers.

Mat 4:8 Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms (GOVERNMENTS) of the world, and the glory of them;
Mat 4:9 And saith unto him, All these things will I give thee, if thou wilt fall down and worship me.

Jesus never argued Satan's Rule and authority through earthly kingdoms.

If this isn't bad enough, Jesus taught against Judging, acting in unforgiveness, focusing on material wealth, etc. everything governments promote; All hail Hitler, the minister of God: according to Paul.

2Ti 1:15 This thou knowest, that all they which are in Asia be turned away from me; of whom are Phygellus and Hermogenes.

Can this be true that All Asia forsook Paul? Can we verify this?

Rev 1:4 John to the seven churches which are in Asia: Grace be unto you, and peace, from him which is, and which was, and which is to come; and from the seven Spirits which are before his throne;

Rev 1:10 I was in the Spirit on the Lord's day, and heard behind me a great voice, as of a trumpet,
Rev 1:11 Saying, I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last: and, What thou seest, write in a book, and send it unto the seven churches which are in Asia; unto Ephesus, and unto Smyrna, and unto Pergamos, and unto Thyatira, and unto Sardis, and unto Philadelphia, and unto Laodicea.

Rev 2:1 Unto the angel of the church of Ephesus write; These things saith he that holdeth the seven stars in his right hand, who walketh in the midst of the seven golden candlesticks;
Rev 2:2 I know thy works, and thy labour, and thy patience, and how thou canst not bear them which are evil: and thou hast tried them which say they are apostles, and are not, and hast found them liars:

Many historians have tried to claim that John wrote revelations between 90 and 110 A.D. and they have tried to state that John wrote to a revived Asian following of Jesus', but is this true and can we prove our beliefs?

Rev 17:9 And here is the mind which hath wisdom. The seven heads are seven mountains, on which the woman sitteth.
Rev 17:10 And there are seven kings: five are fallen, and one is, and the other is not yet come; and when he cometh, he must continue a short space.

Many people have claimed that Nero was the fifth Ruler of Rome and not the sixth but did early historians take this view? If one knows the history of Rome they know that Julius Caesar was the force which brought down the republic of Rome. As well they would also know that Julius Caesar willed the rule of Rome to Octavia. It would seem obvious that while Julius did not want to call himself a king, or the ruler of the Roman Empire, he was exactly that.

The following is sourced from: http://penelope.uchicago.edu/~grout/encyclopaedia_romana/gladiators/nero.html

"Nero, too, was the sixth emperor, counting from Julius Caesar (as did Suetonius, for example, and Josephus, cf. Antiquities of the Jews, XVIII.2.2, where Tiberius is identified as the third). "And here is the mind which hath wisdom. The seven heads are seven mountains, on which the woman sitteth. And there are seven kings: five are fallen, and one is" (Revelation 17:9-10). Of these emperors, it is Nero who had been "wounded to death" but "his deadly wound was healed" and he still lived (13:3)--Nero redivivus."

Even if one considers Nero as the fifth emperor of Rome, and not the sixth: the emperor following Nero was a short lived one that only lasted about 6 months. So while the timeframe of the writing of Revelations may be in doubt by some few months, the fact that John wrote to Paul's converts, who rejected Paul and not Jesus, is not in doubt.

The significance of the writing of Revelations being under Nero could possible place the writing of Revelations prior to the book of 2 Timothy and mean that Paul wrote to Timothy after John wrote Rev 2:2 I know thy works, and thy labour, and thy patience, and how thou canst not bear them which are evil: and thou hast tried them which say they are apostles, and are not, and hast found them untrue.

John not only could have been writing about Paul, the self proclaimed Apostle, falsely claiming to be an Apostle, but he most likely was writing revelations to sure up the faith of the Asians: who were left without an overseer.

But besides erring about Government, being ministers of God (as if that isn't enough), what other grounds could the Asians have had for forsaking Paul?

Here is clear differences between Paul and Jesus' value system. Jesus taught us to pray for and bless our enemies, Paul cursed his enemies
2Ti 4:14 Alexander the coppersmith did me much evil: the Lord reward him according to his works:

Jesus never distinguished between men and women, Paul did 1Co 14:34 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law.
1Co 14:35 And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.

