King Saul

[Full Quiver]

Oletimer, so you agree that Paul was not appointed by any man at Jerusalem but was called and appointed by God Himself to go?

If we read the account in Acts I believe we can safely conclude that the Spirit audibly spoke to the congregation at Antioch and set Paul and Barnabas apart for this work. NEVER do we read where they called on Jerusalem for permission, blessings, etc. Instead they went and then went to Jerusalem later to testify of God's work among their journeys but only when some wanted to put religion on the backs of those that were saved by faith.

Paul's calling and appointment was real theocracy.

[oletimer]

Full Quiver Posted:
Oletimer, so you agree that Paul was not appointed by any man at Jerusalem but was called and appointed by God Himself to go?

If we read the account in Acts I believe we can safely conclude that the Spirit audibly spoke to the congregation at Antioch and set Paul and Barnabas apart for this work. NEVER do we read where they called on Jerusalem for permission, blessings, etc. Instead they went and then went to Jerusalem later to testify of God's work among their journeys but only when some wanted to put religion on the backs of those that were saved by faith.

Paul's calling and appointment was real theocracy.

Oletimer, so you agree that Paul was not appointed by any man at Jerusalem but was called and appointed by God Himself to go?

Danny the point that I tried get over was that If God doesn't call you then you ain't called. The old saying goes something like this; Some are called and sent and other just went.

If we read the account in Acts I believe we can safely conclude that the Spirit audibly spoke to the congregation at Antioch and set Paul and Barnabas apart for this work. NEVER do we read where they called on Jerusalem for permission, blessings, etc. Instead they went and then went to Jerusalem later to testify of God's work among their journeys but only when some wanted to put religion on the backs of those that were saved by faith.

Quiver reread that chapture and you will find that they sent help back to Judaea, Acts 11:29-30.

Ac 15:22
¶ Then pleased it the apostles and elders, with the whole church, to send chosen men of their own company to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas; namely, Judas surnamed Barsabas, and Silas, chief men among the brethren:
Ac 15:23
And they wrote letters by them after this manner; The apostles and elders and brethren send greeting unto the brethren which are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia:

BTW Danny that was the Chruch at Jerusalem after they had met and discussed the Gentile issus.If you put ever thing in order and read the bits from some of the other Books's accounts on Paul's life. He didn't just take off total on his own but spent about three years just getting (in my words)the feel of things. When you do all this,if you are like me then you will see a beautiful story of God's hand in a man's life and a man that was willing to "spend and be spent" for Christ.

Paul's calling and appointment was real theocracy.

Yes it was, and he work thru the Chruch to accomplish it, the only way to be theocratic.
Mt 16:19
And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

[bibleguy]

Oletimer, so you agree that Paul was not appointed by any man at Jerusalem but was called and appointed by God Himself to go?

If we read the account in Acts I believe we can safely conclude that the Spirit audibly spoke to the congregation at Antioch and set Paul and Barnabas apart for this work. NEVER do we read where they called on Jerusalem for permission, blessings, etc. Instead they went and then went to Jerusalem later to testify of God's work among their journeys but only when some wanted to put religion on the backs of those that were saved by faith.

Paul's calling and appointment was real theocracy.

Yes, God called Saul, and God told the saints to separate Barnabas and Saul unto the work for which he had called them, but Paul did not go to preach unto the Gentiles until Peter had done so first, and, after the Lord had called Paul (and Barnabas) out, they were ordained and sent forth by the prophets and teachers (Acts 13:1-4). They were sent by the Holy Ghost, under the authority also of the presbertery.

Paul was not free wheeling it. He was subject to James and the apostles in Jerusalem, as they followed the will of God. God never changes. He always has a heirarchy. New Testament, Old Testament, it is always the same.

Gifts of the ministry are given to men by God according to every man's "several ability." But ordination is the responsibility/authority of the elders.

[Full Quiver]

Prove where Paul went to Jerusalem, was set forth by HQ, and ordained and appointed as many are doing today in the name of "the Church", Please.

[oletimer]

Danny do a little of the work and read it out your self, it will mean more to you. Reread Acts 11:27-30 I think that you will find that the Church at Anticoh sent Barnabas and Saul to Jerusalem with releif from them. When you read it keep everthing in context, good reference material will help. You can do it I know you can.

[bibleguy]

Danny do a little of the work and read it out your self, it will mean more to you. Reread Acts 11:27-30 I think that you will find that the Church at Anticoh sent Barnabas and Saul to Jerusalem with releif from them. When you read it keep everthing in context, good reference material will help. You can do it I know you can.

What he said.

[Full Quiver]

Reference material is not the Bible OT. There is no evidence that James set forth Paul, appointed him, held an assembly yearly and made appointments, etc.

[JohnDB]

Peter was the lead of the Apostles...

James would not have had any say in what Paul did...Peter would have. James would have taken the money Paul brought and administered it apropriately.

And later Paul would admonish Peter for getting wrapped up in the Law again...

**Just some meat for the grinder**

[bibleguy]

Paul was subject to James as evidenced by Acts 21:19-26, when James and the elders at Jerusalem sent Paul to the temple to participate in the Jewish purification ritual, which he did as they had told him.

Also, Acts 15 shows that it was James whose voice was heard louder than any other in the room at that time. He was "the judge that was in those days." Compare Acts 15:13-21 (esp. verse 19) with Deuteronomy 17:8-13. Acts 15 clearly shows that James was the judge in fulfillment of the words of Deut. 17.

[JohnDB]

James was the administrative leader of the congregation there in Jerusalem...by which he did have the right to ask Paul to do the things that he did since he was going to be about Jerusalem for a few days...and in the Temple...

James was trying to keep everyone out of prison and alive..it wasn't like they were well tolerated in those days..and Paul's lack of ritual purity would have sent the Orthodox Jews into hissy fits. James was administrative lead so when matters of inclusivity came about...he had the final say as to who was in and who wasn't...and how. That was the reason for the light, easy on the law, letter that was drafted and sent by way of Paul...who already had discussed with Peter the matter of him being an Apostle for the Gentiles.

[oletimer]

Full Quiver Posted:

Reference material is not the Bible OT. There is no evidence that James set forth Paul, appointed him, held an assembly yearly and made appointments, etc.

At this point I can only think of what Gerald G might say to you if he was writing this.

You are right reference material is not the bible, but in your case it might help you get around in the word (bible). I don't accept every thing that I read in reference material, but it does help in finding verses and topic and some times a different view or thought.

Oh yes some times it reminds me that I don't know it all, you wouldn't know any body like that would you?

When I read that whole story of Saul to Paul and his relationship with Church, and his obedience to God, I'm reminded how much he was like so many of God's ministers even today.

You make a real effort and you still can't then I will help put it together.

[Full Quiver]

OT, you know what I am saying and you cannot put it together.

Amen JohnB!!!

Bibleguy, it was Paul that hit the road for Jerusalem so that the meeting, not a COG GA, in Acts 15 could even take place. James nor any other figure at Jerusalem called that meeting. The Word tells us that Paul volunteered to take the issue to the elders at Jerusalem. He with his testimony changed the minds of the elders there, most of them.

[oletimer]

So!!! when he got there who did he take the problem to? Assuming you are talking about the Gentile/Jew problem that Peter was having. Both Peter and Paul stood before James and the Assembly at Jerusalem and it was James that gave the finial instruction.

Yes Danny I know the contexts of both Paul and Peter, and that they were under the Jerusalem council.

JohnDB Posted:
James was the administrative leader of the congregation there in Jerusalem...by which he did have the right to ask Paul to do the things that he did since he was going to be about Jerusalem for a few days...and in the Temple... James was trying to keep everyone out of prison and alive..it wasn't like they were well tolerated in those days..and Paul's lack of ritual purity would have sent the Orthodox Jews into hissy fits. James was administrative lead so when matters of inclusivity came about...he had the final say as to who was in and who wasn't...and how. That was the reason for the light, easy on the law, letter that was drafted and sent by way of Paul...who already had discussed with Peter the matter of him being an Apostle for the Gentiles.

JohnDB, if you and Danny would quit trying to make the Word fit into yall way of thinking and alloud the context to bare the weight of how it happen then it wouldn't be so hard to follow.

Jerusalem wasn't just another congregation, it was the HQ chruch. James was the (in our say words) General Overseer and spoked for the Assembly. Read it, its all there and Acts isn't the only book that has imfomation to back this up, Paul mention part of this in other books.