Jesus never forced his followers into obedience, Paul threatened his followers 1Co 4:18 Now some are puffed up, as though I would not come to you.
1Co 4:19 But I will come to you shortly, if the Lord will, and will know, not the speech of them which are puffed up, but the power.
1Co 4:20 For the kingdom of God is not in word, but in power.
1Co 4:21 What will ye? shall I come unto you with a rod, or in love, and in the spirit of meekness?

Jesus was committed to the principles he taught and wanted his followers to be committed to those same values and yet we don't hear Paul teaching the words of Jesus, but rather the establishment of his own theological views on the Christ. Paul didn't know Jesus and his writings clearly contradict the person of Jesus and what Jesus stood for, never mind that his writings contradicted the Prophets of the Old Testament.

I highly recommend reading the Bible at least once before making such statements.

If you had read on in 1 Sam 8 you would have learned what sort of king God was going to authorize Samuel to anoint and have rule over the people who rejected God in those days as well as in Paul's day.
1 Samuel 8:[11] And he said, This will be the manner of the king that shall reign over you: He will take your sons, and appoint them for himself, for his chariots, and to be his horsemen; and some shall run before his chariots. [12] And he will appoint him captains over thousands, and captains over fifties; and will set them to ear his ground, and to reap his harvest, and to make his instruments of war, and instruments of his chariots. [13] And he will take your daughters to be confectionaries, and to be cooks, and to be bakers. [14] And he will take your fields, and your vineyards, and your oliveyards, even the best of them, and give them to his servants. [15] And he will take the tenth of your seed, and of your vineyards, and give to his officers, and to his servants. [16] And he will take your menservants, and your maidservants, and your goodliest young men, and your asses, and put them to his work. [17] He will take the tenth of your sheep: and ye shall be his servants. [18] And ye shall cry out in that day because of your king which ye shall have chosen you; and the Lord will not hear you in that day. [19] Nevertheless the people refused to obey the voice of Samuel; and they said, Nay; but we will have a king over us;

In fact God held Israel to serve every king they chose over rule by God.

In what manner was the Roman Empire very different from those kings of Israel? Like the Israelites, the rulers from Rome demanded no less servitude. God replaced the installation of kings over Israel with that of Gentile masters, as foretold to Daniel.

What Paul wrote about obeying the government over you was from God, applicable then and now. You have one choice to make, find ways to obey and live, or resist and be removed from society.

Did Paul depart from Jesus' teaching in this matter? No. Matthew 22:21 They say unto him, Caesar's. Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's.

·...¸><((((º>
.··´¯`·.¸.·><((((º>
·.¸.·´¯`·...¸.·><((((º>
Be fishers of men

Dovegiven, you state: In fact God held Israel to serve every king they chose over rule by God. (Nice assumption: but where is the proof?)

What Paul wrote about obeying the government over you was from God (says you), applicable then and now. You have one choice to make, find ways to obey and live, or resist and be removed from society.

Did Paul depart from Jesus' teaching in this matter? No. Matthew 22:21 They say unto him, Caesar's. Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's. (Jesus only said to give Caesar back the gold which belonged to him: as it bore his image; To God alone belongs our servitude.)

I guess every clan who overthrows government is both violators of God and yet now become the ministers of God. It is no wonder so many people have rightfully forsaken the bible: as clearly not being from God. If Jesus was embraced by you then you would understand the ignorance in Paul and your beliefs.

(says you) leaves us knowing you are not an apologist, unfamiliar with the idea of biblical apology. If your discussion case is based on unfounded personal opinion like (says you) then you are merely arguing without convincing anyone at all.
Not only does the Bible say so about obeying government, so do all societies on Earth to this day, most ignorant of what the Bible says. It is how societies co-exist both internally and with other societies, i.e. "International law" governs alongside governments of sovereign nations.

Even so, there will be instances when a person cannot serve government and God simultaneously, so must choose which to obey. While pleasing God, the price to pay is your death or imprisonment or some other punishment. Peter kept preaching and was put in prison, pleasing God.

Concerning rendering to Caesar what is Caesar's, the issue of that passage was whether it was right for the Jews to have to pay taxes to Rome. The question was a shrewd trick on Jesus, but He answered back with unbeatable wisdom. Since the prevailing monetary system was founded and supported by Rome, then Rome had a right to make rules concerning its money. If a person chooses not to follow those rules then Rome could come get the violator. There remained a choice. Refuse to use money, let ravens feed you under a fig tree if you have faith for that.