No Danny I don't have to provid all the scripters, I've givening you enough to start with, study for your self, its there.

That why I said that some good study material would help you fine these verses. No matter what I say you aren't going to want to believe me, but if you read it your self then you will know. Love you man in the Lord.

[Full Quiver]

OT, lest you forget where I came from I do know the verses you refer to. My point is it doesn't fit. There are far too many gaps in that belief system.

For instance, IF Acts 15 was a GENERAL ASSEMBLY of THE CHURCH, then why were but a handful present?

What happened to HQ after the Romans destroyed Jerusalem? There was no church there?

My point is that the Lord Himself appointed Paul through the office of the Holy Ghost. Christ is still the head and chief over the church. When we ALLOW man to sit in that seat whether we term it General Overseer or presiding Bishop we allow carnality to have its place. Man is so capable of mistake and so often people get hurt, families get misplaced, souls get lost, people get turned off to Christianity, etc. but when Christ through His Spirit is allowed to preside over His Church then inspiration, anointing, direction, and appointments work and make sense 100% of the time.

We agree that Paul was appointed by the Spirit but we disagree when you step out and somehow suggest that James approved this and had he not then Paul would have been out of order. Paul I believe and I think you will agree was so often if not always in the right spot at the right time throughout his missionary journeys just as Jesus was. They were lead of the Spirit because they were chosen of God for the purposes they were serving. Had it been your way and James made an appointment but chose let's say John instead of Paul then things would not have worked out so well. God desired for Paul to do this work, not John. When man gets involved sometimes he gets it right but far too often he gets it wrong.

Yes Paul mentioned some of this in his writings as did the other writers. It is written that man should not lord over God's heritage. This is exactly what you are suggesting that James did by appointing people. God does the calling, not man!

Show me one instance in the Scripture where James made an appointment other than to send a few men out to report to the churches that circumcision was not necessary for salvation.

Show me where James was chosen of God to be the General Overseer and where the Assembly ratified this move. Scripture only please!

One time James stood before the elders at Jerusalem, not church wide, and there makes a doctrine that he was the leader of all Christiandom. I could very well assume and even rightfully so I believe that he was not the supreme leader but merely the moderator because he was the local pastor and out of due respect he was given that seat for that meeting. If I came to your church to ask you and your elders about an arising heresy in my area would it not be disrespectful for me to allow anyone but you to moderate such a meeting?

[oletimer]

JohnDB Posted
Peter was the lead of the Apostles...

James would not have had any say in what Paul did...Peter would have. James would have taken the money Paul brought and administered it apropriately.

And later Paul would admonish Peter for getting wrapped up in the Law again...

**Just some meat for the grinder**

JohnDB you might read Acts 15th chapter and pay attention to verse 13 and verse 15. They speak of James. One might say that Peter's ministry was about the same as Paul, one to the Jews and the other to the Gentiles.

Ac 11:22
Then tidings of these things came unto the ears of the church which was in Jerusalem: and they sent forth Barnabas, that he should go as far as Antioch.Ac 11:23
Who, when he came, and had seen the grace of God, was glad, and exhorted them all, that with purpose of heart they would cleave unto the Lord.
Ac 11:24
For he was a good man, and full of the Holy Ghost and of faith: and much people was added unto the Lord.
Ac 11:25
Then departed Barnabas to Tarsus, for to seek Saul:

Danny here is a short out line of Paul early life:

1. Road to Damasus (Met Christ-Struck blind) Acts9:3-9

2. Ananias under instruction from God. Acts 9:10-18

3. Strengthen, preached at Damasus Acts 9:19-22 (Ga 1:16-22)

4. Plot to kill him Acts 9:23-25

5. Oh!! Jerusalem 1st place after Damasus Acts 9:26-28

6. Under threat of his life; ...to Caesarea, and sent him forth to Tarsus. Acts 9:29-31

7. The whole chapter of Acts 15 pay attention to v:13 and v:15

Don't have time to do a complete out line, but believe that this can help get abetter ideal of Paul's early life and his calling.

To me I see a parallel between Paul calling with many of us today. Not that we are called to be an apostle, but under the calling of God. We had a time of learning and getting our feet on the ground is some way or the other. Now if you haven been called of God then you may not understand what I'mm trying to say. Out of time got to go.