It is true that every clan so to speak, if powerful enough or helped by God can overwhelm another clan. The prophet Daniel revealed God's plan for a succession of conquerors up through the AntiChrist. God is on record as having some of those clans conquer disobedient people.


·...¸><((((º>
.··´¯`·.¸.·><((((º>
·.¸.·´¯`·...¸.·><((((º>
Be fishers of men

If those who govern are ministers of God then it is wrong to overthrow them as you must obey them as though their authority is from God.

Let's look at this another way: if I told you you are going to obey my every word upon fear of me imprisoning you and/or torchering you what would you say? Governments exist upon this very premise. If you say Governments have divine right I must say Governments are a collective of men and if it is not right for an individual to do it to a man it is not right for a collective of individuals to do the same.

As each government ceases to be God's ministers, ministering instead for evil, then as seen in history those governments are replaced. That principle is demonstrated throughout Bible history, God even occasionally allowing the enemies of Israel to conquer them and impose harsh rule, and grievous captivity and banishment. Meanwhile, regardless of form of government, understand that people receive the form of government they deserve. If the people rebel against good, then God allows them to mourn under an evil ruler(s). It happens to nations regardless of their regard for God and His holiness. In that way God sends ministers to bless or to punish, ministers all.

We know the Bible teaches to love God, self and neighbor, but it isn't always possible to get along with a neighbor, even self, and worse...God. But Paul admonished Romans 12:[17] Recompense to no man evil for evil. Provide things honest in the sight of all men. [18] If it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men.

That's the ideal. It is worth working very hard at. It is worth devoting much prayer to. But there remains that window of need to say NO to the government, regardless of the perils of rebellion. Daniel prayed in public after that practice was forbidden, got thrown in the lion's den. Three young men were put in the furnace for taking God's side. Paul was beaten many times for preaching the gospel, illegally with men, but in obedience to God. So it is there are always two governments over men, that of men, and that of God. God prefers the two co-exist peacefully without offense to any. Again, while governments have a God-granted right to rule over men, when He would prefer that role, all charters of government are temporary, pending how governments behave.

Anarchy doesn't prevail by fear of one bully neighbor. Since I recognize organized authority which God permits among men, as instituted by the collective of neighbors I am commanded to love and get along with, I choose to do that while refusing to be pushed around by one anarchist or several of them.

Now you come saying governments don't have a divine right to rule, but without a basis other than personal belief. That has no value other than to know where you stand. I must say "So what?" Almost everyone, and God, will be found opposing you until you can offer greater wisdom than God's stated commands.
·...¸><((((º>
.··´¯`·.¸.·><((((º>
·.¸.·´¯`·...¸.·><((((º>
Be fishers of men

You say that government is to be opposed if it disobeys God's laws and Jesus said his words are God's laws, so if government teaches/demands that you disobey Jesus teachings they are to be disobeyed. What teachings of Jesus' do governments promote? Forgiveness? I think not. Not judging? No they do neither and expect you to enforce their rebellion against the teachings of Jesus'.

What is the difference between Hitler and the US government today? They are of the exact same spirit, just one uses more guise in their means of implementing their rule.

Your discussion is still not based on anything other than your personal opinion. I consider that an important fact for all reading this thread to know. I figured by now you would have cited some 3-eyed Russian communist's writings. I am sticking to the Bible record, its influence on world governments, and some common sense mixed in.

Your statement is not at all true: You say that government is to be opposed if it disobeys God's laws

I say in other words that any human on earth can make a choice whether to obey one or more laws of the land, but must take responsibility for consequences of that choice. If by choosing to obey God instead of a government that is in opposition to God you reap a hard punishment from men, then suffer for God. Your decision might happen to be a poor one, not pleasing God, if that government rules in faith pleasing God, though seemingly wicked to you. In that case you would be a fool. Know God's will, then carefully study the intent of the government law. It might be that a mere handful of wicked people are administering righteous laws/regulations that God would approve of.

I say all that to further state that it is very likely that though one person believes he is righteous to disobey what appears to be an unrighteous rule, it is very wrong to take a personal action other than, by example the general law of the USA, foul laws are properly changed by citizens voting in a manner that results in change for righteousness. An example is the wickedness of one man taking violent vengeance for God on practitioners of abortion instead of supporting anti-abortion representatives.

I find much evidence of the influence of the Bible, including Jesus' teachings, embedded in the laws of our land. There was a time when non-Christians had little chance of winning a political office, and even today many Christians base their voting on whether a candidate is a Christian. Even some people of other religions will vote for a Christian before choosing a secular person, regardless of other attributes. I will agree some key politicians have been acting against Christian principles, catering to secular supporters. I think the bigger problem is government representatives being in fear of people.

If and when God comes to an end of tolerating a wicked ruler/nation, that ruler/nation will be changed if the citizens refuse to do the right thing. All God needs do is to withdrawn blessing and protection, meaning simply to do nothing to the advantage of a group of people. The USA stands at a crossroad once again like we have many times, subject to the same judgment Israel has had to live through, that Germany tasted because of Hitler and their own blindness, and many other examples.

Any student of Germany and Hitler, comparing that to the USA, knows a great difference yet exists between the two. We have a President elected by very ignorant people that does parallel some attributes of Hitler, and the nation does show some signs of being ignorant like Hitler's Germany was back then, but we are not yet indistinguishable from those.



·...¸><((((º>
.··´¯`·.¸.·><((((º>
·.¸.·´¯`·...¸.·><((((º>
Be fishers of men

Since you are sold on Paul: maybe you can answer the following question... Why do you think yourself wiser then the Asians that forsook Paul and how do you justify holding on to Paul, when John, and apparently Jesus, vindicated the followers of Paul in Asia.through the writing of the book of Revelation.

2Ti 1:15 This thou knowest, that all they which are in Asia be turned away from me; of whom are Phygellus and Hermogenes.

Can this be true that All Asia forsook Paul? Can we verify this?

Rev 1:4 John to the seven churches which are in Asia: Grace be unto you, and peace, from him which is, and which was, and which is to come; and from the seven Spirits which are before his throne;

Rev 1:10 I was in the Spirit on the Lord's day, and heard behind me a great voice, as of a trumpet,
Rev 1:11 Saying, I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last: and, What thou seest, write in a book, and send it unto the seven churches which are in Asia; unto Ephesus, and unto Smyrna, and unto Pergamos, and unto Thyatira, and unto Sardis, and unto Philadelphia, and unto Laodicea.

Rev 2:1 Unto the angel of the church of Ephesus write; These things saith he that holdeth the seven stars in his right hand, who walketh in the midst of the seven golden candlesticks;
Rev 2:2 I know thy works, and thy labour, and thy patience, and how thou canst not bear them which are evil: and thou hast tried them which say they are apostles, and are not, and hast found them liars:

Many historians have tried to claim that John wrote revelations between 90 and 110 A.D. and they have tried to state that John wrote to a revived Asian following of Jesus', but is this true and can we prove our beliefs?

Rev 17:9 And here is the mind which hath wisdom. The seven heads are seven mountains, on which the woman sitteth.
Rev 17:10 And there are seven kings: five are fallen, and one is, and the other is not yet come; and when he cometh, he must continue a short space.

Many people have claimed that Nero was the fifth Ruler of Rome and not the sixth but did early historians take this view? If one knows the history of Rome they know that Julius Caesar was the force which brought down the republic of Rome. As well they would also know that Julius Caesar willed the rule of Rome to Octavia. It would seem obvious that while Julius did not want to call himself a king, or the ruler of the Roman Empire, he was exactly that.

The following is sourced from: http://penelope.uchicago.edu/~grout/encyclopaedia_romana/gladiators/nero.html

"Nero, too, was the sixth emperor, counting from Julius Caesar (as did Suetonius, for example, and Josephus, cf. Antiquities of the Jews, XVIII.2.2, where Tiberius is identified as the third). "And here is the mind which hath wisdom. The seven heads are seven mountains, on which the woman sitteth. And there are seven kings: five are fallen, and one is" (Revelation 17:9-10). Of these emperors, it is Nero who had been "wounded to death" but "his deadly wound was healed" and he still lived (13:3)--Nero redivivus."

Even if one considers Nero as the fifth emperor of Rome, and not the sixth: the emperor following Nero was a short lived one (as Revelations 17:10 prophesied the sixth one would be) that only lasted about 6 months. So the fact that John wrote to Paul's converts, who rejected Paul and not Jesus, is not in doubt.

The "Asia" was what was later named Asia Minor, specifically west Turkey, where you would have found Ephesus and other cities Paul ministered in. Paul established many churches up there, some quite large. The context of the passage you are troubled over is that Paul was blessed by some friends who found him in his dungeon, ministering to his needs. When some from out of the Asian churches came to visit they were offended by his shame in chains...shame in their culture. That distressed Paul, and for good reason, suffering for the gentile's right to the gospel of Christ. There is nothing after Paul's experience with the Asian Christians came to him in his chains to indicate the folks back home that didn't witness Paul's troubles permanently turned away from Paul's teachings for the sake of shame (of being a prisoner), or for any other reason. Paul expressed hope his disciples would understand why it was important to Paul to suffer that way. Jesus' disciples had the same problem, abandoning the Christ for a season. Since there was no support for Paul from those people at that time, there is no way for him to know Asia had totally abandoned him other than by the Spirit revelation, and one other valid reason. Paul is on record as giving his personal opinion about some matters, which God allowed, and might have believed all of Asia turned on him upon realizing those two particular delegates turned. By naming the two in verse 15 there is reason to assume Paul had really counted on them for some mercy.

Whatever happened that didn't last long as revealed in Revelation, as Jesus commended some of the churches well after Paul was gone. It is also well documented that the Asia Minor churches fully embraced Paul's epistles after his death. I recommend looking up the history of the Church in that area. Ephesus carried a long tribute to "Saint Paul" until the Chrsitians were evacuated.

If you listen to the Apostle Peter and trust his words you should embrace Paul as a true apostle. He was accepted by Peter and the other apostles at the first Jerusalem Council, and Peter had this to say about him in 2 Peter 3:[15] 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; [16] 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.

The epistles known to the other apostles frequently bore Paul's claim to apostleship of Jesus Christ, so that matter has been settled already. I'll take Peter's word for it that the unlearned and unstable have a hard time understanding Paul and the balance of holy scripture.
·...¸><((((º>
.··´¯`·.¸.·><((((º>
·.¸.·´¯`·...¸.·><((((º>
Be fishers of men

I am amazed at how many assumptions you make in your posts. Do you really think that the churches of Asia did not try Paul and found him wanting? Have you ever thought that maybe it was not a spirit of revelation, but rather delegates, or letters, by which Paul came to understand that he was forsaken by the Asian churches? Was Paul really gone when revelations was written? You may want to reread the previous post I put up which clearly shows that it is in no way certain that Paul was dead when revelations was written.

I like also how you assume that Peter actually wrote the book that bares his name. Was Peter a follower of Jude also? since it is clear that the author of 2 Peter quoted Jude. I highly doubt that Peter had anything to do with authoring a book that tells men to honor men who oppress other humans, after all Peter actually was discipled by Jesus: unlike Paul.

  
We can see in the following verse that Jesus recognized that Peter was hearing from the Father directly!
Mt 16:17 kjv "And Jesus answered and said unto him, blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven."

Then we see Peter, who according to Jesus, heard from the Father for himself, tell us regarding the apostle Paul in 2 Pet 3:15-17 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. Ye therefore, beloved, seeing ye know these things before , beware lest ye also , being led away with the error of the wicked, fall from your own steadfastness."

So I know that Peter heard from the Lord because Jesus said so, and Peter who hears from the Lord tells us that the unlearned and unstable wrest with Paul's wisdom that was given unto him by the Lord as they do the rest of the scriptures! This tells us that Paul's teaching was in fact scripture, just as the rest of the bible is the Lord's word too!

So I have the word of the Lord which is the only real source of truth telling me that Peter hears from the Lord for himself and then we see Peter telling us that Paul's writings are the rest of scripture and that the wicked who are in error lead others to fall from their own steadfastness. You might want to turn back to the Lord and quit rejecting what the Lord has to tell us through those who have been approved. For we can clearly see in the scriptures that both Peter and Paul were working together. In fact, we can alsdo see that James, the Lord's brother met with Paul as Paul presented his teaching to him for evaluation.

Let God be true and every man a liar!

Jesus come quickly!!!

ty... Greg : )